5 ms·
Most Trusted News Sources
- croon 9y agoApparently gaslighting works. I'm kind of shocked that NYT and Atlantic ranks so low, while WSJ and local news rank very high. That doesn't bode well for an informed populace with Sinclair's expansion.
- arjie 9y agoI wouldn't be described as a conservative, but I've subscribed to both the NYT and the WSJ. At one point, I subscribed to both. The NYT has one redeeming factor: it publishes high quality articles occasionally across the centre page (I remember the one where the US soldiers reported incidents of cruelty and violence against the local population in Afghanistan). The prose in the reviews section is also very entertaining. As for the rest, it's a pretty rubbish newspaper. For the WSJ, I stay away from Opinion pieces except in the Business section. Those can be hopeless. But the rest is exemplary. And they have equivalent work as well (the fate of the Cossacks, how one US company was stuck on a road due to insurgents with clever use of US RoE). I've noticed that lots of people defend the NYT and when I first subscribed I thought that was because people knew it was a good newspaper. It turns out it's cultural identification. You're supposed to support the NYT if you're a Democrat. Few actually subscribe. I gave it a shot despite the Judith Miller fiasco but it's really a rubbish newspaper. I subscribed for eight months to the NYT and ten to the WSJ, with one month overlapping.
- evgen 9y agoThe Journal used to be a good source of quality analysis and factual reporting, which is not surprising when you are trying to serve a market of people who use your reporting to make trading decisions. These people tend to get upset if the reporting tries to put in spin that diverges from reality. Unfortunately, things have been going downhill since Murdoch took over and their reputation in the community is suffering as a result.
- nerdponx 9y agoAs far as I can tell it's FT that does the good business reporting now. Good on them for strictly enforcing their paywall, too. None of this "free but it isn't" shit.
- Retric 9y agoWSJ had significant factual errors on any story I had deep knowledge of, so I assume the rest of it is just as terrible. Why exactly do your rate it highly?
- arjie 9y agoHmm, perhaps I have a false confidence in it because I was unable to detect the factual errors. The number one use I had for it was news on business and it seemed helpful there. Would you mind sharing some examples? I haven't subscribed in quite a while (I live in the UK now).
- Retric 9y agoIt's been a few years (edit: over a decade), but the usual factual errors like names where not bad though I noticed a few. But, technical details around Java seemed to be a game of telephone where what they said was at best vaguely true if you ignored what was said and tried to decode what someone else said. Which seems to be the basic problem with using reporters who don't understand the subject matter. Now, they have a good reputation. But, I don't know where it comes from exactly as I have heard similar issues with their coverage of DNA editing etc.
- lin_lin 9y agoWhat's wrong with local news? In my experience, it's the most trustworthy, agenda-free source of info. It's the nature of its scope, but I don't see what you're getting at.
- croon 9y ago1) Because "local news" by its very nature doesn't mean anything (or anywhere). Since it is a ubiquitous term, anything can be local news. 2) Since local news doesn't have a defined head, it's hard to scrutinize, whereas national/global news is at least exposed for what it is (regardless of whether people recognize that or not). 3) What I mainly wanted make a point about was the future of local news in regards to Sinclair buying up Tribune Media stations [1]. That would make it "local news" with quite a blatant, pointed agenda. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-...
- lin_lin 9y agoI think most people know what's meant by "local news". Fair enough about State side events, I'm in the UK. My local news papers are far and away the most trusted source of news I have in the traditional form. The BBC, Sky, the national papers can take a running jump.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ddebernardy 9y agoJohn Oliver had an interesting show on this a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc TL;DR version would be: the Sinclair group is collecting local TV news channels, and their editorial line isn't exactly neutral.
- nerdponx 9y agoI trust local news, but only for reporting on local news.
- Aeolun 9y agoWhatever it is, it's not ischmaelscorner.com. Scrolljacking is an instant bounce.
