3 ms·

cnn sucks. fox sucks. msnbc sucks. local news is all managed by sinclair to say the exact same thing. what's worth consuming? ap, reuters, npr?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rabuse 4y ago
Honestly, I'm so burnt out from the sensationalizing of everything, I don't even care about news anymore. If it doesn't affect me directly (although, even it if does, the hell can I realistically do?), then I just don't care anymore.
- icelancer 4y ago
  I think the uncharitable self-interpretation of this feeling is "burn out" or "not caring" when it might be more accurately described as more responsible information consumption. It's not like we've always had this unfettered access to global heartbreak and problems we can't do anything about plus a responsibility to consume it. The idea that we have to pay attention to everything in the world every minute of the day else we're terrible civil servants is a relatively new phenomenon... and not one that I think is particularly productive, or valid.
  - wccrawford 4y ago
    But it's coupled with the problem that you either consume all the news as the media wants you to, or you cut yourself off almost completely. It's hard to find any news sources that only bring you relevant news, instead of attempting to flood you 24/7 with literally anything that's happening. The closest I've come is to ignore standard news media and be informed via things that filter in through friends, co-workers, and non-standard news sites like HN. I'd love to be better informed of what's going on, but I refuse to subject myself to the firehose.
    - asdff 4y ago
      IMO its good to consider what is personally relevant to you. For example if you are into local news, maybe instead of following the local paper you read city departmental press releases and other information they put out to the public instead. The stuff the journalist would be reading themselves when they are writing out the story on that stuff. A lot of this public info stuff can be followed via rss or email newsletters too.
- dageshi 4y ago
  Especially in politics, when everything is blown up to be the end of the world then the actual stuff that might be worth taking note of is buried in the noise. I came to the conclusion the only time it's probably worth checking up on news or historic news is before an election, that has some value. Otherwise ignore it. Anything truly important will reach you anyway.
cowmoo728 4y ago
There just isn't enough important news to fill up 24 hours. I prefer PBS Newshour because they carefully pick and research the stories they do to maximize what they can cover in 1 hour per day.
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  Agreed about Newshour. they may have a left bias but they report facts and not just mostly opinion like most other channels.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
Trump indirectly ruined NPR they put a good faith effort into acting impartial before but they gave that up.
- Grim-444 4y ago
  Interestingly there's what I perceive as a large percentage of people that would argue that NPR is overall very unbiased. One thought experiment I would propose for those people is that if you find yourself overwhelmingly agreeing with nearly everything that a source presents, that itself is proof of extreme bias in that source. An impartial, unbiased, source would present you with different, and often conflicting opinions. It would give a -good faith- attempt to present both/all sides of an issue. It would cover the grey areas of issues and not just make every issue binary, black and white. You would find yourself agreeing with some content and disagreeing with other content. Every story shouldn't be you just nodding along in agreement as they bash your political/societal 'opponents'.
sn0w_crash 4y ago
The Information has been pretty good Try it
ultramegachurch 4y ago
> what's worth consuming? Nothing. I'm a firm believer that even checking the news daily is a waste of time and energy. I'm a former news junky but had a change of heart when I realized it was worsening my anxiety and depression with actually zero return on investment. Everyone is different, of course. But if you haven't tried it before, quit the news for two weeks. It might change your life.
- buzzert 4y ago
  Some great reading material on this: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
forinti 4y ago
I find Aljazeera, DW, and TV5 to be the most serious news channels lately (although I barely watch anymore). I really liked the morning news on TV5 because they kept it light (my local news channel thinks I want to watch murder scenes while I eat my cereal).
selecsosi 4y ago
Democracy Now I've always found to be one of the highest quality daily news sources, presented with an open but transparent bias and large swath of international news coverage not covered by more traditional broadcast platform
xoxxala 4y ago
I've personally found the BBC, The Guardian and Aljazeera to be less awful than the rest. (Websites, at least, I don't TV).
clamprecht 4y ago
I came here to ask this in a different way. I'm willing to pay for accurate news. What do rich people or companies use as a news source? People who really need/want to know what's happening in the world, and how it affects them, but without the clickbait style news.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rabuse 4y ago

