4 ms·

> valuable content If I could buy a paper here in the UK that gave me a good mix of local and broad global coverage, focused on the facts rather than pushing i

> valuable content If I could buy a paper here in the UK that gave me a good mix of local and broad global coverage, focused on the facts rather than pushing its own agenda and stopped telling me how to think, speak and behave, I'd buy it, but that paper doesn't seem to exist.

gmac 8y ago
The FT might be the closest? I recently switched from the Guardian. But it plays up financial issues and plays down social issues, as you might expect.
- growlist 8y ago
  That's a good suggestion actually, but still probably more anglosphere focused than I'd prefer.
cshenton 8y ago
The Economist is the closest thing I can think of. They seem to be doing fine so maybe it's a good business model.
- growlist 8y ago
  I'm still boycotting the Economist after they came out in support of the Iraq war!
mosselman 8y ago
> but that paper doesn't seem to exist. The reasons for this are plenty of course, but having to rely on advertisements for survival makes it hard to focus on facts. Instead you have to focus on sensationalist news in order to garner more views/clicks/readers in order to sell more advertisements.
- growlist 8y ago
  Even non-commercial BBC seems to be going clickbait, apparently scared to death of declining relevance.
tim333 8y ago
>stopped telling me how to think, speak and behave Well they don't directly usually say think this and given that there is 1000x stuff happening over what you can write up on a couple of pages it has to be filtered according to some view point. I'm not sure there's a way to do it with no bias.
adwhit 8y ago
Such a thing is not possible, because news is not neutral. Specifically, the decision of what is newsworthy is not neutral. I understand that certain US papers - NYT? - are considered mostly value-free in their reporting, but from my (left wing) perspective they appear highly ideological. I have some sympathy for UK newspaper attitudes that "we have a point of view and we're proud of it". The fact that they are all terrible rags written by the worst kind of hacks is a separate problem. As for sibling argument that the FT have no agenda, well, the clue is in the name. It's written for upper management. The fact that such people don't need or want their news as heavily filtered as their underlings is more an expression of the requirements of capital that anything else. Upper management can't afford ideological flights of fancy when they need to keep the system running.
- growlist 8y ago
  > Specifically, the decision of what is newsworthy is not neutral. Something of a defeatist position I would say: just because perfect neutrality is not possible, doesn't mean we cannot strive towards it, and even come close.

gmac 8y ago

The FT might be the closest? I recently switched from the Guardian. But it plays up financial issues and plays down social issues, as you might expect.

growlist 8y ago
That's a good suggestion actually, but still probably more anglosphere focused than I'd prefer.

cshenton 8y ago

The Economist is the closest thing I can think of. They seem to be doing fine so maybe it's a good business model.

growlist 8y ago
I'm still boycotting the Economist after they came out in support of the Iraq war!

mosselman 8y ago

> but that paper doesn't seem to exist. The reasons for this are plenty of course, but having to rely on advertisements for survival makes it hard to focus on facts. Instead you have to focus on sensationalist news in order to garner more views/clicks/readers in order to sell more advertisements.

growlist 8y ago
Even non-commercial BBC seems to be going clickbait, apparently scared to death of declining relevance.

tim333 8y ago

>stopped telling me how to think, speak and behave Well they don't directly usually say think this and given that there is 1000x stuff happening over what you can write up on a couple of pages it has to be filtered according to some view point. I'm not sure there's a way to do it with no bias.

adwhit 8y ago

Such a thing is not possible, because news is not neutral. Specifically, the decision of what is newsworthy is not neutral. I understand that certain US papers - NYT? - are considered mostly value-free in their reporting, but from my (left wing) perspective they appear highly ideological. I have some sympathy for UK newspaper attitudes that "we have a point of view and we're proud of it". The fact that they are all terrible rags written by the worst kind of hacks is a separate problem. As for sibling argument that the FT have no agenda, well, the clue is in the name. It's written for upper management. The fact that such people don't need or want their news as heavily filtered as their underlings is more an expression of the requirements of capital that anything else. Upper management can't afford ideological flights of fancy when they need to keep the system running.

growlist 8y ago
> Specifically, the decision of what is newsworthy is not neutral. Something of a defeatist position I would say: just because perfect neutrality is not possible, doesn't mean we cannot strive towards it, and even come close.