Neutral news sources

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I've always tried to read a variety of news and political opinion pieces from all sides of the political spectrum. But sometimes I just want to hear what happened and not have to worry about teasing out the angle or the grand narrative someone is trying to push.

So far the two most succinct, neutral sources I've found are the New Paper (they send you an email every day for free) and the WSJ What's News podcast (it's about 10-15 minutes and they now do it twice a day and its straight news, not op-ed stuff). For foreign news, I typically rely on the Economist or the BBC.

Does anyone have any others they rely on daily or semi-weekly?

 

[Bowlmania]

I've always tried to read a variety of news and political opinion pieces from all sides of the political spectrum. But sometimes I just want to hear what happened and not have to worry about teasing out the angle or the grand narrative someone is trying to push.

So far the two most succinct, neutral sources I've found are the New Paper (they send you an email every day for free) and the WSJ What's News podcast (it's about 10-15 minutes and they now do it twice a day and its straight news, not op-ed stuff). For foreign news, I typically rely on the Economist or the BBC.

Does anyone have any others they rely on daily or semi-weekly?

Reuters, Market Watch, The Hill, BBC, Wall Street Journal (news), AP (news), and NPR (news). I've qualified the last three as they also have opinion pieces (clearly identified as such) that lean right, left and left, respectively.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I've always tried to read a variety of news and political opinion pieces from all sides of the political spectrum. But sometimes I just want to hear what happened and not have to worry about teasing out the angle or the grand narrative someone is trying to push.

So far the two most succinct, neutral sources I've found are the New Paper (they send you an email every day for free) and the WSJ What's News podcast (it's about 10-15 minutes and they now do it twice a day and its straight news, not op-ed stuff). For foreign news, I typically rely on the Economist or the BBC.

Does anyone have any others they rely on daily or semi-weekly?

There is much more important things to news than neutrality. News should be about thorough and useful information. We never get that. For example, I took more than casual interest in the Florida condo collapse. The information provided about that was awful. It mostly consisted of reporting what community leaders said about it. We heard speculation about the role of climate change and Florida politics. I blame those who produce the news. I think they are generally not very smart, don’t know how to ask good questions, look for narratives, and have little to no experience in what they cover.

 

[hoot1]

There is much more important things to news than neutrality. News should be about thorough and useful information. We never get that. For example, I took more than casual interest in the Florida condo collapse. The information provided about that was awful. It mostly consisted of reporting what community leaders said about it. We heard speculation about the role of climate change and Florida politics. I blame those who produce the news. I think they are generally not very smart, don’t know how to ask good questions, look for narratives, and have little to no experience in what they cover.

CoH, what happens when the cost of repairs to a building such as the Florida condo makes the project a bust, and the homeowners association board members don't disclose this to the condo owners ?

 

[outside shooter]

BBC News has always seemed to me the most objective and fact-based

 

[outside shooter]

We heard speculation about the role of climate change and Florida politics.

Water incursion is devastating to structures and there is no doubt that high tides result in more standing salt water in coastal areas than in the past. You can stick your head in the sand and say that there have always been high tides and that climate change is hokey, but the effect is real. It's also real that there is a limited time frame we have to do something about it.

 

[twenty02]

I basically only look at The Hill and WSJ. Browse aggregation sites like Drudge and RCP.....

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

There is much more important things to news than neutrality. News should be about thorough and useful information. We never get that. For example, I took more than casual interest in the Florida condo collapse. The information provided about that was awful. It mostly consisted of reporting what community leaders said about it. We heard speculation about the role of climate change and Florida politics. I blame those who produce the news. I think they are generally not very smart, don’t know how to ask good questions, look for narratives, and have little to no experience in what they cover.

I'm not sure I agree with you. I think baked in the definition of what I'm calling "news" is something that is useful. But I don't have time to be informed about every issue or news story in a "thorough" way, so I just want concise, relevant, neutral information. When I want thorough info, I'm willing to put in some work.

