Which parts of the media should one skip?

[noname223]

This is my opinion feel free to share yours:

Talking about US politics I think watching TV stations is a total waste of time if the goal is unbiased information. The corporate news world is poisoned by advertiser money. However, to get a grasp of the propaganda they spread one should have watched it a little bit once in a while.

I live in Germany and I mostly read German publications. The choice begins with which newspaper I should choose. Personally, I read one mainstream outlet "Der Spiegel" which is similar to the NYT. But I decrease the time I spend on reading it. There a long personalized articles about single individuals. I just read an article about Kamala Harris and I have to say it was a better one to understand the media hype around Harris. But there are many narratives which could turn out to be completely false. In 2-3 weeks a huge part of this article is totally outdated.

"Der Spiegel" has good interviews with experts. However, newspapers label too many individuals experts. There is often no transparency which interests these so called "experts" have. Sometimes it is ironic that they ask bascially lobbyists or members of thinktanks for interviews. These biases are not always mentioned.

Most journalists are no scientists. If it is an article about technology writen by a journalists they often remain at the surface or contain mistakes. The role of the media is to mediate and to simplify intricate topics for a mass audience. Members of the media have to act as if they were omniscient. Careful anaylsis usually don't attract enough attention. Usually media goes with the vibes of whether this or that narrative sounds plausible and rational. But trusting your intuition can easily deceive your perspective. The empirical evidence behind phenomenons like the filter bubble is usually not talked about. Moreover, the media exaggerates it's own impact. The media does not control what exactly the people think instead they have an influence about which topics the average consumer thinks.

My experience is that I skip any article that is sponsored. There are sometimes articles sponsored by financial advisors and they sound sus as fuck. I would never trust these. "Der Spiegel" gets money from the Melinda and Bill Gates foundations like many other Western news outlets. The articles themselves seemed to have a good quality. However, one can easily see how billionaires buy influence in politics. Ironically "Der Spiegel" is very soft on billionaires and specifically Bill Gates.

Whereas when I read the NZZ which is a very conservative outletsyou get the impression the fossile fuel industry is giving them a lot of money. I don't know whether there is a direct influence but the opinion editorial is full with people who use identity politics, the culture war to divide and conquer the masses. And on climate change they use narratives that hide the responsiblity of the utlra rich and companies for destroying the planet. However, the left in Germany is not very smart at marketing sustainability. One has to label it as great chance for profits and not solely as an attempt to save the world. In Germany it is a saying that the weakest members of the society get played off against each other. And this is very common for conservative outlets.

I am not sure about independent media. There are good and bad channels. From my experience the German independent outlets are way worse than American outlets. I think because Germany has better mainstream media compared to the US. The conspiracy pandemic is worse in the US. Also because of the emphasis on freedom of speech while profits fully rule the media landscape.


I have heard that Twitter/X can be a unique source for information if one follows the right people. There is also a science community. In my experience Twitter/X is also a great place to waste your time. I don't know how people can use this platform efficiently I could not handle it that way. It is good for live reporting and to be uptodate in the second something happens (or horse race journalism). However, this is usually mostly for the entertainment purpose which is not the goal of my thread. In general media is very often focused on the maximum of entertainment and spectacle.

I like to read Foreign Affairs from time to time but it is filled with hawks and the establishment with its own biases.

I really like to read contrarian news reports that go against the mainstream narratives. The NZZ and unherd deliver that. However, unherd is too corporate in my experience. PBS is too much both side bullshit. Neutrality is not something good if it is neutrality between corporate Democrats and right-wing extreme Republicans.

There are also good arguments to leave out media consumption completely. But I don't know whether it might be better to combine political science with media consumption to get the full picture/stay informed. I think media outlets are too scared to attack the powerful and many good science articles do that. But there also biased scientifical articles for sure.

Many outlets differentiate between opinion and informational/neutral articles. Though I think the information articles are not neutral usually. Most outlets follow an agenda. I like to read opinion editorial articles from scientists. The language in newspapers is easier to understand fully. In Germany there is like a central for politicial education. They post extremely good articles for free. The articles are scientifical and the language is more sophisticated than in newsoutlets but not as difficult as in other journals.


I probably missed out on a lot of nuances and details. Feel free to share your own approach.

 

[blueberryDesert]

I agree with you about TV stations, even local TV stations. I don't watch any of them. I get my info online, from a variety of sources that are, or at least seem to be, neutral or MOR. I have never regarded Twitter as an actual news source- it is a place for people to voice their opinions more than anything else. There are many sites in the U.S. that have utterly destroyed what, if any credibility, they once may have had. I call them joke sites not worth wasting time on, because their alleged reporting is so one sided. What passes for news reporting in the U.S. nowadays is absolutely abysmal.