Honestly, I'm so burnt out from the sensationalizing of everything, I don't even care about news anymore. If it doesn't affect me directly (although, even it if does, the hell can I realistically do?), then I just don't care anymore.

icelancer 4y ago
I think the uncharitable self-interpretation of this feeling is "burn out" or "not caring" when it might be more accurately described as more responsible information consumption. It's not like we've always had this unfettered access to global heartbreak and problems we can't do anything about plus a responsibility to consume it. The idea that we have to pay attention to everything in the world every minute of the day else we're terrible civil servants is a relatively new phenomenon... and not one that I think is particularly productive, or valid.
- wccrawford 4y ago
  But it's coupled with the problem that you either consume all the news as the media wants you to, or you cut yourself off almost completely. It's hard to find any news sources that only bring you relevant news, instead of attempting to flood you 24/7 with literally anything that's happening. The closest I've come is to ignore standard news media and be informed via things that filter in through friends, co-workers, and non-standard news sites like HN. I'd love to be better informed of what's going on, but I refuse to subject myself to the firehose.
  - asdff 4y ago
    IMO its good to consider what is personally relevant to you. For example if you are into local news, maybe instead of following the local paper you read city departmental press releases and other information they put out to the public instead. The stuff the journalist would be reading themselves when they are writing out the story on that stuff. A lot of this public info stuff can be followed via rss or email newsletters too.
dageshi 4y ago
Especially in politics, when everything is blown up to be the end of the world then the actual stuff that might be worth taking note of is buried in the noise. I came to the conclusion the only time it's probably worth checking up on news or historic news is before an election, that has some value. Otherwise ignore it. Anything truly important will reach you anyway.

cowmoo728 4y ago

There just isn't enough important news to fill up 24 hours. I prefer PBS Newshour because they carefully pick and research the stories they do to maximize what they can cover in 1 hour per day.

spaetzleesser 4y ago
Agreed about Newshour. they may have a left bias but they report facts and not just mostly opinion like most other channels.

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

Trump indirectly ruined NPR they put a good faith effort into acting impartial before but they gave that up.

Grim-444 4y ago
Interestingly there's what I perceive as a large percentage of people that would argue that NPR is overall very unbiased. One thought experiment I would propose for those people is that if you find yourself overwhelmingly agreeing with nearly everything that a source presents, that itself is proof of extreme bias in that source. An impartial, unbiased, source would present you with different, and often conflicting opinions. It would give a -good faith- attempt to present both/all sides of an issue. It would cover the grey areas of issues and not just make every issue binary, black and white. You would find yourself agreeing with some content and disagreeing with other content. Every story shouldn't be you just nodding along in agreement as they bash your political/societal 'opponents'.

sn0w_crash 4y ago

The Information has been pretty good Try it

ultramegachurch 4y ago

> what's worth consuming? Nothing. I'm a firm believer that even checking the news daily is a waste of time and energy. I'm a former news junky but had a change of heart when I realized it was worsening my anxiety and depression with actually zero return on investment. Everyone is different, of course. But if you haven't tried it before, quit the news for two weeks. It might change your life.

buzzert 4y ago
Some great reading material on this: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

forinti 4y ago

I find Aljazeera, DW, and TV5 to be the most serious news channels lately (although I barely watch anymore). I really liked the morning news on TV5 because they kept it light (my local news channel thinks I want to watch murder scenes while I eat my cereal).

selecsosi 4y ago

Democracy Now I've always found to be one of the highest quality daily news sources, presented with an open but transparent bias and large swath of international news coverage not covered by more traditional broadcast platform

xoxxala 4y ago

I've personally found the BBC, The Guardian and Aljazeera to be less awful than the rest. (Websites, at least, I don't TV).

clamprecht 4y ago

I came here to ask this in a different way. I'm willing to pay for accurate news. What do rich people or companies use as a news source? People who really need/want to know what's happening in the world, and how it affects them, but without the clickbait style news.