good news

[cjsmith]

Advice solicited. What are your news sources?

One of the things World Without Mind successfully convinced me is that if individual consumers want good, reliable, thoughtful, accurate written content, we're going to have to be willing to pony up.

I want journalism that is not recycled clickbait with outrage-inducing tweaks to the headlines. I want news articles with some investigation and fact checking behind them. I want editorials with depth and with critical thinking. I cannot expect to get the news content I want via the gateways of Google or Facebook. The market forces actively, strongly, and diametrically oppose it.

(I also want nonfiction books that are well-researched and professionally edited. I need to consider whether I can get those via the gateway of Amazon. So far, I can, if I'm choosy.)

So. I'm looking for good news sources, web OK but they need to be places I can go directly - and I'm willing to pay to subscribe.

How do you evaluate your news sources? Do you research where their money comes from? Do you base it on what you've read by them? Do you base it on what you’ve read about them? Do you do something else I haven't thought of? What are your favorites, and why?

(This is a public entry. Access-limited entry here for folks who don't want to comment on public entries.)

Comments

[lauradi7dw]

I cannot imagine getting news from Google or Facebook. It should be the same about twitter, but I follow actual journalists (and scientists, and historians), whose biases one can get to know over time, as well as local (local to me and to my parents) weather people and DOT type folks, so I get quick emergency info. I go to NPR for national news (and the local NPR stations do have some local stuff). They are often slower to jump on a story that other national outlets, but in some ways, that's a good thing - they internally require multiple sources before they put it on the web page or the radio.
The New York times and Wall Street Journal reporting is often at odds with their editorial/opinion pages (this has been true of the WSJ for decades, but not the NYT until the last few). Wapo is mixed, I find.
I get free national news online from the Miami Herald and some not Republican Texas news from the editor of the Houston paper on Twitter.
I subscribe to The Capitol, which the town newspaper of Annapolis, MD, not for their accuracy (although they seem OK), but because I was sad when their newsroom was part of a gun massacre.
I check in with The Guardian sort of regularly.
ProPublica can be good sometimes, also Vox.
I read The MarySue.
I subscribe to Teen Vogue online. It has mostly gossip and makeup with occasional hard-hitting political reporting (really).

[cjsmith]

It's not only _from_ Google or Facebook but ultimately _via_ Google or Facebook that I'm realizing won't work for me. (Not that I'm getting a blessed thing via FB in any case.)

Ah, thank you, I hadn't thought about NPR! Durrr.

Would you recommend subscribing to NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Guardian? (I think I'm going to go ahead and buy a subscription to The Guardian anyhow.)

I too have heard good things about Teen Vogue. That does seem odd, but I'd be all kinds of foolish to judge it based solely on my preconceived idea of what something called Teen Vogue "should" be. :) :)

[hitchhiker]

teen vogue has redefined itself over the last few years, and it's truly amazing. (which reminds me, i should subscribe just to support them!)

i currently subscribe to the guardian, because i love their policy of "we use subscription money to support free access for everyone", and to the washington post because they were doing some very good journalism in the early trump days. i do not subscribe to the nyt because i dislike their policy of giving climate change deniers and both-sides-are-just-as-bad pundits a platform, but they do do good journalism if you discount the op-ed columns.

[cjsmith]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead with Guardian. How did you evaluate "very good journalism" by WaPo and "good journalism [edit: except the op-ed]" by NYT [edit: and "amazing" for Teen Vogue]? [edit: I need to learn to be a savvier consumer.]

I have insufficient hatred for the both sides people, I suspect. (No, I don't consider the two main US political parties equivalent by any means, but each does have some significant suckage, and I personally am unwilling to ignore that or paper over it even for my preferred folk. If that means I run across a just-as-bad essay from time to time, that's a cost that I find acceptable in order to not live in a bubble.)

[hitchhiker]

i mostly evaluate it by the topics they cover, and how much i feel engaged when reading them; nothing particularly savvy i'm afraid. for instance teen vogue has started focusing on pressing social and political issues over the last few years, washington post has done a series of "this is what the people in power are doing, and here's why it's not right/normal", nyt has had a lot of good in-depth coverage of various segments of the country and how they are living in these times, not to mention some excellent coverage of medical advances, and the guardian has been good about writing about systemic social and environmental issues.

