Curating your news feed

It’s a news source that runs opposite my own confirmation bias, just like National Review.

CSM generally has pretty impartial takes on stories that have nothing to do with Christianity.

I checked it out. I’ll give it a try out

Even weirder because I think they’re actual Christian Scientists, which are neither truly Christians or remotely Scientists.

1 Like

Which is probably why it got no love over there.

AP, Reuters, Monocle24, The Register, Bellingcat, The Ferret (Small Scottish operation), Private Eye, and The Economist.

I stopped reading news from the BBC when they started up with the biased reporting regarding Scottish Independence, the SNP, Scottish GDP etc. When they started cutting videos of interviews to blatantly suit a particular narrative, that did it for me. I’m certain they report worldwide affairs accurately enough, but not so on matters closer to home.

2 Likes

Someone anonymously sends us a copy of that magazine every month. For the last 5 years. They are just keep stacking up in the common room until we recycle them.

They do have some decent articles from time to time.

Depends on the show.

Some of the shows are really insightful on certain topics.

George Galloway for example is a bit like Ben Shapiro in that he gives a very detailed insight on certain issues but you do have to filter through his ideological slant to what he says.

Shows like watching the hawks again can give a really good insight into certain things that are going on but you do have to filter somewhat.

Much of the news is decent BUT you will not see any anti Putin but you will see plenty of Merica sucks, much of which to be fair is legitimate but not put into context as in Russia sucks allot more.

What they are really good at is showing when western media screws up.

Not so much their own.

2 Likes

I struggle to take him seriously after Big Brother, and his recent flaunting of lockdown rules and boasting about it only further cemented the fact that he’s a fandan.

I am aware that the likes of RT, Al Jazeera, etc will report accurately and with little bias in some cases, but will drop that when reporting on issues where they’ve got an interest i.e. RT painting the UK / US as dicks.

1 Like

CBC, CTV, CNN. Newspaper for the local stuff.

1 Like

I think there are always bias no matter who, but obviously the degree of that bias varies quite a bit on a spectrum. The biggest hurdle for most is the fact they will read something and not spot the bias or the deliberate misrepresentation of the context of the material. That really can’t be solved without people learning to spot them in of itself and the populace just isn’t going to do that. Rarely do most get past the headlines and the comment sections of articles make that clear. The thing is that is only the people that will comment while many more just internalize the misinformation and go on with it. No one is capable of spotting it every time but a lot of our current insurrection issues stem from the lack of an educated populace. Or that is what I am going to believe so I don’t lose total faith. You can educate the ignorant and that is all I can hope for at this time. It’s a matter of values a society if we decide to want the truth or just want what confirms for us.

1 Like

The problem is the political pandering to tribalism with the media jumping in both feet on one side and fanning the flames.

There doesnt seam to be a media outlet that coutd state that the capital attack was a much worse attack on the American way of life than the BLM riots could have ever hoped to be and was in fact an act of domestic terrorism embouldened by the comments of a foolish president however this kind of behavour has been encouraged by politicions on the other side since 2016 so they in part should take some of the blame.

They would get cancelled and all kinds to celebrities talking smack on both sides.

2 Likes

I treat the Economist with a pinch of salt, it’s been off-form for years now and had a distinctive left-lean which bleeds into its content. I still read it but I end up cross referencing a lot of its articles.

1 Like

To be honest, I only use it for its summary feeds (like World this Week), or the British feed
I do find it really useful, in that it presents a handy wee summary of stories that I may want to dig into further, but I accept it does have a bit of a lean - probably nowhere near as pronounced as the Guardian, though.

Yeah the Guardian is terrible for it now. I scan it for articles but the bias is almost as bad as the Daily Mail.

I read the comments on Daily Mail articles every once in a while, as it’s fucking hilarious (albeit depressing at times) - it’s full of bad takes & room temperature IQs.

1 Like

Daily Mail has great photojournalism, not so good for getting the details of the stories, though. But, you can click into the fe-mail sections for a little morning pick-me-up. I give them 5/10 for sourcing.

It does employ good photographers but it’s basically a right-wing rag. It occasionally does tackle some subjects which some papers avoid head on but will sensationalise it. It’s diet and medical sections are a gold mine of craziness though.

1 Like

Abbey Philips is hot though

Since CNN opted to remove themselves from freeview I have been watching News Hour, on Al Jazera

It has a good Internationalist slant, and I’m seeing news from around the world, which I just wouldn’t see on CNN