Your New Sources?

[DarkRange55]

I think financial news is important and political news that pertains to me like firearms. But the rest of that shit I could give a damn.

All of the news is lies, exaggerated hyperbolic bs.

But what news sources do you use, if any and why?

In the US, the media was supposed to be the unwritten fourth branch of government that would help keep the government accountable and report on what they're doing. (Clearly thats not the case, they often function as an official spokesperson for the Pentagon). George Carlin: My first rule I don't trust anything the government says. Second rule is don't trust the media.

I use:
- Reuters (news wire service so its the original)
- The Financial Times (the best, very factual, very accurate but mostly Eurasian-Pacific news)
- New York Times (on phone at night, it's undeniably gone downhill like all the others but still the paper of record and a gold standard for what it's worth)
- Washington Post
- Bloomberg
- ZeroHedge (a lot)
- My local newspaper
- The Economist (weekly but also the best)

Occasionally:
- NPR
- London Times
- Epoch Times (need to be careful, a lot of conservative propaganda and bs, yes I know who runs it).

Phys.org (daily)

ZeroHedge is a valuable source. It's also a conspiracy blog. It's a financial tabloid but if you can filter through it, about 1 in 10 articles are really interesting stuff you won't find anywhere else. They actually have some really good insight on some topics. Unfortunately 9/10 are complete bullshit. The problem is it's up to the reader to filter through the doomsday-porn.
Cable news is a joke. Trying to cover a deep subject in 30 seconds - 1 & 1/2 minutes.
CNN = Communist News Network
Fox = faux news
MSNBC = MSN-BS
Most of them now aren't news, they are opinion moderators.
I think it's important to get it from any many different sources as possible. I think news sources from other countries is interesting, I get a decent amount of English news sources (Economist, Reuters, Financial Times, London Times). But a lot of media companies and billionaires own most of the news outlets - nothing new like William Randolph Hearst.

 

[SexyIncél]

In the US, the media was supposed to be the unwritten fourth branch of government that would help keep the government accountable and report on what they're doing. (Clearly thats not the case, they often function as an official spokesperson for the Pentagon). George Carlin: My first rule I don't trust anything the government says. Second rule is don't trust the media.

Haha yeah. News often makes people less informed

I don't really read the news... I just find reliable experts who provide context, then search for info sources. When using news reports, I'll try sources with opposed interests, to try triangulating the truth

Robert McChesney's 3 biases of professional journalism are helpful:

1. reliance on official sources
2. fear of context
3. "dig here, not there"

 

[Ferdinand Bardamu]

The Guardian, BBC, NBC, NPR, Morning star.

 

[DarkRange55]

I like Nikkei occasionally, too

 

[sserafim]

I thought this meant like new ctb sources based on the title lol

 

[DarkRange55]

ohh lol oops! Just noticed the typo

 

[Temporal_Anchorite]

Haha yeah. News often makes people less informed

I don't really read the news... I just find reliable experts who provide context, then search for info sources. When using news reports, I'll try sources with opposed interests, to try triangulating the truth

Robert McChesney's 3 biases of professional journalism are helpful:

1. reliance on official sources
2. fear of context
3. "dig here, not there"

I'm curious as to who these so-called "experts" are. This just sounds like news with extra steps lol

 

[SexyIncél]

I'm curious as to who these so-called "experts" are. This just sounds like news with extra steps lol

Then get used to having your curiosity unsatisfied, chuckles. And continue having fun drinking unfiltered piss straight from the propaganda cock. No doubt it's been good for your brain so far

 

[Temporal_Anchorite]

Then get used to having your curiosity unsatisfied, chuckles. And continue having fun drinking unfiltered piss straight from the propaganda cock. No doubt it's been good for your brain so far

Nigga, I was just asking. If you can't properly articulate your information sources that's fine, but don't get so defensive.

And unironcially writing "chuckles" after a flaccid zinger like that has gotta be some of the corniest shit I've ever read.

 

[SexyIncél]

Nigga, I was just asking.

My apologies. I just have a hard time hearing the high-pitched voices of news consumerist cucks

 

[Pluto]

My source:

Pusheen : Comics

pusheen.com

 

[SexyIncél]

My apologies. I just have a hard time hearing the high-pitched voices of news consumerist cucks

Err... sorry everyone for derailing; this looks a lot meaner than it did in my head . (I was astonished by his post on Aaron Bushnell. Then I interpreted his post here as ridiculing ME too)

So yeah, "experts" are just people who investigated & constructed hopefully-useful theories. Some useful attributes of experts:

• perspective: Some turn the crystal 'til the facets are simple
• compatible values: Helps their theories be a bit more relevant to your goals
• reliability: You can start with unreliable experts — just like chatgpt & wikipedia are unreliable. But the more unreliable they are, the more time you need to spend theory fixing/building. Even with very reliable experts, it's good to try attacking their unobvious claims. You learn the lit, and win a more confident understanding

Specific experts? Depends on the field. Like with finance, I guess my experts are currently the OP & George Soros :P

In contrast, what's news? A series of events — and just recent ones, too. Theories help link these events into something with explanatory/predictive/intervention power

 

[Pessimist]

I want to mention that Al-Jazeera is full of Islamist propaganda.