[cjsmith]

Thanks! Those are concrete things I can look at. I wish the Media Bias Chart had evaluated Teen Vogue...

Even I have noticed the NYT's coverage of medical stuff, which is impressive considering how much I've had my head in the sand lately.

[zipperbear]

On the web, I often seem to follow links to articles on theguardian.com, and they always have a polite blurb asking me to support them by logging or subscribing. Even though I like their coverage, I'm not local enough to feel guilty.

In my car, I often listen to KCBS radio, for traffic, weather, and news, which is all fairly well done, and the news coverage seems to have a neutral viewpoint, with relatively few teasers (once I arrive, I'm not likely to wait for the upcoming news). If I can't make out a sentence, I can switch to their FM channel, which is delayed a few seconds. The sports coverage and the ads are mostly tolerable, but if the Kars-4-Kids jingle comes on, I immediately switch to NPR, which is more interesting and in-depth, but I'm busy driving and don't want to think -- I just want traffic, weather, and a bit of headline news.

My least favorite place for news is the gas pump. Our local gas station was USA Gas, then Shell, and recently changed to Speedway, with at-the-pump TV blather and ads, and I'm usually willing to pay the extra few cents/gal and drive a minute out of the way for the quiet 76 station.

[cjsmith]

*grin* I hear ya; I haven't felt guilty enough in the past either. Now I'm choosing to do it for other motivations. I want independent -- well, as independent as anyone can be these days -- sources to survive. Also I like their cryptics. :)

And wow, I didn't even think about audio news. I don't generally consume audio news. (I suppose with an average of 2.75hr in the car on weekdays, I could at least consider it.)

[wcg]

I subscribe to the Washington Post because it's my local paper. It's also reasonably good. The Baltimore Sun used to be good but is now a pale shadow of its former self. I also subscribe to the NY Times because it's a way to support The Daily, a podcast I listen to every morning. It also has Rukmini Callimachi and David Sanger on staff, and I like to think I'm doing my bit to keep them both employed and doing the good work they do.

Free online news sources I aggregate via the Feedly rss aggregator. These include
Christian Science Monitor (really, it's a great source of unbiased news and you can just ignore the occasional religious piece)
Columbia Journalism Review -- for news about the news
Five Thirty Eight -- for their daily Significant Digits summary

I used to get the Reuters and AP feeds, but concluded that I wasn't seeing anything in them that I hadn't already seen in either the Post or the Times. That said, they're good as a list of headlines to scan just to see what your local paper decided not to print.

The Google news feed is decent once you've tweaked it. If I'm traveling it's a great way to see news at a glance.

For more in-depth stuff, take a look at Medium.com. Lots of high quality articles there for a pretty reasonable monthly fee. I also like Lawfare.com for its coverage of legal and foreign policy matters. The site is free and you can support it by purchasing swag from their online shop. They're good people doing good work.

For weather news I use the Weatherunderground.com. It's owned by the Weather Channel now, but it's still better in my opinion. Whatever you do, avoid AccuWeather. They're charlatans.

[redbird]

I like Weather Underground in part because their mission explicitly includes reporting on climate change. The network of very local weather stations is also useful.

[cjsmith]

Thank you! I think I'm going to go ahead with Washington Post. How do you decide who's "good"? I need to learn to be a better consumer. Your mention of Columbia Journalism Review may be a partial answer to this question. :)

Thanks for the big list of places to check out!

[wcg]

Yeah, CJR is pretty good at identifying what's good, as well as taking people to task for their errors.

Other than that, there's a thing called The Media Bias Chart which is pretty good when it comes to identifying where various sources fall in the spectrum of reliability and political bent. You can find it all over the net. I think the most recent version is 5.0. link

For radio stations, NPR is as good as you'll find nationwide. I don't know your local stations so I can't comment on them. If you want my list of podcasts I'll happily share those too. Not sure if you have time to listen to those. I listen to several hours worth of them every day while walking the dog. (Or she's walking me.)

[cjsmith]

Thanks! And yeah, I had found the Media Bias Chart too. Handy.