One of the best sources for actual news about the U.S. is a very large online British newspaper. Yes, that newspaper can be tabloidish at times, but their facts are accurate and are actual facts. Which is more than I can say for most U.S. alleged news sources. I know SO many people here in the U.S. that are so ticked off that they no longer bother to pay attention to U.S. news or politics at any level or source.

Years ago, there was a Czech nespaper online, published in English, that had very good/excellent coverage of the United States and other countries. It was always worth reading because they did actual reporting, not just parrot talking points that were handed to them. Unfortunately, that site is now defunct. I still miss them. RIP Prague Post.

 

[DarkRange55]

One of my uncles is the former editor of one of the world's largest newspapers. He married a scion from a huge media empire family (yes, this is the notorious CIA aunt). Another uncle spent $40 million to buy a local newspaper to run as a hobby. (He's quite old and very wealthy).

If you'd like my 2cents (though I'm sure it's worth less than that!), I'd be happy to oblige

 

[noname223]

One of my uncles is the former editor of one of the world's largest newspapers. He married a scion from a huge media empire family (yes, this is the notorious CIA aunt).

If you'd like my 2cents (though I'm sure it's worth less than that!), I'd be happy to oblige

Yes please. It is always welcome. I will try to make notes. Hihihihi.

 

[DarkRange55]

Yes please. It is always welcome. I will try to make notes. Hihihihi.

This is just to get you started



6 billionaires own the major news outlets in England for example. Relying on a single primary source is a poor practice.

Wa Post is factual but left of center. Selection of stories like the LA Times shows their bias.
As far as editorial and op-ed sections go, The Washington Post is more middle of the road, particularly on national security matters. The Post also offers a more practical view than the Times. But has certainly leaned increasingly to the left.
The LA Times was good when owned by the Chandler family but they sold it to the Chicago Tribune Co., which ruined it by bleeding it dry of quality journalism before itself going bankrupt. I think the LA Times went downhill when the Chicago Tribune bought it a few years ago. The Tribune company then had its own financial woes and went into bankruptcy. It emerged as a much scaled-down newspaper. There's just nothing in those publications anymore than I can't get elsewhere. They used to have a distinguised group of writers and opinion essays but no more. It's just the usual stuff from the Associated Press (which is good but available everywhere, including its own AP app on mobile devices) and a few Washington-based Tribune writers. Because there's nothing special about the Trib or the LA Times anymore I don't look at them.

Al Jazeera provides a good window into what is playing on the Arab Street, which means it reports on things that are of interest to Middle Eastern Muslims. They are a little like Tass was as the Soviet News Agency during the Cold War. It's not that what they report is wrong, it's just that the emphasize the things that make the West look bad and don't provide a balanced picture of the world today or what's important among the many things that happened today (the BBC is very good at that).

I don't read Huffington Post because they run a lot of stuff that is factually wrong and they slant their postings to the liberal side of things. It's also the smuttiest source. USA Today is OK for fast-breaking stuff but not for in-depth. Its just a fluff newspaper. Its the most water-down, colorful pictures just

CNN is communist news network and Fox News is Faux News. And some of the titles for the articles and the language that is used in articles especially on CNN is so juvinile that sometimes I can't even tell if what I'm reading is true. They use slang and stupid palaver; at least give the illusion that you're intelligent people telling us what's happening.

Washington Times is right of center. War mongering defense industry rag…

Newsweek and Time have outlived their usefulness. In their heyday, they were very good at providing context and analysis to the past week's events. But most of the daily journalism now includes context and analysis so the weekly news magazines are of little added benefit. They're also too mechanistic. Worthless publications today and a shadow of their former selves.


I think the news media in this country it's awful. It's terrible. You know the news used to be to report facts and allow you to make the decision, all these shows are nothing but opinion moderators, they're hired guns to push an agenda, I think it's horrible. When our four-fathers created this country the media was supposed to be the 4th branch of the government the unwritten branch their job was to keep track of what the other three were doing and report it to the American people so that the American people could judge it accordingly, what you have now is nothing but a media with opinion and a media that I remember the death of Annan Nicole Smith, it was the headline for a month! A month!
And trying to cover a deep subject in a minute and a half is not possible - Television news is a joke.

