Where does Sup Forums get their news?

Where does Sup Forums get their news?

Other urls found in this thread:

cor.ax
infowars.com/
caravantomidnight.com/
powerhournation.com/
michaelsavage.com/
trunews.com/
yourweekendshow.com/
ronpaullibertyreport.com/
freedomainradio.com/
landdestroyer.blogspot.com/
veritasnews.com/
cryptome.org/
twitter.com/unclechangnyc/status/853067957538365440?lang=en
n-gate.com/
teletext.ch/
twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/913092714366828576).
slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/11/25/apple_pie_at_thanksgiving_wrong.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Sup Forums

reddit

>BBC that high
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

9gag

wunderground

>wall street journal costs approx 36 eur a month
who the fuck pays that for a newspaper?

reuters.com
dpa

This.

This but unironically.

Sup Forums

>NPR not in top bubble

>minimum partisan bias

Haha, most of that middle bubble is left as fuck.
Don't try to sell your shitty news sources as moderate, you lefty trash.

Your image is quite good starting point

I have been recently following France24's English news youtube channel. I like it.

Just because something isn't ridiculous breitbart misinformation, doesn't make it left

This but unironically.

you have 10 seconds and no more than 3 green arrows to explain why it should be

this

this

I don't bother with the news.

If I want to know what's what again, I might compile a list of official sources (like government websites, UN, etc.) and cut out the middle man

>CNN
>better than not reading news at all
lol

I don't.
I literally don't give a fuck.
Nothing is going to change.
News to keep the goy busy.

I don't usually read world news, but when I do, I combine multiple sources of opposite views from different countries and make my own conclusion based on that.

WSJ, BBC, NYT, WP and aljazeera should be in shit-tier with CNN

this desu

Sup Forums, ScienceDaily and Hackernews obv

>minimal partisan bias
>AP fact checked Trump and called itself fake news just to shit on him
>Reuters/NYT/BBC/CBS did similar and worse fuckups
just wew
At least it doesn't pretend Breitbart et al are ok
It makes it left when you fact check Trump "acid wash" as complete lies because Hillary used a computer program
Also, literally all of those shitty mainstream sites bought into pushing Saddam WMD's and Assad chem weapons narrative despite having zero evidence about it, just because good ol' government told them
None of the sites in the middle have any journalistic integrity
This is how you do acceptable news but it's so fucking expensive time wise it's usually not worth it

when i want a laugh i just read RT and then Wapo, they're a never ending source of humor

The media was told a lie by the president, his chief of staffs, the pentagon, the fbi/cia, etc.

This was done under a Republican leadership. The same thing is happening with the Trump "leadership", except now its just Trump and his cronies. The Pentagon is not buying it. The CIA/FBI are not buying it. The Justice Department isn't buying it. Only one buying is the Fox News and the other extreme right aggregators.

I don't see how these views can be so derivative. Isn't the news just supposed to quote people and directly relate events to the public in a timely manner so as to keep them informed? I realize that in a lot of circumstances it's possible to put a bent on a subject either way by exaggerating certain facts and under-reporting others but can you do much more outside an Op-Ed piece, really? And more importantly is it so hard to disseminate the fact from the overlying fiction and see the narrative for what it is behind the thin veil the media tries to cast?

I get not wanting to support outlets that blatantly lean for one side or the next, but most people seem upset that they're too dumb to discern the opinion from fact.

If those are the complex and analytical ones oh boi. There can be no truly good traditional papers/sites because they would not be able to make money (or their money source is the fucking goverment).

If you insist on traditional, the better you can do is to pay what is basically a private intelligence organization so maybe at least they put something besides ad audience retard bait in what they write. Don't have experience with this. Possible it is shit too.

Of course the best way is to subscribe to the sources yourself but in practice you can only do that in specific domains you're interested in. You're interested in space? Then you subscribe to the press release pages of all major space agencies, major corporations, but also the individuals who are in it. I don't know but probably fucking Scott Manley is a better source for space news than science and technology sections in mainstream news.

To ease the task you can go unconventional and be part of relatively fringe communities who are interested in news (like this one) so maybe you'll find some interesting shit in the sea of shit. Ultimately, to defeat mental influence you have to trade your time and that sucks.

Just within single event, it's possible to selectively cover and not cover so much that it really does warp perception. Especially considering that media stages events too (staging of fake protest groups by major outlets literally did happen), it makes it really powerful. Even without staging, there are so many self proclaimed "experts" that by selectively giving them voice you can change so much. Also blatant lying does exist these days.

Fox News is misplaced.

Fair and Balanced! Obama is a kenyan muslim.

This mentality is why newspapers these days are so unreliable. If we don't pay, Soros will
>aljazeera
>reliable
where the fuck do you live

Assad happened under the Obama regime dumb redditor

cor.ax

In what fucking universe do CNN and the New York Times have no partisan bias?

bait pic

Does anyone else see goatse in the picture?

Sup Forums,
/r/linux,
hackernews,
and a bunch of rss feeds

world news is too depressing, and local news is too boring

>slate
>vox

>liberal skew but still reputable

nope

I don't use any news org. anymore. All the news I get is from the No Agenda podcast twice a week.

>Sup Forums and HN
How the hell do you manage the ultra right views of Sup Forums and the ultra SV liberal views on HN????