 

[Bowlmania]

I'm not sure I agree with you. I think baked in the definition of what I'm calling "news" is something that is useful. But I don't have time to be informed about every issue or news story in a "thorough" way, so I just want concise, relevant, neutral information. When I want thorough info, I'm willing to put in some work.

There are millions like him who are more interested in affirmation than information.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

the Economist

This publication has become riddled with bias.

If you want int'l coverage, Foreign Affairs does a great job.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

There is much more important things to news than neutrality. News should be about thorough and useful information. We never get that. For example, I took more than casual interest in the Florida condo collapse. The information provided about that was awful. It mostly consisted of reporting what community leaders said about it. We heard speculation about the role of climate change and Florida politics. I blame those who produce the news. I think they are generally not very smart, don’t know how to ask good questions, look for narratives, and have little to no experience in what they cover.

I agree and tie it back directly to the evolution of the news industry from one of investigative journalism to entertainment. These are no longer businesses that provide in-depth or detailed information, they are companies that provide a specific product to a specific audience. CNN and MSNBC covered the FL condo disaster but was very careful to cut back to something about Trump every thirty minutes or so. Their audience has an addiction that needs to be fed.

FOX, OAN feed the same addictions only in reverse and won't stray far away.

There is a low budget source called Newsy that is limited in it's ability to reachmuch depth but seems dedicated to news as opposed to entertainment.

 

[Cortez88]

I agree and tie it back directly to the evolution of the news industry from one of investigative journalism to entertainment. These are no longer businesses that provide in-depth or detailed information, they are companies that provide a specific product to a specific audience. CNN and MSNBC covered the FL condo disaster but was very careful to cut back to something about Trump every thirty minutes or so. Their audience has an addiction that needs to be fed.

FOX, OAN feed the same addictions only in reverse and won't stray far away.

There is a low budget source called Newsy that is limited in it's ability to reachmuch depth but seems dedicated to news as opposed to entertainment.

If you are watching cable for “news” you are just doing it wrong. I have no idea how anyone watches that garbage.

 

[76-1]

"Neutral" news sources don't exist... Every editor and producer has some degree of personal and political bias... Some are just more obvious than others...

The only way to deal with it (in my opinion) is to attempt to read at least three to five different offerings with their own biases in regard to topics important to you and do your best to come to your own conclusions...

 

[outside shooter]

If you are watching cable for “news” you are just doing it wrong. I have no idea how anyone watches that garbage.

If you are watching broadcast networks for news, then every story has to be fully captured in a 30 second clip for their 20 minute (after commercials) once-a-day show. They do have decent stuff on Sunday mornings.

I try to check in with CBS news to get a quick run down, but anything interesting needs to be filled out by other sources.

BBC News gives you more facts per minute with minimal spin than any other source.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Somewhat off topic, but...

Remember that time Fox.com ran a negative story about a Trump event? Me neither.

 

[UncleMark]

I basically only look at The Hill and WSJ. Browse aggregation sites like Drudge and RCP.....

Drudge has been one of my go-tos for a long time. He gets a little fringy on occasion with his headlines, but for the most part he plays it straight. He'll gore anyone's ox, regardless of party.

 

[twenty02]

Drudge has been one of my go-tos for a long time. He gets a little fringy on occasion with his headlines, but for the most part he plays it straight. He'll gore anyone's ox, regardless of party.

Don't lie..... you just like it because it still looks like a 1997 website

 

[UncleMark]

Don't lie..... you just like it because it still looks like a 1997 website

That too. Newer sure doesn't mean better. Windows 2000 was Microsoft's best work.

 

[NPT]

That too. Newer sure doesn't mean better. Windows 2000 was Microsoft's best work.

So TRUE ... do all the fancy stuff and gyrations to change the looks and still the story is the same.

