Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Do You Choose a News Source? (csmonitor.com)
Obfiscator writes: Journalism has long had potential to change the world. The latest elections in the United States demonstrated new dimensions of this, with the rise of "fake news" and "echo chambers," as well as a president who has few reservations in expressing his thoughts of the media. The Christian Science Monitor has been a favorite news site of mine for years, due to their objective and balanced reporting, as well as their tendency to avoid "breaking news" and provide detailed analysis a few days later. Very few stories are going to impact my world to the point where waiting a couple days to read about them will make a difference. Despite the name, the vast majority of articles have no religious context (they address this in their FAQ). CSM has recently switched to be completely behind a paywall, as well. In their words, "We hope the Monitor Daily addresses both those trends. It is pushed to where our readers are and offers this pact: We will deliver our distinctive view of the world and you support financially our ability to produce that news." Is this the next trend: moving away from advertising revenues? Will this create more balanced journalism, as there is no need to attract clicks? Or will it deepen "echo chambers?" How do Slashdotters choose their news sites?
My choice basically boils down to the stuff I reflexively type in mindlessly in temporary semi-subconscious distraction, as I unthinkingly consume one of a very limited number of news site that grabbed my mind share at one point. After that it's turtles all the way down, as I keep typing in the same urls like a laboratory crack monkey seeking its next hit from the lever. These patterns last years or decades.
...watching MSNBC & Al Jazeera and splitting the difference.
That's half facetious, but the reality is that if you get all your news from a single source, you're guaranteed to get a biased view of reality, no matter what the source. The best thing you can do is to get information from as many different sources as possible, and when there are differences, do a little digging through meta-analysis sites to try to figure out where the truth lies.
If you don't have time to do that, your only choice is to accept that you will always be at least to some degree uninformed, hope that it doesn't matter, and don't worry about it.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In order to be informed one must digest many news sources- even when their bias is not your bias. Even foreign sources.
Then... you ruminate. Let the information sink in. And make the best call you can about what is true.
At the moment much of journalism has lost it's value. But in my opinion, the bright spots are easy to spot when you ignore your own ideology and start matching facts against stories.
Just make sure you have a real understanding about what a "fact" actually is.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Just don't necessarily believe it.
Especially if there's some sort of emotional resonance or if it seems especially convenient to someone's worldview.
Daily Mail seems OK. And factual financial news is rarely biased to the point of uselessness. Tech news can be ok.
Also, read stories about what happened, not stories about what might happen, or stories about what it might mean to someone, or stories about someone reacting to what happened. Facts, not "meaning".
And remember the news isn't about you.
use the following phrases in story titles and subtitles: ...number [x] will leave you.. ...you've been waiting for ...you should...
1. Here's what you need to know about...
2. Everything you need to know about...
3.
4. This is how...
5. The science behind...
6.
7.
8. [x] (silences|schools) [y] with one [z]
If you are looking for just one metric, a good one is to avoid corporate or state-sponsored news. God knows there will be a lot of dross still but it won't be supported by a huge propaganda machine that can manufacture consent. The Christian Science Monitor has always had a unique non-profit model (which may not be workable anymore but has resulted in some excellent reportage for a long time) and similarly, so does ProPublica.
I'm conservative, but I like to read VARIOUS sites. I read overseas, domestic, conservative, liberal then, form my own opinion, based on my own belief.
I just don't care and am one of the most well adjusted people I know. Weird maybe, but not neurotic or stressed.
Watching "news" 18 hours a day does not contribute to this. To everybody else, enjoy your medicated sanity.
You can't really blame the companies either. Real journalism requires an investment of both time and money that sensationalist bullshit doesn't, and on top of that important stories aren't always amenable to clickbaity titles.
That means real journalism both costs more and generates less (advertising) revenue. Alternative sources have to be found if they intend to keep operating while retaining some modicum of journalistic integrity.
I mean in a sense you can blame the companies for not changing their business model to "unverified partisan rants" like Breitbart, but that doesn't really help us get real news and while it may be financially good for any particular news outlet, it would be a significant detriment to the world as a whole and really shouldn't be something we encourage.
The only other option is to convince people to be critical of what they read/hear/see but that has continually proven itself an impossible task. Most people are happy living in their comfort zone and really don't want to leave, especially if it takes extra effort to do so.
Unfortunately this puts us in a worst-of-both-worlds situation: Doing the best thing journalistically is somewhat mutually exclusive with doing the best thing financially.
I don't know if paywalling is the solution to this dilemma or not. I suspect it won't be, if for no other reason than because most people won't want to (or more likely just can't afford to) subscribe to more than one or two news services and end up in just a different kind of bubble. But at least they're trying to do something beyond just selling out and, at least for a little longer, the world can retain a few outlets that attempt to peddle real (and verified) news rather than just partisan rants.
Lots of people in these comments are falling for the golden mean fallacy. The truth is not the middle ground between opposing reports. Consider how easily you can be manipulated by having a bad actor merely spout out the opposite of whatever it is they don't want getting out.
You're only laughing at Breitbart because your corporate master told you to.
"Laughing at" is inaccurate. "Disgusted by" is more accurate. They've been involved in several of the big conspiracy theories including the Birthers & Pizzagate. I don't see that kind of behavior from CNN. Buzzfeed maybe. Here are some of their more notable headlines.
If you're only paying attention to one particular narrative, then you're a chump. Doesn't matter what that narrative is. There is really no way to choose "A" news source. You have to pick several with opposing narratives.
I agree with that, but you need credible news sources. Breitbart exists at the very fringe of being considered "news".
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.