There are four recognised international news agencies that feed just the facts stories. Reuters, PA (Press Association), AP (associated Press), and AFP (agency France presse). You'll often see their stories printed in newspapers without bylines. Reuters is a B2B agency. Meaning they sell their stories, b-roll, segments, and pictures to other "news agencies." Nearly every "news" organization, from CNN to Fox, to Al Jaz, and probably even Vice, has a subscription to Reuters. I wouldn't say Reuters is committed to journalism, per say. They are a business, after all. So, they only cover stories that would have "wide appeal." Reuters does a fairly good job of covering Europe and Asia, and U.S. business. They make a reasonable and professional effort to present the news objectively. For U.S. national news, however, the AP clearly is much better. AP is fast to post a story and almost always gets it right. Associated Press has always been reliable.
As for the wire services, UPI has been third-rate for decades. It used to a strong competitor to AP, but not for many years. Reuters used to be third among the wire services but now is second (behind AP and ahead of UPI). Reuters does a fairly good job of covering Europe and Asia, and U.S. business. For U.S. national news, however, the AP clearly is much better. I have the AP app on my Iphone and Ipad. I use it a lot. AP is fast to post a story and almost always gets it right. AFP is terrible. It mostly relies on local radio reporters as stringers around the world and much of what they report is widely inaccurate... marvelled at how wrong AFP could be on story after story. Reuters was much better on word stories than AFP. AP was the most accurate but didn't have as wide a coverage worldwide as Reuters.
Reuters is a news agency that sells articles to other people, so that they can publish it and make money. Since Reuters wants to sell their articles to both MSNBC and Fox News, and both of their online sites, and both conservative and liberal newspapers, they make their articles as much of "just the facts." that you can get. MSNBC and Fox News are both offering political spin on news. It is in their favor to deliberately push an agenda, because that's what their viewers want.
Agence France-Presse (AFP) is pretty awful and gets the story wrong a lot. They want to be first, not right. it is the world's oldest news agency, and is the third largest news agency in the modern world after the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters. news collected by the AP was published and republished by more than 1,300 newspapers and broadcasters. Many newspapers and broadcasters outside the United States are AP subscribers, paying a fee to use AP material without being contributing members of the cooperative. As part of their cooperative agreement with the AP, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. The AP employs the "inverted pyramid" formula for writing which enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essentials.

MS-NBC is extreme left in its orientation and frequently inaccurate because of its bias.

The Boston Globe is Ok, mediocre where it used to be a truly great newspaper. It was purchased years ago by the NY Times Co., which allowed the Globe to falter. The Times sold it some years ago for a tiny fraction of what the Times paid for it. There's nothing special in it anymore.

The Financial Times is the most interesting and informative paper for world news in my view. Covers an international perspective and doesn't care about politics other than the facts and economic realities. Obviously this is based on a capitalist view of the world and implicitly their priority is strengthening the profit-making status quo, but that aside, it's really an amazingly informative read. Tends to be pro-free market capitalist without strong party leanings. The Financial Times is supposed to be fairly centrist. For general news, the Financial Times is fairly politically neutral, but incredibly dry. They have a pro-business, pro-market stance on economic issues which might be seen as right-wing, but they've a good history of endorsing different political parties depending on issues rather than tribal loyalty. Their foreign coverage is miles better too. I actually think their foreign news is much better than the London Times/Guardian. Less stuff off the wire/Reuters. Local news is often at a different angle but is more incisive. It's the one UK newspaper that I trust to thoroughly research its facts before making claims in print.

WSJ is okay but is aimed more at retirees and retail investors than industry pros IMO. WSJ used to be more of a financial newspaper but past ~5 years, specifically when they removed personal journal and marketplace and money and merged them into the business section, there is far less financial use for them. Though the in my (and many people's) opinions the WSJ's quality has suffered since Murdoch bought it and the editorial pages in particular are laughable. You don't need WSJ if you have FT, and the Economist is a better publication than the NYT at the moment. The NYT has taken lately to making factually incorrect statements (see CAMERA.org or HonestReporting.com for examples), as Diaa Hadid as one reporter has often painted Palestinian rioters as "protestors".

There's really only big media companies 5-6 at max? Newspapers in major cities used to be 3 or 4 now it's 1 or 2 and they're owned by the same people and they also own the TV station and the radio station. There's only six or seven information companies! They own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear.

My first rule: I don't believe anything the government tells me. Nothing. And I don't take very seriously the media or the press in this country who in the case of the Persian Gulf War were nothing more than unpaid employs of the Department of Defense and who most of the time function as kind of an unofficial public relations agency for the United States government. So I don't listen to them.

I think NPR is probably one of the best news source out there - if you are just after 'news' and not 'commentary'. They are not particularly "liberal" in my opinion - in fact I find them to be very objective, which means they are not political per se. They try very hard not to take a position, which is admirable, but doesn't always work. For example, if the vast vast majority of climate scientists say that global warming is real and is caused by greenhouse gasses, then it's not newsworthy to let an interviewee cast doubt on global warming. If Nobel Prize winning economists insist that our tax system is unfair to the middle class and the poor, then it's not good journalism to allow statements from politicians that claim otherwise to go unchallenged, yet this or that politician gets away with calling rational tax policy "job killing" and stuff like that. That's what frustrates me about NPR. I think they shrink from being labeled "liberal" and so try to hard not to offend. Of course, folks on the right think they're liberal, so what's the point?



My point is that none are lilly white
Oh, well objectivity is a fairytale. At the end of the day, journalism is a product of the human mind like everything else.



Hope thats a good start