In this post-truth media landscape, what news sources/publications do you use & trust the most, and why?
AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Guardian
This helps:
Reuters lied about Maccabi supporters attacking Dutch people instead of the other way around and manufactured fake outrage about pogroms.
Reuters also said they confirmed oct7 rape footage evidence which turned out to be a lie because it does not exist.
None in isolation.
CBC is a pretty reliable go-to although they’re more than a bit pandering these days. BBC is similar. Al Jazeera is pretty reliable for things not related to Islam and Palestine in particular (although they’re not as biased as they could be). AP is fairly neutral. Aside from that, it’s non-legacy Canadian sources like the Walrus and the Tyee, which all have their problems but are good at exposing reality.
Dropsitenews
DemocracyNow!
Mintpressnews
Theintercept
KenKlippenstein
Jacobin
Why? Because they have not spread pro Israel propaganda without doing a minute amount fact checking. Or worse, straight up lying for Israel.
There are a few, such as TheGuardian, which have spread massive Israeli propaganda for a year. They have recently turned around tried to put the mask back on. But they have already shown their true face.
deleted by creator
I feel like their bias is to simply not cover things they do not want to show.
But the reason I find them more credible is because they are able to provide sources and not quote their own random anonymous journalists. If I can check the sources I can verify claims.
For my mental health’s sake, I don’t watch any news source.
As others have said no one source should have blanket trust.
Understanding the bias the source may have by looking up who owns/funds it and understanding how that might skew what you’re reading is important.
For news based on studies I usually will try to directly to the study which should list the methodology which will help show how well done it was.
If I have time later I’ll put together a list of ones I use and what I’ve seen as their biases.
None. When was the last time you saw an actual headline not click-bait?
News is not about issues anymore - since the advent of 24 hr TV last century - It’s about filling time until the next exposé about Meghan frigging Markle, or some influencer of zero repute who overdosed.
Peoplesdispatch is one I put high trust into but all reporting is inherently biased and should be read with an understanding of its biases. I also like the Al Jazeera and Jacobin but both of those can be hit or miss sometimes. Especially the Jacobin lmao
BBC
The ABC
Guardian
Democracy Now
CBC
NPR
Basically anyone who is getting removeded at for not towing the line
Democracy now!!! Yas.
Good collection. I like just kinda getting a grasp on what the biase is and holding it loosely.
I like cbc its public etc. Pretty balanced. Yet we also know it is neo-liberal and likely to indulge a bit far on some gender politics etc. I agree, having several outlets is important.
None. I get my news from 4chan.
I’ve stopped paying attention to what any regular news source says about anything themselves since it is all basically profit driven and therefore unreliable. Rather I just pay attention to sources where I can see what is said or done from the horses mouth directly, and then pay attention to people’s reactions to such things.
These are usually few and far between, but I’m talking about what was written or said by specific persons with the clear source of it coming from their personally verified outlets.
I also wait on this information before thinking too much about it as well because god knows if someone catches something out for being AI generated or a deepfake or what have you in this day and age. After a few days it gains some actual credibility as coming from that person and being the genuine article.
It is also important to still not trust what any one person says about something else as well, or even multiple persons. I can never really trust what is said by anyone as facts anymore - rather this only gives insight into that specific persons opinions on the other thing.
In the face of mountains of clear evidence and individually verified sources from many multiple persons - then and only then can I begin to trust something as fact.
Why should I trust Ground News, a for-profit company, on what the media biases are?
I get what you’re saying. However, their entire business model is predicated on them being impartial. If it turned out that they were biased, their business would collapse.
That’s only true up to a certain size. If Ground News ever grows big, they’ll still retain enough of a user base regardless of what they’re doing. Compare it to e.g. Meta, Google, MS services. Or even X. Many people just never leave once they feel at home there. Meta could do even more disgusting stuff and people would still use WhatsApp, Instagram, and the likes.
BBC and CBC. They’re not unbiased, but I haven’t found any better.
I don’t trust a particular source. I sorta trust GroundNews to at least show me the bias and give me less-overtly-biased alternatives. Otherwise I am more trustful in general (but don’t fully trust) investigative journalism orgs like ProPublica, independent journalists like Ken Klippenstein, etc.
No single source. I like how Verity collates the facts and the spins from multiple sources across the web.
I extend more trust if I see consistent stories across multiple sources. If one is reporting something and no one else is, I question why.
