I find the lack of balance and proportion in journalism these days very wearing and I’m searching for alternatives. Here are two I’ve found so far:
Ground News
This aggregator site is distinctive not only in that it lists left, center, and right coverage of the news but in that it attempts to assess the bias of each source.
Tangle
This site appears to aspire to be something along the lines of Vox.com without the bias.
Please propose other alternatives, I’ll evaluate them, including them to the list as necessary.
Get way too much spam email as it is. Unsubscribe doesnt seem to work. Let us know how it works.
Meanwhile, nice piece on the fake news sites. We now have pink slime journalism where they just make up stuff.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/23/local-news-partisan-pink-slime-journalism/
Steve
I checked out ground news quite a while ago, but at the time, it still was in beta and a bit of a mess, but seemed promising.
I’m sorry I don’t have any suggestions to add.
My current method involves being skeptical of almost everything I read and then doing my own research on the topics that I care about or am most interested in. I know that “doing your own research” has a bad rap in some circles, but it’s what I was trained to do and what I used to do for a living, so I’m not simply googling up confirmation bias (at least I hope not – I am still human). Even then, it is often impossible to verify the accuracy of reporting or claims.
That is, unfortunately, very time-consuming and sometimes time-wasting. I would like to find a way to more easily find reliable information and verify its accuracy.
One of the problems I encounter more frequently is that some stories and reports are only covered by those with an agenda. With information becoming more niche, a lot of things just aren’t reported by multiple sources anymore and all you have to go on is the biased report. If it gets traction, then the biased source on the other side may do a “fact check.” Still, very problematic.
Yes, the problem today is, contra Pat Moynihan, that everybody has their own facts.
I feel pretty good about knowing where to find good medical research and how to evaluate it, but new is harder. Try to read people on both sides of spectrum but try to avoid the extremes.
Steve
Although Andy and I often see events differently, his post on how he accesses factual news is very similar to what I do. My trust of almost every news source is marginal to super skeptical. I usually look up individual items, but even that method is not always satisfying. When I do read or watch news (stream it only online) I usually see it as opinion vs hard, “settled†fact.
Medical journals, government departments like the CDC, FDA, NIH etc. used to be more independent in their commentaries and recommendations. That’s not the case currently as they are compromised by getting funding or losing their job or reputation should they not side with the right politically prescribed narrative, Basically politics has put a wedge between them and telling the truth.
My preference is for news sites who focus on the five Ws and clearly separate opinion/analysis. Headline news that depends on anonymous sources that have been briefed (but not read) secret documents in possession in some one else is not news, but gossip.
So, my suggestions, Christian Science Monitor, Euronews.com, Mercopress.com (South American focused) and Radio New Zealand International (Pacific focused) and TheLocal sites (the Local.de, .se, .fi, .es etc) provide news and explainers (e.g. how to get a personal ID number in Sweden) useful to expats and those curious.
For a dash of the surreal, Belize’s two main parties have their own papers, radio stations and web sites which have their own reality not just facts.
On the rare occasions I watch TV news, I still prefer Al Jazeera and especially France24.