Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
THE PRICE OF A FREE MEDIA
>
Where do you guys get your daily news from?
message 1:
by
Crystal
(new)
Jun 23, 2015 12:09PM
Just curious of how/where else everyone gets their daily news from? Any suggestions on good current event sites/apps/channels/stations? I'm finding more and more this site is good for it, but I don't always have access to it. I'm not interested in celebrity affairs and the fear mongering seen on most news channels, ie. "this family was brutally murdered in the night, watch out, next time it could be you..", "this girl was drugged and raped in her college dorm, keep looking over your shoulder..", "this animal was left behind when its owners moved out of the house, your neighbors are bad people.." I'm just looking for updates on current events. Maybe get the notice when the rapture starts d:
reply
|
flag
*
It's difficult to know where to get unbiased news in my opinion. Mainstream media outlets are owned by the same handful of corporations and is obviously not trustworthy. But alternative media often has sneaky agendas that you find out later.So I really don't know the answer!
Don't even look for the truth. It's tricky enough to find reasonably accurate facts.
Jim wrote: "Don't even look for the truth. It's tricky enough to find reasonably accurate facts."Pessimistic...but perhaps realistic also!
I read whatever I can on my janky cheap phones. Most times it's http://www.addictinginfo.org but I don't trust any of it. It's all propaganda furthering the interests of old rich white guys -__-
3 sites I've consulted for many years are:http://www.medialens.org/
https://zcomm.org/
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/
These are generally anti-corporate media and trustworthy...
Harry wrote: "Fay (Omelet) wrote: "Fox. http://www.foxnews.com/"That's just 'cos you like foxes!"
... That is also true. ;)
I scan a lot of headlines. If I want to know more about something I will try to check a couple of sources. I wouldn't bother with Fox, Drudge, or the Daily Heil on the right or HuffPo on the left. I consider Raw Story and The Christian Science Monitor and even Al Jazeera, especially AJ for stuff that doesn't get covered well here.
I grab a news aggregator called Feedspot. I'm too lazy to go to all the different sites.
I usually read headlines that show up on my feed and whenever something catches my interest, I'll go searching for it in various sources. It's hard to know the bias in a source if you don't know where the donations or income for the source is coming from. ..sometimes we, ourselves, look for certain bias without even realizing it. I guess news articles don't sell as well without emotional/opinionated phrases in them...if they match our own feelings it's easy to buy into it.
K.P. wrote: "I read whatever I can on my janky cheap phones. Most times it's http://www.addictinginfo.org but I don't trust any of it. It's all propaganda furthering the interests of old rich white guys -__-"
K.P. I have stopped posting on this site but I happened to have another look and couldn't pass up a comment. Enough about old rich guys being evil. I understand why some of you guys believe that but it is just not true. I see evil people in all walks of life, be it underprivileged sectors, middle class sectors, rich sectors or cultural sectors. It makes no difference.
I stopped being involved because I found this site to pander to those who would like to find the "enemy" among the wealthy. I thank God (or a Supreme Power) every day for the wealthy who use their wealth to advantage the worthy; be they poor or underprivileged through no fault of their own; be they children who are orphaned or who have incompetent parents; be they countries which don't have the basic needs for a healthy life; be they people suffering from egalitarian overlords who like to hold power over the people.
Freedom is what this site should be promoting. Don't feed the propaganda nor those that will kill or become corrupt to get what they desire. Hard work, honesty, empathy and unselfishness is the only way to lead a moral & humble life full of joy and gratitude for the opportunity to be benevolent. Yeah, I know, I hate preaching just as much as most people. I just felt I need to say this and hopefully bring a bit of balance back into the conversation.
eg. Big Pharma. It does sound menacing and, no doubt, has unfettered power. BUT, if you were merely 50yrs old, or 40, and were given a diagnosis of latent but progressive Alzheimer's disease ending in a very discusting death sentence AND there was a new treatment discovered that would not only interrupt the circle but prolong your healthy life, would you pay the drug company whatever it cost or would you blow up the drug company so nobody could improve their lives?