I think you actually did give me a (partial?) list of podcasts once. Currently I use my commute as a sort of mental quiet time, and there's value in that, but perhaps news / podcasts are worth cutting into that mental time. :)

[amaebi]

FWIW , when President Trump was elected I switched to NPR in the car from Pimsleur in the car.

[cjsmith]

Aw man, I was just switching to Pimsleur in the car from contemplative alone-time mental-recharging in the car. :)

[redbird]

I get a lot of my news from the CBC website, because I want the bit of distance that comes from a site that isn't aimed primarily at Americans. The BBC and Guardian for similar reasons (though I don't trust the BBC on UK political stuff).

For local-to-me, I'm using the WGBH website, plus universalhub.com (basically one diligent person's aggregator, with congenial politics though perhaps an excessive interest in wild turkeys) and boston.com for lack of anything better.

And some friends, and online acquaintances, who collect and post links, or the occasional "redbird, did you hear about..." from my girlfriend.

[cjsmith]

I shall check out CBC, thanks! I used to follow Al-Jazeera for precisely this reason. How did you decide which sources you trust?

Yeah, friends and online acquaintances are... well, individuals can be helpful, but if they're sourcing from google and facebook, that's not the feed I need to be drinking from. And among my own friends and online acquaintances, so far I don't know of anyone who's drinking from any other fountain.

[redbird]

I don't know if my online acquaintances are sourcing from google or facebook (always, or ever).

Sometimes there are enough steps between the original news source and me that it would be difficult to find out: I see something like [?google or facebook] -> member of my girlfriend's synagogue -> synagogue mailing list -> girlfriend -> me. adrian_turtle might say who posted it there, if it's a name I'd know, but usually doesn't.

[cjsmith]

Makes sense. I guess I too won't be able to figure out where people got stuff if I'm seeing it forwarded. I suppose it doesn't matter, as I don't see very much that's forwarded. :)

[lauradi7dw]

I still follow Al Jazeera. In addition to covering places that are sometimes ignored by other outlets, they offer short video background pieces from time to time. So does NPR. I can't get used to the expression "explainers" for the videos, but I guess it's a pretty clear coinage.

[redbird]

coming back to this late, because I thought of it this morning: UniversalHub has an "about" page explaining that it's put together from local bloggers, Twitter, etc. and the blogger/compiler's background in reporting. A lot of what he posts is very local and/or ephemeral--bars that may be sanctioned for underage drinking, Cambridge trying to enforce restaurant regulations that don't actually exist, delays on Green Line D because a tree fell on the tracks--but "very local" means he's also one of my good sources for information about political rallies I might want to go to, No "both sides" or "neutrality" on political issues: Adam gives us the headline "Staffers at hospital that cares for LGBTQ and immigrant patients to protest visit by wife of noted immigrant-hating homophobe".

[cjsmith]

*grin* It's good to see someone who's not neutral stepping right up and owning it. Respect.

[cjsmith]

Note to self: allsides.com has media bias rankings for a lot more stuff than the media bias chart.

[amaebi]

I subscribe to the New York Times, Washington Post, Mother Jones, The New Yorker, and Vanity Fair.

I recommend and read truth out.org , which is free, though I donate to it.

I listen to NPR in the car, when Chun Woo's not with me.

I like CBC and the Guardian.

I read articles from the Denver Post, the Colorado Independent, and the Colorado Sun frequently, and subscribe to the Denver Post. The Independent is free, but I donate to it.

I read a lot of news online on individual-story bases, and that comes from sources across the political spectrum.

When it comes to trust,
1. I don't ever treat it as a 0-1 variable. (I trust pretty much everyone who drives near me or might, not to try to ram my car. I don't expect organ donation from anyone. People and outlets vary in their factual reliability across entities and from topic to topic.)
2. When I hear news (not opinion) that I like from Fox, I look for other sources.
3. When I hear any news I like a lot from anywhere, I look for other sources.
4. When I hear any particularly shocking or ridiculous news I look for other sources.
5. I don't expect to be infallible, and I am not a bystander, and I don't want to be, and I know I'm not.

Podcasts I like and would recommend, that are Trump/impeachment-focused: Talking Feds, Impeachment Today, Trump Inc.