 

[DANC]

There is much more important things to news than neutrality. News should be about thorough and useful information. We never get that. For example, I took more than casual interest in the Florida condo collapse. The information provided about that was awful. It mostly consisted of reporting what community leaders said about it. We heard speculation about the role of climate change and Florida politics. I blame those who produce the news. I think they are generally not very smart, don’t know how to ask good questions, look for narratives, and have little to no experience in what they cover.

Journalism majors learn how to write obituaries and how much type fits on a page.

Actual knowledge of anything is not necessary.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Journalism majors learn how to write obituaries and how much type fits on a page.

Actual knowledge of anything is not necessary.

So, you're a journalist?

 

[UncleMark]

So TRUE ... do all the fancy stuff and gyrations to change the looks and still the story is the same.

Remember when they said Windows 10 would be the LAST version of Windows?

Windows 11 is now in beta.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I've always tried to read a variety of news and political opinion pieces from all sides of the political spectrum. But sometimes I just want to hear what happened and not have to worry about teasing out the angle or the grand narrative someone is trying to push.

So far the two most succinct, neutral sources I've found are the New Paper (they send you an email every day for free) and the WSJ What's News podcast (it's about 10-15 minutes and they now do it twice a day and its straight news, not op-ed stuff). For foreign news, I typically rely on the Economist or the BBC.

Does anyone have any others they rely on daily or semi-weekly?

If neutrality is your main sticking point, stick with Reuters and AP. But just because a source isn't neutral doesn't mean they can't produce high quality, informative reporting. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Economist, FT, Guardian, all have their biases, but I think people who read these sources regularly will be more informed on average than people who don't.

 

[NPT]

If neutrality is your main sticking point, stick with Reuters and AP. But just because a source isn't neutral doesn't mean they can't produce high quality, informative reporting. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Economist, FT, Guardian, all have their biases, but I think people who read these sources regularly will be more informed on average than people who don't.

But the question remains will they be correctly informed. I think you have to read a story from both sides to get a better idea of the real story. Even then you might just end up confused.

 

[DANC]

But the question remains will they be correctly informed. I think you have to read a story from both sides to get a better idea of the real story. Even then you might just end up confused.

The AP does not have a reputation as being objective.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But the question remains will they be correctly informed. I think you have to read a story from both sides to get a better idea of the real story. Even then you might just end up confused.

I don't agree that reading "both sides" necessarily gets you a better idea, since one side is often complete BS. But I do agree it's valuable to read about the news from multiple viewpoints, which is why I read sources that lean in both directions. But I still think it's important to focus on sources that have a history of producing quality journalism, especially in particular fields. If you want to be knowledgeable about what's going on in the economy, you should read the WSJ, FT, and the Economist. They have noticeably different biases, but they all have a reputation for doing their job well and providing their readers with genuine facts. So that's win-win. You get good info and you get exposed to different viewpoints.

 

[DrHoops]

But the question remains will they be correctly informed. I think you have to read a story from both sides to get a better idea of the real story. Even then you might just end up confused.

I disagree with you. A FACT doesn't have multiple sides.

 

[DrHoops]

I don't agree that reading "both sides" necessarily gets you a better idea, since one side is often complete BS. But I do agree it's valuable to read about the news from multiple viewpoints, which is why I read sources that lean in both directions. But I still think it's important to focus on sources that have a history of producing quality journalism, especially in particular fields. If you want to be knowledgeable about what's going on in the economy, you should read the WSJ, FT, and the Economist. They have noticeably different biases, but they all have a reputation for doing their job well and providing their readers with genuine facts. So that's win-win. You get good info and you get exposed to different viewpoints.

I think the FT is the best. You don't get bogged down with (Turn to Section C8). FT's stories are short, to the point, and accurate.

NY Times is a great newspaper, but it's honestly almost impossible to keep up with if you're a subscriber.

 

[NPT]

I disagree with you. A FACT doesn't have multiple sides.

