7 ms·

Any suggestions for a good neutral concise must-know news source?

by ctdonath 14y ago

richforrester 14y ago
news.ycombinator.com Could, not, resist.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  If you think that HN is neutral, need to know, or even concise, you're crazy. Though on the subject of neutrality, humans aren't neutral, so expecting their publications to be is itself insane.
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    Not neutral at all. I believe that certain companies have their employees come here to flag or to ^ certain stories. Maybe not organized, but it happens regardless. I have noticed stories go from being on top to page 3 within minutes, simply because it was bad PR for a certain online monopoly.
  - richforrester 14y ago
    Cheers. Crazy, or maybe just misinformed. Thanks for enlightening me. (no sarcasm) Guess I'll think twice before posting something positive about HN from now on.
    - ajdecon 14y ago
      There are a lot of positive things about HN, without it being "real news". The major value for me is that it is (often) interesting. I learn a lot here that helps me find new ways to think about technology and the web industry. But it is not: * neutral: there are some pretty obvious biases, though they aren't consistent * need-to-know: there's nothing I've learned on HN which has been strictly necessary to me, though there's a lot which was interesting * concise: the net information density is relatively low, than higher on many other discussion sites. (Low bar, I know...)
      - npsimons 14y ago
        It's really funny, because HN is much like slashdot at it's high point (I would argue it's even better). Many parallels exist; for example, people will claim "groupthink" (in this case "bias"), but minimize "inconsistencies" when they disprove their point. As for need to know, might I be so bold as to suggest that if you haven't learned anything of use at HN, perhaps it's not suited for your interests/profession?
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - unsignedint 14y ago
    The fact it's not neutral is probably why I'm coming back to it. I don't really keep track of general news, because they are very boring, and highly irreverent. (The only side I'm exposed about news is that people around me going nuts over what they heard in the news.) What comes up on HN to me, is more entertaining, and somewhat more relevant (I do run across the things once in a while that I could apply to what I do at my work.)
twerquie 14y ago
Though there is no such thing as a neutral source, http://www.nytimes.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/
- ams6110 14y ago
  You have got to be kidding
bbbhn 14y ago
No such thing as a neutral news source. The closet thing is a news aggregator which will expose you to a variety of different viewpoints. For US political news realclearpolitics.com is pretty good. They also aggregate news on other topics but I haven't explored those personally.
rurounijones 14y ago
I may be opening myself up to some flak here but I think it is generally accepted that the BBC is one of, if not the, least biased news source (Excepting climate change.) Some of my friends swear by Al-Jazeera for non Middle-East news
- bbbhn 14y ago
  Al Jazeera and BBC are both solidly on the left. I'm not disputing the quality of their reporting or the value of exposing oneself to their reporting, but you're fooling yourself if you think they're neutral.
  - jes5199 14y ago
    BBC looks right-wing from where I'm standing.
  - rurounijones 14y ago
    I agree that the organisations are on the left but as far as I can see (for the BBC, do not know al-jazeera) they do not let their organisational bias affect their reporting as much as other organisations.
  - vacri 14y ago
    "reality has a left-wing bias" The ABC (Australian version) gets comments that it's heavily left-wing, yet they have their own internal metrics that watch for evenness of opinion, and these have to match up with an external auditor. Of course no-one can be neutral about a subjective topic, but it's interesting that those news organisations with strong reputations for quality general-news reporting are always seen as 'left-wing rags'.
    - sien 14y ago
      Like The Economist? Are the ABC's internal metric's available? What about the audits? Their selection of journalists on current affairs shows is interesting though. Chris Uhlman's wife is an ALP MP, Barrie Cassidy was a Hawke staffer, Maxine McKew became an ALP member, Kerry O'Brien was a Whitlam staffer. It's almost like there is a pattern....
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Sadly, no such thing exists. One thing that I've found useful is to use wikipedia as a news source. It seems odd, but for big, complex events wikipedia often has the best overall coverage. Most news stories are just little bites which assume you're caught up contextually, or just don't care about context. Whereas wikipedia will usually do a much better job of providing all the information together. For example, take a look at this roundup of the current crisis over North Korea and compare it to contemporary news coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_North_Korean_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_North_Korean_crisis
- mmphosis 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
sien 14y ago
The Economist. It's not neutral. It's pro-market. But it is concise and if you just read it you'd be better informed than almost everyone.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  the other advantage of the Economist is that it only comes out once a week. I've gotten slack about reading it lately but I should just cut out the time I spend reading daily news. What you'll notice if you read the Economist regularly is that after a few months or a year you realize that virtually everything of consequence you see on the TV news or the front pages of daily newspapers (with the exception of truly surprising stuff) is stuff you already read about weeks previously.

