Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: How Do You Choose a News Source? (csmonitor.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the so-many-options dept.

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?

11 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Choose them all by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Read a wide variety of news. Reuters feed, AP feed, news channel sites, newspaper sites. Compare them to each other, and research the claims.

    The truth is not Fox, or CNN, or The Times. It is somewhere in the middle of the bunch. And parts of it are scattered all over.

  2. the caravan moves on by Crass+Spektakel · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Whenever a good news portal hides itself behind a paywall the the caravan/customers move on to a less good news portal.

    In the end we will all be using breitbart, sputnik and al jazeira because everything else is behind a pay wall. Those who are not looking forward in generating monetary profit will simply outlast everybody else.

    Dont blame the customers, blame the companies.

    --
    "Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
  3. Sorry, Drudge by tmjva · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Not because of the right-wing sensate headlines at the top.  But because of the source links at the bottom.  Where else can you find Agence France-Press, BBC, Tass, Pravda, and New Republic on the same page?  Saves the trouble of book marks.  Really.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
    1. Re:Sorry, Drudge by Noishkel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People on the left just love to rain crap all over Drudge Report yet everyone seems to ignore the reality that they are literally nothing more than a news aggregator. It just highlight news aimed at people with a right wing bias.

  4. Wall street journal by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As long as you don't read the editoral section or even one of the comments, the WSJ has great news. In part it's because they try to provide analysis. What does this news mean to you. The washington post is doing something similar but they are a lot more hyperventilating than the WSJ.

    But for the love of god do not read the comments section. It will make you weep for humanity. Nothing but kneejerks, tards, and flambait. And the editorial section is pretty hilarious because they appear to have built a firewall between they editorail commentary and the news analaysis such that very often their news analysis flatly rejects the basis of their own editorials. Fairly rabid editorials.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Wall street journal by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As I wrote elsewhere here, I used to be a WSJ fan, until Rupert Murdoch bought them up. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12...

      Ironically, their greatest coverge was about the WSJ takeover attempt itself. During the Murdoch takeover, they had stories every day giving the background and details of Murdoch's journalism career, and the Bancroft family. They did it with their usual freedom to write about anything they thought was important, even if it meant airing the family secrets of the publishers.

      It turned out that the reason why the WSJ was such a great newspaper was that the Bancroft family had a commitment to great journalism. It was quite profitable and they were willing to accept those profits. The next generation of Bancrofts weren't willing to accept those profits. After I read that series, I understood for the first time how a newspaper works. (Basically, rich publishers do whatever they want. If they want great journalism, they can get it.)

      They also exposed Murdoch as an unethical, criminal scumbag. The worst thing he did was to agree to censor news of human rights violations in China, in return for getting his cable networks into China. They also catalogued the promises that he made and broke, in case anybody believed his promises to preserve the WSJ's editorial independence.

      The WSJ didn't submit either of those series to the Pulitzer Prize competition.

  5. Answer the question by spaceman375 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most of the comments so far are opinions on how to find or interpret news. Answering the question is more to the point. I listen to the NPR hourly news summary for breaking news, otherwise it's a scan of google news for topics of interest, then off to the specific interest sites (lots of science for me) that the submitter didn't really mean.
          Google news just collects stuff, then you can choose which article to read about the given subject. Comparing a few sources is easy, and really highlights the biased stance of each publication.
          Being well informed is now a matter of taking the time to slog through the simplified or biased sources with a seriously skeptical eye. As long as the local grocery store is open and I have enough money to shop there, I'm happy to watch it all go by. I absolutely participate in the things I feel passionate about, but Thank $DEITY that most of the stuff in the news is somewhere over there and not in my face.

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
  6. Re:Non-profit news by AaronW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The CSM is an excellent news source. Despite the name it is a secular news source that does good investigative reporting. I pay for this as well as a few other news sources which I believe do real journalism such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Atlantic and NPR. The Wall Street Journal is also good, though I strongly disagree with much of their commentary.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  7. Re:Poor example publication choice by AaronW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Despite the name they're fairly objective and have won numerous Pulitzer prizes for reporting as well as a Peabody award. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  8. Re:I would suggest... by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, with Al Jazeera you're ahead of the game.

    Al Jazeera was founded by BBC reporters, with the Sultan of Qatar paying the bills. The Sultan was pretty tolerant of controversial coverage, but he did have limits.

    So Al Jazeera has good western-style journalism, with fact-checking and getting all sides. They have lots of interviews with pro-Israel sources, for example.

  9. Re:i do not choose by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agreed.

    Take the union of fox news and CNN.
    The result is the news.
    Sometimes the result is the empty set.