 

[DarkRange55]

I want to mention that Al-Jazeera is full of Islamist propaganda.

A bit like how Tass was in the USSR

 

[Temporal_Anchorite]

My apologies. I just have a hard time hearing the high-pitched voices of news consumerist cucks

So reading various new sources to stay informed is a bad thing now? Aight lol. With how unreasonably temperamental & combative you're being over something so inconsequential, the latter portion of your username is starting to make sense now.

Err... sorry everyone for derailing; this looks a lot meaner than it did in my head . (I was astonished by his post on Aaron Bushnell. Then I interpreted his post here as ridiculing ME too)

So yeah, "experts" are just people who investigated & constructed hopefully-useful theories. Some useful attributes of experts:

• perspective: Some turn the crystal 'til the facets are simple
• compatible values: Helps their theories be a bit more relevant to your goals
• reliability: You can start with unreliable experts — just like chatgpt & wikipedia are unreliable. But the more unreliable they are, the more time you need to spend theory fixing/building. Even with very reliable experts, it's good to try attacking their unobvious claims. You learn the lit, and win a more confident understanding

Specific experts? Depends on the field. Like with finance, I guess my experts are currently the OP & George Soros :P

In contrast, what's news? A series of events — and just recent ones, too. Theories help link these events into something with explanatory/predictive/intervention power

I'm not sure how my criticisms regarding Aron Bushnell are pertinent at all considering you weren't even active in that thread lmao. You're trippin' my boy

 

[SexyIncél]

So reading various new sources to stay informed is a bad thing now?

When did I say it was bad? I just let other people read & simmer over the news for me; then I read the pertinent ones on-demand. With far greater diversity of sources. Massive time-saver on the principle of "enlightened laziness"

Any info-streams I'm hooked up to are a) directly relevant to my decisionmaking & b) not low-quality (like propaganda)

With how unreasonably temperamental & combative you're being over something so inconsequential, the latter portion of your username is starting to make sense now.

You're an inconsequential genocide supporter? Cool, much better than the consequential variety

Yes... In my life, I notice most people are likeable do-nothings. (Or unlikeable, in your case.) I've seen dead-eyed underaged girls recount what some manager did to them, and I'd turn with shock to those who did nothing but nod "I'm not down with r*pe". I do sometimes have the impulse to combat — "combative" as you put it — and people like those girls seem happy about it

Some merely perceive; others effectively act. Brag about consuming news all you want, it doesn't imply action

(You may talk about my username, but you likely experienced far less varied intimacy than someone on a suicide forum who calls himself an incél — and not his finest moment — called you a cuck. Glad I'm not in your shoes)

Anyway thanks, feel free to have the last words

 

[noname223]

German news outlets: German public-broadcasting: ARD, ZDF way better than US private TV stations

Der Spiegel: in many instances rather mediocre however very good interviews. I dislike it more and more. But the other German news outlets are also mediocre

NZZ: Swiss newsoutlet, very high standard of journalism, with very good guest contributions of scholars, however very much right-wing populist propaganda, especially against trans people, and very one-sided on Israel Palestine

Politics Journals: Die Blättter, Zeitschrift für Politik, Zeit und Geschichte, Internationale Politik

Sometimes I read Foreign Policy but I prefer Foreign Affairs. High frequency of warmongerers though. I almost forgot Secular Talk. Lol.

 

[Temporal_Anchorite]

When did I say it was bad? I just let other people read & simmer over the news for me; then I read the pertinent ones on-demand. With far greater diversity of sources. Massive time-saver on the principle of "enlightened laziness"

Any info-streams I'm hooked up to are a) directly relevant to my decisionmaking & b) not low-quality (like propaganda)


You're an inconsequential genocide supporter? Cool, much better than the consequential variety

Yes... In my life, I notice most people are likeable do-nothings. (Or unlikeable, in your case.) I've seen dead-eyed underaged girls recount what some manager did to them, and I'd turn with shock to those who did nothing but nod "I'm not down with r*pe". I do sometimes have the impulse to combat — "combative" as you put it — and people like those girls seem happy about it

Some merely perceive; others effectively act. Brag about consuming news all you want, it doesn't imply action

(You may talk about my username, but you likely experienced far less varied intimacy than someone on a suicide forum who calls himself an incél — and not his finest moment — called you a cuck. Glad I'm not in your shoes)

Anyway thanks, feel free to have the last words

Thank you for that pretentious wall of non-sequiturs. Oh and I'm suurrrree those women were absolutely fawning over you, the media illiterate shizoposting incel LMAO. And with my final parting words, I leave you with this: there is no genocide in Gaza. Much like the Palestinians, you pick fights you don't know how to finish :)

עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי