5 ms·

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!
        elcapitan 10y ago
        I've been using blendle for a year or so and I'm happy with it. The only thing is that there is a disconnect between surfing the web, hitting the paywall, and then finding that article on blendle. There's no "buy now with blendle" button, unfortunately. Kind of obvious, because they actually all want to sell me their subscription, but annoying nonetheless. Not harder than the "search title with google to get free article" routine, though.
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.

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!
      - elcapitan 10y ago
        I've been using blendle for a year or so and I'm happy with it. The only thing is that there is a disconnect between surfing the web, hitting the paywall, and then finding that article on blendle. There's no "buy now with blendle" button, unfortunately. Kind of obvious, because they actually all want to sell me their subscription, but annoying nonetheless. Not harder than the "search title with google to get free article" routine, though.

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.