I like to keep in touch with the news for the UK and World news. I have a look through a selection of papers online and at the BBC news, but they all seem to be too full of various 'wow factors' and not enough basic information.
What do people think are the best sources?
|
I don't think one source will ever cover all the bases.
My take:
The BBC is a good start for unbiased headlines and brief factual reports. Also has advantage of clearly segmented coverage of the component nations of the UK and their regions. Because it's non-commercial it also has no restriction on links to other media, particularly local press. Good political and science blogs too.
As you'd expect from an 'out' left-liberal the Guardian is my newspaper of choice. As well as news and segments its running blog coverage of major political events and issues such as Leveson is consistently comprehensive and excellent. Legal page is my first port of call for professional information. Joshua Rozenberg is probably the best informed of all the broadsheet's legal editors.
In spite of its grating style and politics the Mail site is packed with stories that, while they might make other media are not on the 'front' page. Googling the story will find alternative, more balanced coverage.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 12 Apr 13 at 12:02
|
>>The BBC is a good start for unbiased headlines and brief factual reports
Oh dear God.! No. It is blatantly biased and has become totally sensationalist. On any subject where I do know the facts, the BBC distorts, sensationalises and corrupts.
I red it myself, and it is a good source, but one really, really can;t treat it with naivety.
I also read the Guardian. However, since you read it because you consider it suitable for an outed lefty, then it clearly is not unbiased either.
The Mail is a good comic with a vocabulary slightly larger than The Sun.
I think your first comment covered it all;
>>I don't think one source will ever cover all the bases.
Although I would suggest reading media from different countries. It certainly offers a balancing perspective.
|
|
Thanks for that one Dog, I shall follow that.
|
You should be able to watch RT on satellite down in your neck of the woods MartincalledMark:
rt.com/where-to-watch/
I watch RT in preference to the beeb, the women newsreaders can be quite nice too.
Especially that blonde one with the stern looks, Alanović probably knows her name :)
|
>> Especially that blonde one with the stern looks, Alanović probably knows her name :)
>>
Can't quite put my finger on it at the moment. But I'd like to. ;-)
|
>>You should be able to watch RT on satellite down in your neck of the woods
I didn't know that Doug, I'll check.
|
For World News, Russia Today provides excellent coverage, with an interesting angle for those of us in the West.
Edit:
Darn, beaten to it by a pup!
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 12 Apr 13 at 12:36
|
|
And Al Jazeera News is avalaible on freeview, for the sake of a different viewpoint
|
>> And Al Jazeera News is avalaible on freeview, for the sake of a different viewpoint
Not that dissimilar. Both seem full of anti-Western / American populism.
Some of the current 'interviews' on RT relating to North Korea are cringeworthy. The general tone of the comments following them are even worse.
Both these outfits make the BBC look impartial. Which of course it isn't.
|
|
channel5 weather ..very nice women in pencil skirt ..nice pert boobs too
|
Always found the Times of India has well written pieces on the state of the world, sometimes using slightly archaic language forms not seen here for thirty years, which obviously appeals to fusty old me.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
|
Ah well. I find it helps to see ourselves as others see us, sometimes. Helps develop balanced viewpoints. Some aren't interested in that, though.
In the absence of a truly unbiased broadcaster (although I reckon the BBC is pretty much the nearest thing the world's got), I reckon it's important to see the News through diverse sources.
|
|
i think we all rummage about mr alan
|
|
I was replying to DP really, but the post got cut adrift from its target.
|
|
bbc...left of centre...cnn ..clueless etc etc... the monthly steam.. ask zeddo
|
>> we all rummage about mr alan
Anyway we should. Never, ever take anything from a single source as gospel. At the same time, be deeply suspicious when there appears to be a solid consensus on any issue.
The information superhighway is a bit of a minefield. Caveat emptor.
|
|
when the SPG come knocking at the door..or freedom of speach..do we decide anymore?
|
The original post implies that print media may not be acceptable. Personally, I would not be able to concentrate on screen presentations for more than a quick look round. I use the print Telegraph, which I think is the best UK newspaper - of a bad bunch. As a member of the None of the Above party, I can discount its political bias. I can also - just - tolerate its toadying to the Royal Family and other rich and famous people (it is quite tumescent just now over Maggie) and its girlie journalists (though not all its women writers are girlie).
For a good UK (well OK, Transatlantic) weekly review, The Economist.
>>Although I would suggest reading media from different countries. It certainly offers a balancing perspective.
Agreed. The best paper I have come across is Le Monde. However, my knowledge of French is such that this very worthy journal took me about three days of study per issue. (I cancelled my subscription and instead took Le Canard Enchaine for a while, which uses simpler French. I expect it was the inspiration for Private Eye but it is far wittier.)
|
>> The best paper I have come across is Le Monde.
Quite right draiber, although French journalism mixes fact and opinion more than ours is supposed to. However not even LM gets everything right, and now that I'm not a hack any more I don't feel I can afford it. Back in the day enjoyed a lot of boozing and badinage with LM hacks some of whom I knew fairly well - serious people but clever with it as a rule.
This thread is making me feel nostalgic.
|
>> Le Canard Enchaine for a while, which uses simpler French. I expect it was the inspiration for Private Eye but it is far wittier.
Not so actually. The main inspiration for the Eye was Claud Cockburn's prewar scandal sheet The Week, and Cockburn was a sort of guru to the original Eye team as well as writing for it.
I adore Private Eye, but more for the jokes than anything else. It is of course very serious about many things, but like The Week it flies the odd weird kite. It has to publish quite a few apologies and retractions. Its literary critics are excellent and take few prisoners.