Well I agree with that IF the whole fact is presented but if it's not then you get partially informed but not informed correctly. And that is what "news" places with an agenda do... they partially inform.

But I do agree it's valuable to read about the news from multiple viewpoints, which is why I read sources that lean in both directions.

That is what I meant when I said both sides and I agree with what you said.

 

[DANC]

Well I agree with that IF the whole fact is presented but if it's not then you get partially informed but not informed correctly. And that is what "news" places with an agenda do... they partially inform.


That is what I meant when I said both sides and I agree with what you said.

Unfortunately, many people think that, just because the news source they prefer says something, it's to be taken as fact. And then get upset when someone points out that it's not a fact, but an opinion.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Unfortunately, many people think that, just because the news source they prefer says something, it's to be taken as fact. And then get upset when someone points out that it's not a fact, but an opinion.

I see you're finally showing some self-awareness. Good job.

 

[Ohio Guy]

I think I've mentioned this here before, but Heather Cox Richardson is a good follow on Facebook. She's a historian and though she is sometimes criticized for having a left slant, I think she's pretty fair in her daily political assessments.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't agree that reading "both sides" necessarily gets you a better idea, since one side is often complete BS. But I do agree it's valuable to read about the news from multiple viewpoints, which is why I read sources that lean in both directions. But I still think it's important to focus on sources that have a history of producing quality journalism, especially in particular fields. If you want to be knowledgeable about what's going on in the economy, you should read the WSJ, FT, and the Economist. They have noticeably different biases, but they all have a reputation for doing their job well and providing their readers with genuine facts. So that's win-win. You get good info and you get exposed to different viewpoints.

Unfortunately, many people think that, just because the news source they prefer says something, it's to be taken as fact. And then get upset when someone points out that it's not a fact, but an opinion.

Reporting is guaranteed to reflect the bias, purposes, beliefs, and loyalties of those who produce it. I don’t think this is even debatable. This is often done not by falsifying facts, but by cherry-picking facts. In that sense, news is seldom untrue or of poor quality. In fact “quality” has nothing to do with this issue. There are examples of high-quality reporting being exposed as biased by an amateur with a blog.

Since there is no judge or jury to decide the legitimacy of opposing points of view, we need to do that ourselves. Instead of allowing the news providers to imprint their views on us, it should be the other way around. When I read a story about something I’m interested in, I look For information I want to learn, not for what they choose to give me.

 

[secondasky]

I've always tried to read a variety of news and political opinion pieces from all sides of the political spectrum. But sometimes I just want to hear what happened and not have to worry about teasing out the angle or the grand narrative someone is trying to push.

So far the two most succinct, neutral sources I've found are the New Paper (they send you an email every day for free) and the WSJ What's News podcast (it's about 10-15 minutes and they now do it twice a day and its straight news, not op-ed stuff). For foreign news, I typically rely on the Economist or the BBC.

Does anyone have any others they rely on daily or semi-weekly?

Most neutral news I have seen is the new Dispatch. thedispatch.com. You can join for in depth news and discussion or get a daily report for free. Straight news. Fact based news.

 

[NPT]

Most neutral news I have seen is the new Dispatch. thedispatch.com. You can join for in depth news and discussion or get a daily report for free. Straight news. Fact based news.

According to this the Financial Times is less biased. The dispatch is not bad but are slightly to the right according to this but rated high on facts.

 

[DANC]

I see you're finally showing some self-awareness. Good job.

Too bad you don't realize I wrote it with you in mind.

 

[secondasky]

According to this the Financial Times is less biased. The dispatch is not bad but are slightly to the right according to this but rated high on facts.

And who fact checked "this"?

 

[UncleMark]

And who fact checked "this"?

Who fact checks the fact checkers? And who checks THEM?

I can do this all day.

 

[DANC]

Who fact checks the fact checkers? And who checks THEM?

I can do this all day.

And often do

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Who fact checks the fact checkers? And who checks THEM?

I can do this all day.