Wikipedia current events portal for no-nonsense, just the facts headlines. Google news for everything else. Curious to hear what others use.
Oooh. I like this. I’d forgotten Wikipedia has a news section!
There is also wikinews: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page
Aren’t google news biased to what you would like to see?
Yes by default. I have all personalization settings turned off that are user accessible. You can also disable news sources that you don’t like - for me it’s all the adwalled sites like NYT
The Conversation is a really good source of content that is really interesting. Zero clickbait and really interesting topics.
It a really good source of info.
You get easily digestible academic papers on current topics.
It’s free as in beer and freedom.
And from my academic standpoint they seem to do a really good job although I have not yet written an article with them.
Never heard of it before. Thank you so much!
I’m in the US so Reuters, NPR, AP. But there are so many “news” websites around anymore I usually take everything I read with a dose of skepticism and I look at Snopes and MediaBiasFactCheck often.
Snopes has been a former Facebook checker and MBFC has Google Analytics. I would be a little afraid and cautious.
Yes please asses the credibility of their articles based on their associations with shady companies instead of the contents plausibility.
You think the funding and affiliations of organisations have nothing to do with the agenda they propagate? Oh summer child.
Doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t judge a book by its publisher.
Snopes is not a publisher, but acting as the arbiter of truths. So if they have backing by biased entities, that leaves them vulnerable to be biased since these enitites are the stakeholders and customers, not people who might be relying on them to see facts.
Only the customer is served by these groups. You are not a customer of Snopes or MBFC.
There is no independent media. This doesn’t mean that there is no value in consuming it. If some source tells you they are “unbiased”, independent from advertisers/funding or free of (private) agenda they either intentionally lie or lack self-reflection.
There exists independent media. You clearly do not know your stuff and are willing to deny it as well. You have made up your mind, so this conversation is over.
If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.
Basically they’re better than nothing.
Facebook acts as a conservative hideout and has been one since ages. Why do you think Facebook is an objective outlet that will use Snopes legitimately?
I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.
You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with “reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer”. Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.
I have to lean myself off of social media for news. I’m transitioning to just getting all my news off of RSS feeds, which I subscribe to various sites that I trust.
Mainstream: RSS from national newspaper (on the todo list) or their paper version if I have time at work.
tech and activism: mastodon, lemmy
My friends mention anything interesting, and then I look it up.
I stopped looking at news myself.
Work at a news station, so I see the national and local news every day. Also some email subs and social media like lemmy and mastodon, sometimes Tumblr
RSS feeds from a number of sites. Mainly Il Post to keep up with what’s happening in the world and in my country. I frequently browse lemmy and sometimes HackerNews. I also follow some subreddits. I keep up with both RSS feeds and reddit feeds from Telegram, because it’s easy to use both from desktop and mobile, and I can easily share news to family & friends, or forward them to a bot that saves them to my Wallabag
Yep I do the same with self-hosted FreshRSS for RSS feeds, and Wallabang.
My nextcloud server syncs several RSS news feed which then syncs to my phone and other devices…
Which feeds?
I had some errors with that… but thanks for reminding me of this feature. I got to work on it to make it work.
If you want you could post your RSS links here so others could copy them :)
I don’t really bother much with daily news.
From Lemmy.
I like this. I hope that Lemmy becomes large enough so that I eventually feel that the news is constantly being uploaded by users, especially local news!
I worry that using link aggregators and micro blogging for news is not a form that is conducive to positive outcomes. I don’t remember where, but it might have been on the Center for Humane Technology’s podcast where I found out about a team of engineers who recommended the separation of community and news consumption.
When reading a traditional newspaper or news feed the reader consumes the news alone, and they have time to process what they have read and form their own opinions. When consuming news from social media sources the reader will usually be heavily influenced by the dominate opinions in the comments section, and they are less likely to form their own opinions.
In other words, the structure of a Reddit, Lemmy, Twitter, or Facebook is fundamentally geared toward eroding civic discourse and critical thought while fostering mob-mentality.
Some of the proposed engineering fixes were to disallow posting to comments sections until the reader passed some check that verified they read an entire article, and only allowing the user to read others comments after the user had either posted their own comment, or enough time (hours or days) had lapsed so that the user would likely have formed their own opinions and would be less likely to engage in emotional group-think.
Verifying commenters read an entire article would be challenging and annoying, and a time-delay before posting would undermine the appeal of current social media, however, so these ideas haven’t been explored.
Edit: Change pronouns to be more inclusive.
his own opinions
What happens in the case of her or their?
then maybe we c0uld have a news community without comments, or well, i didnt use to read news before because reaching to so many of them was exhausting so its better than nothing i guess
It has grown a lot over the last few months! So I am hopeful that it will continue to do so
lemmy
deleted by creator
From RSS feeds from news sites
RSS Feeds (Miniflux) , which consists of mostly technology/current news feeds. Some that I frequently find myself reading the most would have to be The Verge and MotherBoard.
I don’t really worry about news atm, nothing i can do about what’s going on. I figure the best thing i can do is gather knowledge.