[cjsmith]

Thanks for writing this all up!

And wow, that's a ton! I'm not sure how much time I can commit to this. If you had to narrow down your subscriptions to maybe three, on what would you base your decision?

I bought my subscription to the Guardian yesterday. Yay! It's a step!

On trust: 1 - agree completely. 2 through 4, those sound very smart. 5 - what do you mean by "I am not a bystander"? In what way?

Thanks!

[amaebi]

About the subscriptions: Some kind of combination of which I read oftenest and which I value most. I subscribed to Vanity Fair and The New Yorker when I found that I was wanting to outrun their monthly freebies pretty regularly. I prefer WaPo to the NYTimes. I send money to the Guardin every couple of articles or so, but haven't felt the need to subscribe as yet.

When I say that I'm not a bystander, I mean that I'm not some impartial embodiment of even-handedness, even though I don't think I'm grossly biased-- and I have political commitments and am involved, not standing back to judge loftily. So for an instance, I have strong opinions about what sorts of macroeconomic models and framings are effective in the world both in describing its cause-effect relationships well and in helping to generate policy prescriptions. I also have strong views about appropriate objectives for policies to achieve: for instance, I have no interest in the allocation of resources or remunerations on the basis of Recipient Worth, as I'm much more committed to resourcing activities I deem effective in working toward an equitable and sustainable nation and world. And these are things tht affect my reading.

[cjsmith]

Ahhh, you're not impartial and detached. That makes loads of sense. <3 Thanks!

[amaebi]

Ack! I forgot The Nation, which I just renewed yesterday!

I hadn't thought about it this way, but I do currently seem to be a news junkie.

I wish it made up for all the Trumps who are deliberately and loftily eschewing news.

[cjsmith]

Oh nice! What do you like about The Nation?

Yeah, I might well become a news junkie myself if I didn't have a full time job plus an almost-half-time commute. :)

[amaebi]

As with all the sources I like, The Nation publishes a lot of stories involving solid research and nuanced analysis, and while they publish opinion essays their news stories don't seem to be promotional for liberals/radicals. (They're big on Bernie.)

Something I think works pretty well for me is looking at conservative takes on material I read in left sources. Often there isn't any. Often, it's denialist claptrap or attempted character assassination. But sometimes they make a point I'm glad I've read. And the lack of such strikes me as a form of verification.

[cjsmith]

I *love* the "solid research and nuanced analysis" concept. This is what I'd like to pay subscription money to support. (If I depend on ad revenue to support what I want to see, I eventually get more and more of the type of stuff that is best supported by ad revenue and less and less of the type of stuff that is not well supported by ad revenue.)

[amaebi]

Then I'd say Mother Jones, The Nation, truthout, The New Yorker, and Teen Vogue.

[cjsmith]

Awesome! Thank you. :)

[dantesspirit]

Usually BBC. NPR, Al Jahzeera (Sp?), that sort of thing. Mostly because they *aren't* US cenntric based.

Once in awhile Wash Post. TV wise it's usually CBS News.

[cjsmith]

Thanks! I need to check out Al Jazeera again. They were my major go-to for years, a while back.

[mrdreamjeans]

My favorite news sources are: NPR, MPR, The New York Times, Washington Post, CBS and ABC. I base my decision on how balanced and well-written the articles are; I worked as a newspaper reporter in the 1980's, covering school board, commissioners court and city council meetings; I wrote feature articles and worked as a theater critic. I tried to write with as little bias as possible. I don't want my news as entertainment. I hate how the lines have blurred.

[cjsmith]

Thank you! And thank you particularly for saying how you base your decisions. I'm learning

I too hate how the lines have blurred. Heck, as I see it, I hate how the lines are nearly gone. Some features are meant to draw me in; some are meant to get my eyeballs on ads; some are meant to make me angry (possibly so I'll share them and get MORE eyeballs on ads); some are meant merely to better characterize me for the ad machine. As long as I consume things via ad-channels (eg clicking through when someone else shares an article on FB), all those lines will be blurry at best.

I've tossed a couple of subscription fees at two places whose names have come up frequently in answer to my question. I may do more. I want well-written, well-researched articles to thrive.