Laureen wrote: "I stopped being involved because I found this site to pander to those who would like to find the "enemy" among the wealthy...Freedom is what this site should be promoting. Don't feed the propaganda nor those that will kill or become corrupt to get what they desire. Hard work, honesty, empathy and unselfishness is the only way to lead a moral & humble life full of joy and gratitude for the opportunity to be benevolent. ..."Thank you for letting us all know what this group is really about. I never realized that this group's membership (a fair percentage of which is comprised of successful entrepreneurs and philanthropists along with compassionate and intelligent working class people) exposing factual corruption of monopolistic multinational corporations equates to hating all wealthy individuals. Or that discussing the very real and commonly acknowledged concern of Big Pharma having too much power means that we are all anti medicine and don't wish to be healthy and would happily die rather than receive treatment from medical professionals. Or that Undergrounders debating social justice topics that rarely get reported on in mainstream media means we are not hard working or empathetic. Or that those members who are ex-military staff or ex-intelligence agents turned whistleblowers reporting crimes they have witnessed by (certain) elite individuals/organizations against vulnerable everyday citizens & at risk children means this group does not promote freedom for all.
So thanks for enlightening us all.
And now that we all have been given the ultimate truth, I vote we rename this group Anti-Freedom Anti-Success Anti-Money Anti-Medicine AND Anti-Life.
Or else maybe we could rename the group Providing a Platform For Old Rich White Guys. Actually I suspect that revised title will make this group much more popular...Especially as currently old rich white guys have no voice in society or in the media, and maybe this Goodreads group will allow that forgotten minority community to finally be heard in society ;)
My only concern in changing the group's name to Old Rich White Guys would be we may lose certain valuable members...Specifically, members who belong to other even more forgotten minorities who have learnt from actual life experience (rather than just intellectually) what it means to exist in communities that our Western societies have traditionally not shown as much respect toward...
Lisa wrote: "I usually read headlines that show up on my feed and whenever something catches my interest, I'll go searching for it in various sources. It's hard to know the bias in a source if you don't know wh..."I agree Lisa, bias is sometimes really subtle and it's not always possible to know where donations for media outlets are coming from. Most have bias, and that includes alternative media outlets, but I think you are also right in what you imply about sometimes looking for bias where none may exist. I guess that'd fall into the paranoia category ;)
Fay wrote: "Fox. http://www.foxnews.com/"Was that a joke, Fay(th)? Or do you actually enjoy watching Fox News?
Point taken James. Maybe you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say though. I suspect some people, especially of the modern era, quite intentionally misinterpret those that just want a more socially aware, healthy free minded but down to earth view of the world. It is not enough to see and know that there are conspirators around who do harm, it is up to the individual to make a difference by the way he or she lives their own life and by discussing how we might proceed to enlighten those who have no social conscience.If you live by the sword, you die by the sword!
Laureen wrote: "Point taken James. Maybe you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say though. I suspect some people, especially of the modern era, quite intentionally misinterpret those that just want a more..."Um...no, I think your statements like "I found this site to pander to those who would like to find the "enemy" among the wealthy" or "Freedom is what this site should be promoting" were all perfectly clear and cannot be misinterpreted. Likewise with your life advice to us all that "Hard work, honesty, empathy and unselfishness is the only way to lead a moral & humble life full of joy and gratitude for the opportunity to be benevolent" was pretty clear as well...Same goes for your healthcare "analogy" :)
In fact, your only ambiguous statement was "I have stopped posting on this site" given that you still are obviously posting in this group...
The Richie Allen Radio Show is great for alternative news. It's celebrating its first birthday today with a two hour special tonight with that there David Icke fella.http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/to...
http://richieallenshow.com/listen-live/
I get a lot of my news from this group these days, but I think I'll turn to this guy in future. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P979H... (MUST watch) .
Lance Morcan wrote: "I get a lot of my news from this group these days, but I think I'll turn to this guy in future. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P979H... (MUST watch) ."HA!
Great news....wish all broadcasts were that honest!
I like to see what James Corbett says at The Corbett Report https://www.corbettreport.com/ and like Boiling Frogs too. Citizens for a Legitimate Government sends a selection of news reports through email.
News is more or less gossiping...then there are discussions during which they make the gossip more interesting for the masses
I get it from the google app on phone, it filters away the unnecessary news based on our searches and gives me only the required articles. Newspapers are way too useless. They contain just the negative content because it's too catchy and the useless celeb gossips ( I take a look or two sometimes, few celebs are quite sexy! ;D)
Tantra wrote: "I like to see what James Corbett says at The Corbett Report https://www.corbettreport.com/ and like Boiling Frogs too. Citizens for a Legitimate Government sends a selection of news reports throu..."
Corbett is great.
I'm no Putin fan but I find the best and most impartial view of what is going on in my country (USA) comes from RThttps://www.rt.com/
For thought-provoking perspectives on the "issues of the day", I like Intellectual Takeout
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/
I get my daily news from the New York Times. I also listen to the PBS NewsHour.
Peter Kubicek
http://www.drudgereport.comhttps://www.rt.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/
Forums help as well.
Mathews wrote: "News is more or less gossiping...then there are discussions during which they make the gossip more interesting for the masses"Ha!
None. I strenuously avoid American newsmedia. I live in one of the most frenzied, shrill, hysterical news cities in the world. And guess what? It simply never matters; there's never anything which ever truly requires my attention. You learn this after a while. Plus, knowing how much of the news is shoddy, clumsy, yellow-press sensationalism..or outright lying, propaganda...I can't sacrifice my mental equanimity to listen to a daily recital of fires, floods, murders, stabbings. Endless scandal-mongering and celeb exposes..puh-lease.
Its basically just a run-on pattern of nonsense rattled-off to lull the minds of imbeciles in the street. Sure, if you have absolutely nothing going on in your brain, no thoughts of your own to think, then yeah turn on 'the news'.
Yep. If you're gonna shoot me, stab me, burn me, or drown me--just do it, but whatever you do don't bore me to death by telling me about it. Much less, tell me about a bunch of others strangers these events are occurring to, as if I give a damn.
And where do they get off even calling it 'news' in the first place? Its anything but news. How many car accidents have I ever seen mentioned on the 6 o'clock news? Probably over 500, without even trying. Simply by someone having the TV on during dinner.
In fact, I am outraged at what I call 'news pollution'. Whenever I'm sitting in a bar trying to enjoy a quiet beer, the bartender BETTER not have any news station on when I am there.
I also cringe at the constant phony pretense of "astonished naivete" that taints all the talking-heads in their delivery.For instance something like this:
ANGLE ON: Sheila Blab, blonde, 530pm on Channel 7, 'early edition' news anchor
Sheila looks into camera 2.
"A highly unusual incident this afternoon in West Harlem. Leroy Johnson, 26, was detained by police after they found him driving a car which ...didn't belong to him! Yes, that's right. The late-model Chevrolet Impala was not owned by the driver.
Police--baffled--are questioning Mr. Johnson, to ascertain how this possibly could have occurred. They wanted to know if Mr. Johnson had a medical emergency or if the car maybe belonged to a family member or possibly one of his acquaintances or co-workers. The response to all these proved negative; and detectives from the 26 Precinct are still trying to sort it all out."
"Let's go to the scene right now with Joe Blough, our correspondent for all things strange and inexplicable in Northern Manhattan. Joe--you there? Joe? What's the story up there Joe? Any answers?"
(static, interference, snow, haze)
ANGLE ON: tall, dark-haired, suit-and-tie roving REPORTER with microphone, posing on sidewalk outside of Burger King next to glowering MAN, wrists cuffed behind him, in torn t-shirt.
"Sheila! Yes, hi Sheila, I'm here. Boy it's windy today let me tell ya! Anyway I now read you loud and clear. Sheila, believe me I'm as perplexed as anyone can possibly be, by this nearly bewildering incident. What was Mr. Johnson doing behind the wheel of a car which didn't belong to him? Where was he going in this vehicle? Was he even aware that he was driving what some might claim was a 'stolen' car? Naturally no one wants to even use such a word, but on the other hand, NO ONE seems to have an adequate theory as to how this transpired...."
I really like Reuters because they're not American press, so seem less tainted by US government propaganda. I also read a variety of biased news sources. They're all biased. I used to be a reporter, so I know what's going on behind the scenes and they ARE ALL BIASED. But if you read a variety of biased news sources, you can get a pretty well-rounded idea of the real news ... most of the time. I usually find out a year or two or a decade later that my instincts of what was being left out were right on the money. It's conspiracy theory until an outfit like Wikileaks hacks some elite's email and then all of a sudden ... I'm prescient.
Its true. My journalist contacts say the same thing. I asked them (privately) what was the most trustworthy news outlet and they said 'none of them'. Everything is being spun. News is simply not an academic resource of any kind.
Multiple sources. The BBC for a poor but basic overview, the guardian online, the independent online, al jazeera for the Middle East, the economist for worldwide political and economic news.
Not sure if this was mentioned or not because I haven't read through these years of posts but I find the YouTube show "unfilter" to be a valuable balance against mainstream media sources (including FOX) They are part of this Jupiter Broadcast group which does mostly tech shows which is how I found them.
Crystal wrote: "Just curious of how/where else everyone gets their daily news from? Any suggestions on good current event sites/apps/channels/stations? I'm finding more and more this site is good for it, but I don..."As a former news reporter, I can attest with confidence that today's news media SUCK. They are all pretty much biased. Because I've been in a newsroom where the editors "suggested" (strongly) that I leave out certain facts that disagreed with their political agenda, I can now see when some stories are missing pertinent facts and that makes me suspicious of almost all stories. Maybe that's why journalists call them "stories".
That said, I catch the local and statewide newspaper here in Alaska (the former is conservative-leaning and latter is left-leaning) and I really like Reuters. Not being an American newsservice, it does a pretty good job of covering US news without the American left-leaning bias, but you have to be aware that they are owned by a corporation in a social democratic country, so their "straight" news is left-leaning. I balance that with One American News, which is right-leaning. You can get 90% of the full story if you read both, but I also like searching out news analysis on various sites.
I don't have cable TV and also don't believe broadcast news gives us real news -- it's mostly entertainment, repeated over and over again in a breathless voice to convince us that the 10% of the facts they are covering from a biased perspective is actually news, but I do watch Fox and CNN when I'm on the exercise machine at the gym. If you watch both, you might get 40% of the almost-truth. Then on Friday nights, my husband and I watch PBS news analysis (mainly to mock their extreme leftist-statist positions), but also because it tells us what is important to them, so we go out and try to find the other side of the story from the Internet.
There's really no easy way to educate yourself on the news these days. It's mostly pablum. But if you're willing to take the time or are a fast reader, you can get a well-rounded news diet with some effort. But I occasionally go to some of my favorite news analysis sites and discover my standard straight news outlets have all been missing the point of some important event, which always reminds me that modern news media SUCK.
Clever journalistic skills, Lela: your posted ended the same way it began by stating the news media SUCKS :)
But seriously, it's interesting to hear all that from a former news reporter. Nice confirmations about the way our modern news media works.
Narcissus wrote: "Multiple sources. The BBC for a poor but basic overview, the guardian online, the independent online, al jazeera for the Middle East, the economist for worldwide political and economic news."You are naming some extremely left-leaning biased sources. I do read them, but I wouldn't trust them anymore than I would trust any others. You need balance in the political agenda of the news source otherwise you risk only getting half of the story -- or less.
An interesting topic, some of it covered in the chapter Bigger, Fewer and More Like-Minded in the Hatchten book The Troubles of Journalism (2008). Would a journalist who practised what she learnt at college be offered a job these days?
John wrote: "Would a journalist who practised what she learnt at college be offered a job these days? ..."Nope.
Or else she'd soon be fired.
This raises an interesting question on a different but related topic. Since so much of the news is spread through technology, and is SO available, are we being brainwashed? As stated many times above, not a lot of it is actually reliable. It makes me wonder whether the widespread use of networked technology is actually a good thing.It's nice to see here that people are questioning the reliability of news sources.
Al Jazeera and the Antimedia. I don’t bother with mainstream sources anymore knowing that they’re largely funded by special interest groups (pharmaceutical corporations, mainly).*Edited to add that I’m not against all corporations, just those that commit fraud.
Lela wrote: "Crystal wrote: "Just curious of how/where else everyone gets their daily news from? Any suggestions on good current event sites/apps/channels/stations? I'm finding more and more this site is good f..."I agree with you. I watch mainstream media just to see what they're doing to slant the news. They present a story, then have "analysts" give a biased view of events. I think this is a perversion of the First Amendment. They should have freedom to report the news, but not to promote their own agenda.
