7 ms·

I replaced my fairly curated (/r/neutralpolitics, /r/neutralnews etc) Reddit morning news with NYT about a month ago. It's completely changed my morning routine

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• BlackjackCF 10y ago
  Yup. I started subscribing to the NYT for the same reason. Also those mini crosswords in the NYT app are pretty fun.
• problems 10y ago
  This seems like a good idea, but I'd really like something a little less slanted than NYT. Any good options?
  • untog 10y ago
    I don't think it's possible to find one single organisation that has an entirely neutral perspective. By and large I find NYT reporting to be very accurate, but it's only healthy to seek out other publications from time to time. That's where the "10 free articles" model comes in useful - the bulk of my reading is through NYT, but I can "lightly graze" on other sources throughout the month. Another option is Blendle, which lets you pay per article. I don't know how many news orgs they have so far, though.
    • problems 10y ago
      Yeah, I like the idea of services like Blendle that will give you a mix of content providers for $0.25/article, but that's just too steep for me. If they could get that down to the subpenny level I might go for it. I could probably afford it too, but I guess the reality is I just won't pay for journalism. The value proposition is just too low given how easy it is to find this stuff around already. Google News might be my solution here. Maybe that means I read Telegraph for one thing and NPR for the next, but that's not a big deal - they're decent enough to do the job and you can pretty much get any PoV you want using reddit comments these days.
      • notatoad 10y ago
        blendle is $0.15-0.49 per article. Maybe i just don't read much news, but i don't find it all that expensive. i get the headlines from their morning briefing and end up spending about $5 per month.
  • imh 10y ago
    So long as you avoid the opinion articles like the plague, WSJ is my personal pick for closest-to-neutral. Their event coverage tends to be more neutral than NYT and WaPo (or the guardian, but i can't remember why I didn't look at BBC). Supplement WSJ with al jazeera for an alternate viewpoint on international events.
    • DashRattlesnake 10y ago
      I was told once that the WSJ has the best reporting because it's the newspaper of Wall Street and other powerful businessmen: they're going to demand accuracy and neutrality because their understanding of the market (and thus their livelihoods) depend on it. Other groups have less actual need for facts, so are more likely to be satisfied with fewer of them (e.g. politically biased coverage).
      • breatheoften 10y ago
        This seems like an incredibly optimistic perspective on Wall Street. Is there any basis for thinking that Wall Street success correlates to fact availability?
      • pvitz 10y ago
        I once heard the same about the FT and tried it. In general, it was a pleasant experience and they not only covered topics in a neutral way but also allowed commentaries from different viewpoints. However, I didn't extend my subscription, because I didn't use it on a daily basis. Pay per article would have fitted me much better.
        • Semaphor 10y ago
          You might want to try https://blendle.com https://blendle.com they offer micropayments per article. IIRC they are currently in beta in the US
          • pvitz 10y ago
            Thanks, it looks interesting!
  • jsutton 10y ago
    You will be extremely hard pressed to find anything without some sort of slant, though the AP is probably the closest thing to it. The Times is still among the most trusted sources for in-depth coverage; their perceived slant might be due to the topics they choose to put more focus on.
    • OJFord 10y ago
      When HN readers; particularly those that can be reasonably assumed to be American, say 'The Times' - do you refer to The Times [0], or to The New York Times? I'd have assumed the latter, if The Guardian weren't mentioned (or posted) here so frequently. (And I'm not aware of any other Guardians.) [0] - https://thetimes.co.uk https://thetimes.co.uk
      • jhbadger 10y ago
        Definitely the New York Times. While The Guardian has some readership in the US, I don't think The Times (London) has much -- perhaps unfairly, it is seen as a rather provincial newspaper rather than a "world" newspaper.
        • pmyteh 10y ago
          It used to be the Empire's paper of record, and one of the most prestigious in the world (if fairly stuffy, conservative and Conservative). Now, sadly, it's a shadow of its former self. The Murdoch years have seen its journalism, and its reputation, slowly fall. It's now positioned somewhere between the Daily Mail and the Telegraph (which itself seems to have lost much of its quality coverage over the past 20 years).
      • oxguy3 10y ago
        The Guardian actually has a pretty great U.S. edition -- I'm a proud supporter.
  • Someone1234 10y ago
    The BBC? No subscription either (ad supported outside of the UK). I'd also throw in Al Jazeera which has a slight slant but that slight slant counteracts the BBC's slight slant giving you a very balanced overview. AP and Reuters themselves are good too (even if you're typically used to reading about them as a source rather than a direct publication). PBS and CSpan are good but underfunded. Other US news is too biased and full of pro-US propaganda which gets tiresome in a hurry. Plus if I wanted to read unverified "anonymous's sources" or "report: <some other publication>" I'd just read Reddit comments or Tweets. Unfortunately that's largely what US "news" is these days, unverified facts and others repeating those facts until they're true.
    • marcusjt 10y ago
      Alas the BBC's bias towards supporting the government's position on various issues (thanks in no small part to staffing the upper echelons of the organisation with Tory party members) has become increasingly pronounced in recent years to the extent that I simply can't trust BBC coverage of important issues anymore.
  • justinv 10y ago
    The Financial Times. Otherwise WaPo has been good - but obviously slants to D.C. politics.
  • tallanvor 10y ago
    I consider the New York Times to be fairly balanced in terms of actual reporting (ignoring the opinion columns, but opinion will always have a slant). Washington Post is more liberal, and WSJ is more conservative.
  • billsmithaustin 10y ago
    Try The Economist. There is a $12 for $12 week introductory rate.
• lobotryas 10y ago
  You are implying that it's worth supporting the Fourth Estate. Regardless of what side of the isle you are on, last year's elections have shown the unopposed bias present in the US and UK systems. I have and will continue consuming my news for free. If an institution like the NYT dies because people don't support it financially then I'm ok with that. Someone else will take their place with a model that works.
  • kzrdude 10y ago
    You are only making more room for those that appeal to the lowest common denominator, the tabloids (where UK seems to have a worse problem than the US, but from the outside: all of the anglosphere is having trouble.)
    • camus2 10y ago
      > where UK seems to have a worse problem than the US The UK has the BBC financed by tax payers, so it's kind of the wrong example.
      • RugnirViking 10y ago
        The bbc provides no newspaper service. It is entirely on television and radio and online. Probably a sensible move if you ask me
• Natsu 10y ago
  I don't look for neutrality, I think it's largely illusory. Everyone has a self-interest. I don't expect them to deny that, I expect them to give me proof of what they say. So I prefer to look at a diverse set of media, avoiding filter bubbles, compare the stories everyone covers, and see what core set of facts (if any) these sources agree on. Then I look at the authors and the sourcing. Where did they get their facts? Can any of these facts be corroborated elsewhere? All anonymous sources are treated as if the author themselves said it and evaluated accordingly. Even the 'stopped clock' outlets might be right twice a day. It's amazing which parts of stories get covered by some outlets and not others. The end result is not too different from this: https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-warrant-application/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-s...
  • graeme 10y ago
    Can you cite examples of the end result? Cases where you've reached a different conclusion than you would have reached just from reading a mainstream source? I'm asking because your process could equally be used by someone very well informed, and someone who had managed to misinform themself severely. The latter being due to cognitive errors where they lacked enough information to form a valid judgment, and Daniel Kahneman's "What You See Is All There Is" process silently filling in the gaps. I see this frequently in people overtly skeptical of the media. But on the other hand, skeptical people are also often correct, as the media warrants critical reading.
    • Natsu 10y ago
      There's always more to learn. There's always more to the story. I don't think anyone has the complete picture and anyone who thinks they do is kidding themselves. Any process could be used by anyone, but I sincerely question just how long someone could remain severely misinformed by reading articles, looking for verifiable factual information, and then attempting to verify it. Perhaps you think I'm trying to average out what everyone says as if the truth was always in the middle? That could scarcely be further from the truth. Especially in politics, both sides are lying, though perhaps to different degrees and neither side is true. Thus, I separate facts from opinions and look for which items can be corroborated. So if someone is reporting that X said Y, I would look for a video of exactly what X said and see it directly. One example that comes to mind simply because I did a lot of legwork just to see who was telling the truth is when I was told by CNN that it was illegal to read Wikileaks [1] and that there was essentially nothing to see there except some metaphorical sausage being made. Then I find out that this isn't true [2], and that Chris Cuomo is a licensed attorney who one might think would know better. [3] Then I find out that they were exposed in Wikileaks, cheating on the debates. [4] I also heard claims that the emails were altered. [5] The claims of alteration are later proven false because the email referenced in [4] has a DKIM signature, signed by both 1e100.net (Google) and hillaryclinton.com which provides cryptographic non-repudiation. It also explicitly covers the body of the email--note the 'b' and 'bh' parameters in both DKIM signatures, clearly visible when you 'view source'. It's well known that CNN terminated their relationship with Donna. As far as I know, however, nobody ever figured out who she got the questions from, so presumably they're still there. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A [2] https://www.popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-r... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cuomo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cuomo [4] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0pqa-cvGAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0pqa-cvGAs
• sqldba 10y ago
  Physical or online?