- eropple 9y agoIs that why it feels so awful? I haven't run into behavior quite like that before.
- franciscop 9y agoClickbait! Please update the title accordingly, HN is against those
- hanselot 9y agoNot a source visible in miles.
- Pfhreak 9y agohttps://www.rjionline.org/reporthtml.html https://www.rjionline.org/reporthtml.html All the information needed to find the source is in the link. I Just duck duck go'd University Missouri trusted news...
- sparkzilla 9y agoAbsolute drivel. No wonder people have no trust in news, if this is the kind of poll they come up with.
- Pfhreak 9y agoThis is not a usefully critical comment. Consider identifying features you consider poorly done, suggest alternatives, present examples of good work. Just saying, "This is bad" without context doesn't foster discussion.
- tomelders 9y agoOff topic: Designers and Developers. Please stop scroll-jacking.
- vanderZwan 9y agoAnd requiring JS to render a plain text-and-images website in the first place
- Double_a_92 9y agoBut but... ReactJS
- tim333 9y agoI note it's a Wordpress theme so maybe it's shmaelscorner's fault for choosing that one.
- vanderZwan 9y agoReact supports server side rendering.
- hpaavola 9y agohttps://www.rjionline.org/reporthtml.html https://www.rjionline.org/reporthtml.html more about the study, including methods.
- autocorr 9y agoPew Research put out a very good analysis of polling data on political polarization and media habits up to 2014 [1]. It generally finds the same top in WSJ, BBC, NPR, and PBS. Incidentally, I really enjoy looking at the different results you can find in the Pew studies, they are well written and have great figures. [1] http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/ http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...
- cagenut 9y ago"respondents were asked to report their political ideology on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very conservative) to 5 (very liberal)." When your scale considers 'very liberal' its left-end-point then of course the Economist will win.
- Shivetya 9y agomost people really don't know what their view is classified as when taking surveys. they latch onto one interest and base their declared "liberal or conservative" from just that.
- crdoconnor 9y agoApparently you can favor Reagan, Thatcher, George Bush, the Vietnam war, the War in Iraq, run criticism of Amnesty because "it unfairly targets America", purport to solve every problem ever with deregulation, privatization and trade liberalization, do literally zero investigative journalism, and still be more trusted than anybody else among a poll that supposedly skews towards liberals. That's a depressing indictment of either the liberality of liberals, or the plurality of discourse in the media. Possibly both. I hope this poll is wrong.
- Filligree 9y agoHow do you even read this? Scrolling doesn't work... at all.
- RickJWagner 9y agoI've given up looking for a neutral source. I go to 'RealClearPolitics', which presents highly opinionated headlines from both sides of the aisle. You can choose to read whatever you want to see.
- webwanderings 9y agoReuters is well deserved. I don't know anymore about public TV and Radio because it is literally a government propaganda machine sprinkled with supposed balanced views of the world. Do not care about WSJ or Economist; don't think missed anything without them. If people want to keep their sanity, they should only follow Reuters for objective news reporting.
- seastonATccs 9y agoNPR and PBS are far from government propaganda.
- pps43 9y agoNPR and PBS do sound just like government propaganda. Source: lived in USSR. There were no fake news in Pravda, yet calling it "far from government propaganda" would be a stretch. To some extent it's inevitable (he who pays the piper calls the tune), but it's important to take the left lean and inherent bias of NPR and PBS towards "big government" in consideration.
- webwanderings 9y ago> NPR and PBS are far from government propaganda. That's exactly what I used to think; not anymore. Do a deep reflection on the content they consistently promote. Even the supposed criticism of the government, is there only to promote and keep the buzz around. Negative or positive, their stories almost always revolve around who is paying their bills. Their diverse views of the state and the world is also biased. I am not a conspiracy theorists but I no longer think NPR/PBS is objective and independent. They do try very hard to appear as such, as well as substantive and diverse. At the end of the day, it is under government's control (whoever is in government - doesn't matter).