Any suggestions for a good neutral concise must-know news source?

richforrester 14y ago

news.ycombinator.com Could, not, resist.

unimpressive 14y ago
If you think that HN is neutral, need to know, or even concise, you're crazy. Though on the subject of neutrality, humans aren't neutral, so expecting their publications to be is itself insane.
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  Not neutral at all. I believe that certain companies have their employees come here to flag or to ^ certain stories. Maybe not organized, but it happens regardless. I have noticed stories go from being on top to page 3 within minutes, simply because it was bad PR for a certain online monopoly.
- richforrester 14y ago
  Cheers. Crazy, or maybe just misinformed. Thanks for enlightening me. (no sarcasm) Guess I'll think twice before posting something positive about HN from now on.
  - ajdecon 14y ago
    There are a lot of positive things about HN, without it being "real news". The major value for me is that it is (often) interesting. I learn a lot here that helps me find new ways to think about technology and the web industry. But it is not: * neutral: there are some pretty obvious biases, though they aren't consistent * need-to-know: there's nothing I've learned on HN which has been strictly necessary to me, though there's a lot which was interesting * concise: the net information density is relatively low, than higher on many other discussion sites. (Low bar, I know...)
    - npsimons 14y ago
      It's really funny, because HN is much like slashdot at it's high point (I would argue it's even better). Many parallels exist; for example, people will claim "groupthink" (in this case "bias"), but minimize "inconsistencies" when they disprove their point. As for need to know, might I be so bold as to suggest that if you haven't learned anything of use at HN, perhaps it's not suited for your interests/profession?
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- unsignedint 14y ago
  The fact it's not neutral is probably why I'm coming back to it. I don't really keep track of general news, because they are very boring, and highly irreverent. (The only side I'm exposed about news is that people around me going nuts over what they heard in the news.) What comes up on HN to me, is more entertaining, and somewhat more relevant (I do run across the things once in a while that I could apply to what I do at my work.)

twerquie 14y ago

Though there is no such thing as a neutral source, http://www.nytimes.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/

ams6110 14y ago
You have got to be kidding

bbbhn 14y ago

No such thing as a neutral news source. The closet thing is a news aggregator which will expose you to a variety of different viewpoints. For US political news realclearpolitics.com is pretty good. They also aggregate news on other topics but I haven't explored those personally.

rurounijones 14y ago

I may be opening myself up to some flak here but I think it is generally accepted that the BBC is one of, if not the, least biased news source (Excepting climate change.) Some of my friends swear by Al-Jazeera for non Middle-East news

bbbhn 14y ago
Al Jazeera and BBC are both solidly on the left. I'm not disputing the quality of their reporting or the value of exposing oneself to their reporting, but you're fooling yourself if you think they're neutral.
- jes5199 14y ago
  BBC looks right-wing from where I'm standing.
- rurounijones 14y ago
  I agree that the organisations are on the left but as far as I can see (for the BBC, do not know al-jazeera) they do not let their organisational bias affect their reporting as much as other organisations.
- vacri 14y ago
  "reality has a left-wing bias" The ABC (Australian version) gets comments that it's heavily left-wing, yet they have their own internal metrics that watch for evenness of opinion, and these have to match up with an external auditor. Of course no-one can be neutral about a subjective topic, but it's interesting that those news organisations with strong reputations for quality general-news reporting are always seen as 'left-wing rags'.
  - sien 14y ago
    Like The Economist? Are the ABC's internal metric's available? What about the audits? Their selection of journalists on current affairs shows is interesting though. Chris Uhlman's wife is an ALP MP, Barrie Cassidy was a Hawke staffer, Maxine McKew became an ALP member, Kerry O'Brien was a Whitlam staffer. It's almost like there is a pattern....

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Sadly, no such thing exists. One thing that I've found useful is to use wikipedia as a news source. It seems odd, but for big, complex events wikipedia often has the best overall coverage. Most news stories are just little bites which assume you're caught up contextually, or just don't care about context. Whereas wikipedia will usually do a much better job of providing all the information together. For example, take a look at this roundup of the current crisis over North Korea and compare it to contemporary news coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_North_Korean_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_North_Korean_crisis

mmphosis 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

sien 14y ago

The Economist. It's not neutral. It's pro-market. But it is concise and if you just read it you'd be better informed than almost everyone.

anigbrowl 14y ago
the other advantage of the Economist is that it only comes out once a week. I've gotten slack about reading it lately but I should just cut out the time I spend reading daily news. What you'll notice if you read the Economist regularly is that after a few months or a year you realize that virtually everything of consequence you see on the TV news or the front pages of daily newspapers (with the exception of truly surprising stuff) is stuff you already read about weeks previously.