The Matt Lucas/Stirling Moss 'lookalike' in the current issue is hilarious.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 12 Apr 13 at 15:40
|
|
BBC news daily, Torygraph though I rarely do more than dip into to the comment section before doing the crossword, and for proper journalism Private Eye every fortnight.
|
|
my news readins go no further than viz magazine..
|
I think it is inevitable that one has to take a number of sources, given that each of us has a slightly different view of the world.
Given its public funding, the BBCs bias is unforgivable. If Murdoch wants to print biased stuff, we are not forced to 'buy' it. Personally I read mainly the Times or Telegraph, but also Public Eye (great for investigations into small town politics which rarely get an airing elsewhere), as well as The Sun and The Mail.
The Sunday Times has really gone downhill, and is almost pure fashion-victim carp. The Saturday Telegraph is a must for the Motoring section (although I cannot stand that Alexei Sayle)
|
The Daily Mash is as good as you'll get.
The BBC is let down by it's unquestioning devotion to climate change, sneeringly dismissing alternative viewpoints as those of cranks.
|
>> The BBC is let down by it's unquestioning devotion to climate change, sneeringly dismissing alternative
>> viewpoints as those of cranks.
That all stems from that 2006 seminar where they decided as a matter of policy not to let alternative views have as much airtime.
|
|
I still remember Question Time the day after 9/11 when they packed the audience with people of strong anti-American views. The programme was an embarrassing disgrace.
|
>> I still remember Question Time the day after 9/11 when they packed the audience with
>> people of strong anti-American views. The programme was an embarrassing disgrace.
Is there any evidence for the assertion the audience was 'packed'?
Or is it in fact the case that America's 'world policeman' acting with all the balance of sixties Alabama troopers is a widespread perception.
|
>> Is there any evidence for the assertion the audience was 'packed'?
>>
>> Or is it in fact the case that America's 'world policeman' acting with all the
>> balance of sixties Alabama troopers is a widespread perception.
>>
I well remember the programme, Brompt. It was full of people who were gloating at the attack on the World Trade Centres and offering no sympathy towards the victims. This was at odds with the widespread public horror and fear felt by the vast majority of the population.
|
There is no application form with your views for the bcc to decide which audience to pack it with, there is no interview on the door to turn away those with pro american views and no-one to turn you away of you don't look like a pro Palestinian jehadist.
Sorry but you are speaking bollards by suggesting the BBC "packed the audience"
|
>>you are speaking bollards by suggesting the BBC "packed the audience"
No, they wouldn't do that. But I wouldn't trust their reporting the next day as to what was said by whom.
|
|
The application form for Question Time asks amongst other things which political party you vote for and the current one is asking for your views on Afganistsn. A friends daughter was a producer at the BBC and in the past has been production manager for QT & told me that they always selected 75% from "lefty" applicants, however anyone who has ever watched the programme would not need to be told this !
|
Wow, just checked the application form, didn't used to be but it is very comprehensive, and they could if they wish "pack the audience" one way or the other.
My apologies to RR.
However, the WT centre was on a tuesday, Question time was on the thursday, so they could not have packed the audience with supporters of the terrorists, merely a bunch of lefites.
However, I have to say, there is an element of "you reap what you sow" and American foreign policy in the middle east was an aggravating factor in breeding the terrorists and becoming a target. So me, had I been in the audience, and asked, would have pointed that out.
|
>>told me that they always selected 75% from "lefty" applicant
And that may be absolutely correct.
Some years ago somebody in a similar position told me that they tried to make the particular issue the "middle" and then chose a balance of people either side of that. Consequently, with the middle shifting, so did the sides.
|
Where, apart from the stuff about global warming/climate change, is the BBC biased?
On the gw/cc issue the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is that some change is occuring and that it's associated with human activity. Which is not to say that there are no opposing opinions but nothing like enough to justify equal air time.
OTOH I've heard in last 30 mins that Ding Dong the Witch is Dead will not be played in full if number one on Sunday. Instead the fact of its placing will be announced in a 'news context' and a short extract played. This apparently is a compromise and not spineless submission to the attempt to promote MT's death to equivalent of royalty.
|
That all stems from that 2006 seminar where they decided as a matter of policy not to let alternative views have as much airtime.
In the case of climate change, that's because it's principally an issue of science, not politics, and giving equal weight to opposing views on such issues leads to calamities like the MMR scare, still playing out today. Politics is, and always will be, a matter of opinion; science is about evidence, and that's what to report.
|
I thought that much of the "science" relating to global warming had been thoroughly de-bunked as a result of flawed science and biassed and incorrect conclusions?
So - why not say so?
|
>> I thought that much of the "science" relating to global warming had been thoroughly de-bunked
>> as a result of flawed science and biassed and incorrect conclusions?
>> So - why not say so?
So who are the debunkers and the peer reviewed research that supports them?
AFAIK there are a few scientists who, in varying degrees, differ from the mainstream. The consensus of reputable science still prefers the theory of man made global warming.
|
This is the problem with the reporting of science. Those who for whatever reason do no with or want to agree with the scientific consensus still think their views should be reported to an equal extent to that of research that has withstood the rigours of peer review and which form the mainstream scientific view.
If their views are not widely publicised they of course claim that this is proof of a conspiracy against them.
The current measles epidemic in Wales is a direct consequence of the widespread promulgation of pseudo science in the popular media to a poorly educated population. At the time the views of a now discredited charlatan were widely publicised despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. The consequences can be seen in Welsh hospitals
|
>> I thought that much of the "science" relating to global warming had been thoroughly de-bunked
>> as a result of flawed science and biassed and incorrect conclusions?
>> So - why not say so?
.*********
|
Best Source of The News - BobbyG
