I generally try to stay informed on current events. With the exception of what gets posted here, I normally get my news from CNN. I tend to lean left politically, but not always.
The problem I always run into is that every news site I read, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, is always filled with pointless bullshit. Specifically, sports, celebrity news, and product placement. “Some shitty pop singer is dating some shitty actor” or “These are our recommendations for the best mass-produced garbage-quality fast fashion from Temu” or “Some overpaid dickhead threw a ball faster than some other overpaid dickhead.”
What I’d love to find is a news source that’s just news that matters. No celebrity gossip, sports, opinion pieces, etc. Just real events that have an impact on some part of the world. Legislation, natural events, economic changes, wars, political changes, that kind of thing.
Does this exist, or is all journalism just entertainment?
I recommend news agencies* like Reuters, AP, and AFP. If you want to just get pure news.
*News agencies are companies that primarily sell news to other companies like CNN.
I’ve had great experiences with reading socialist news sites. They tend not to care about ‘the spectacle’ and don’t like ads. Although you still have to avoid the ones like WSWS who just use it as a platform to call other socialists ‘pseudo-left’.
Side note: There’s a great famous analysis of the US media in the book Manufacturing Consent. You can find a PDF online, but at the very very very least you should read the Wikipedia summary. It explains the reasons why media organisations almost inevitably have some of these biases and bullshits.
WSWS?
“World Socialist Web Site”, the paper of the Socialist Equality Party (who, in my personal experience, are toxic idealists who will counterprotest pickets and any union action whatsoever)
I can recommend Reuters, given it still has a little bit of sports and opinion, but I find it’s good at providing neutral facts and sources it’s knowledge from appropriate experts for its opinion pieces.
It only lacks in providing local level news, where I turn to my country’s national broadcaster.
Seconding Reuters. Their primary customers are other news agencies, so Reuters generally don’t add spin to a news article.
I guess AP is similar.
IIRC those are like the big two in reselling stories.
Yep, they are called news agencies.
Thank you!
Apparently “Agence France-Presse” or AFP is the third one, at least if you speak French.
providing neutral facts and sources it’s knowledge from appropriate experts for its opinion pieces.
Such as Adrian Zenz. A guy who was paid by the BBC to make up absurd stories about China and who thinks god sent him on a mission to rid the world of gays and communists.
Sounds like you’re looking for independent journalism, I’m in the same boat. I’ve found checking commondreams.org, scheerpost.com, therealnews.com, unicornriot.ninja, fair.org, thecanary.co, leftvoice.org, consortiumnews.com, labornotes.org, and popularresistance.org/news make for a great news feed. Those are an array of independent news outlets which keep it almost entirely just news. Setting up an RSS feed with these sites would be a solid move to ensure your getting news with none of the BS.
I’m having a hard time getting their URL feeds. I think your post is very useful. Since you mentioned the RSS feed, could you share the links, please? It would be awesome if you can spare the time. Thanks.
I just use radindiemedia.com as my source for these news feeds. It’s curated by an activist who also mixes in some of his work as well as a few other news sources. But those sites make up the vast majority of the links.
Oh, that’s it. Thank you very much.
I would add Grist to that list for climate focused reporting.
deleted by creator
News is a service that determines what’s newsworthy and summarizes it. You can’t do that without bias at some level.
Every news agency will have an inherent bias. There is no such thing as purely objective news without a perspective. However, you can learn to identify the biases, cross reference news with different sources, especially ones from different countries to see other perspectives, and then think about the topics yourself to get a deeper understanding.
This is the way. It’s a ton off work and often, you have to be willing to be wrong about what you thought you knew going into a subject. Approaching news from multiple perspectives reveals your own biases too.
The perfect news source for me would be a single, trustworthy aggregator that showed me several perspectives on every story, all in the same place. That doesn’t exist though.
there are some attempts like ground.news but I agree they leave a lot to be desired and tend to completely ignore non western sources
All media are biased. Some are open about their bias (communist media) and some are not (Wikipedia says it’s “neutral” but there’s a catch). Western media are all very polular and one-sided so I recommend reading english.news.cn.
AlJazeera
Generally just use multiple sources, I used Ground News for quite a while.
Every news outlet will have their biases, that is completely normal everyone has biases, even when you have multiple people reviewing the content, only a fraud will tell you they’re completely unbiased. So just seek multiple sources, preferably from also multiple countries and languages when applicable.
I like to listen to NPR’s up first. They don’t have too much time to editorialized. I’ll then go to AP or Reuters if I want to follow up on something.
Before cable news and before there was such an appetite for political news, real news sources were very diverse. Every newspaper had a sports section and an entertainment section. Also opinion was in the opinion or op-ed section. Nowadays I’m more leary of news sources that are strictly political news. Everyone has a Washington DC correspondent. Lots of news sites will buy all of their news outside of DC from a wire service or even sometimes their story is “reporting” what another agency is reporting. Maybe I’m just old and set in my ways but I prefer the traditional well rounded sources. Others just seem cheap and have an agenda
everyone has and always had an agenda.
Aside from that, generally I can agree, the commodification of news and profit-seeking, as often is the case, have ruined everything.
1440 is what I use. It’s literally bare-bones news articles devoid of any opinion, just facts. They cover both US and international news, and have small culture and sports blips that aren’t click-baity. And it’s emailed to you every day. :)
I’ve not read 1440 at all, so this may or may not apply, but I’d offer a word of caution to any news that purports to be “just facts”. You can absolutely promote an agenda with only facts by choosing which facts to publish (and what stories to even cover). It’s sometimes better to aim to get news from sources that are just very transparent about their biases instead of claiming they don’t have any.
I don’t think it’s better to go for highly biased news at all, I don’t care what the reporter thinks or feels about the facts, I just want them. The overtly biased news outlets are filled to the brim with opinion. If there are facts a story is leaving out, it will eventually get to me through the absolute garbage microphone that is social media, and I can check out the sources from there.
All news has a bias, some news just doesn’t tell you what their bias is. I’m not advocating for intentionally aiming for biased news, I’m advocating for knowing what the bias of the author/editor of the story is, so that when you read it, you know what conclusion they might be trying to lead you to. Even if a journalist tries their best to be impartial, that’s not possible, and like I said, it’s very easy to tell a one sided story with exclusively facts.
deleted by creator
DW gets my vote