>the personal who made put in Fiscal Times (a literally who? blog) but not Financial Times (the second most widely read daily financial paper in English speaking world)

dropped

Your employer pays for it if you work in finance.

>the economist
>conservative

The Economist is traditionally considered centre-right to mainstream right-wing with strong dislike for (unnecessary) government intervention in financial markets.

It's just that the American conservative narrative moved so far right, conservative media elsewhere now seems liberal.

They are socially very liberal

stallman.org

>vox

From an outsider's perspective (non-USAin), I would judge both CNN and WaPo to "skew liberal". Am I mistaken?

Prefer to get my news from Reuters and AP.

no, you are not mistaken, they are both quite left leaning and the author of OP's pic is biased.

This but ironically.

Maybe the author of the infographic is old. I remember that CNN used to be very well regarded in the 90's, but went downhill steadily after the turn of the century. Kinda sad.

rt?

Fox news seems to be missing.
Take this shit back to Sup Forums

this but ironically unironically.

>new york times
>unbiased great source of news

seriously
>state owned source
>licenses telitubbies to NK

says right at the bottom 2016 tho.

Sup Forums

Russia Today, basically Russian state propaganda

Not him but I'm guessing they balance out. Makes sense actually

The fuck are you talking about? Look at the line between "Skews Conservative" and "Hyper-Partisan Conservative"

>RT
>russian state propaganda
>better than reading nothing

>brietbart
>not in poor-quality garbage section

>buzzfeed
>not in poor-quality garbage section

Man, and how the fuck is Vice news not all the way over to the left. Their news is literally "get high and fuck anything that moves".

Reuters.com for text and C-Span radio for audio, social media for static images. Nothing for audio-visual contents.

underrated

The author, you fucking retard. Learn to read.

TorrentFreak, would like to know more places to learn about zeros days as quick as possible

>getting your news from a virtual boy controller
???

NPR (KUHF Houston) on the radio in the mornings for local news and liberal skew, BBC for written articles and limey skew.

infowars.com/
caravantomidnight.com/
powerhournation.com/
michaelsavage.com/
trunews.com/
yourweekendshow.com/
ronpaullibertyreport.com/
freedomainradio.com/
landdestroyer.blogspot.com/
veritasnews.com/
cryptome.org/

>Ctrl-f: dailystormer, therightstuff, fashthenation, drudgereport, vdare
>0 out of 0

wow you're all boring as shit

I thought dailystormer.cat was satire? that site can't be real

Here ya go

This. Especially CNN.

>lurk daily, post often
Sup Forums, Sup Forums, /sci/, imageboards from my cunt, slashdot, soylentnews

>have on rss, read occasionally
rt, yomiuri, nhk, the economist, folha de sp, le figaro, gazeta.ru

How hard is it to just report the facts and not virtue signal?
I want to read the news not some nu male frappe drinking pussy's interpretation of the news.

a liberal's mind

Infowars and Sup Forums

>Vox "in depth"
>Info Wars even being considered news, not satire
Were they even trying?

>too young realize rt was reporting on bush wars and was the choice of hardcore leftist
>trump is elected and suddenly it's "right wing" even though it's anti-all wars, neo-conservativism, anti-"rebels", pro iranian, and anti-israel
how do you people even breath the air?

>muh state run propaganda
the western governments have been paying mainstream media to spread their propaganda for decades now. from iraq war until now with deep state being anti-trump to the point of insanity? who think rt is right wing/muh propaganda should get sterilized

thats still a thing?

Not but Sup Forums is just good at finding sources.

I mostly read The Economist and listen to a daily news segment from the BBC.

NPR is not very in depth, at least from what I can tell. They have great reporting but little analysis.

Very liberal is a stretch, I'd say.

Besides
Economics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Social "Issues"

>cspan
honestly the most honest journalism around.
>fake news people
reminder that if ((they)) didn't want you to know something they wouldn't tell you. And if both sides are telling you things you want or they want you to hear, and you choose sides, your probably the one being played by both.

>Economist
>skews conservative
>owned by a Rothschild

This is correct. They are sophists.

They're nothing if pro-market. These days you could probably call them neoliberal.

>Vox
>reputable

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no. If you word filter "white" with "jew" on their site and find that you have literal Nazi propaganda, it's not reputable.
twitter.com/unclechangnyc/status/853067957538365440?lang=en

that byline is true though

n-gate.com/ and teletext.ch/ exclusively.

That image was created by somebody with a blatant left leaning bias.

>Neutral sources that aren't neutral at all
>The "oh it's from England so it must be neutral" idea is embarrassing also

The guardian is an absolute shitshow of lefty mental illness and the BBC has especially jumped headfirst into the lefty dogma toilet in recent years.

>Putting daily caller in with infowars
Seriously, retarded image.

>Isn't the news just supposed to quote people

simply quoting donald trump is often seen as biased because he contradicts himself so much and says such bombastic things. add in basic fact checking and repeating anything trump says is considered leftwing propaganda.

let's take tax reform as an example. trump says that he will not personally benefit from his tax plan (video here twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/913092714366828576). there is no way to 100% verify this since trump has repeatedly promised to release his tax records over the years and has never done so. but based on the financial information that is available on trump, it is clear this statement is false and trump and his family will massively benefit from his tax plan.

>CNN
>NY Times
>Washington Post
>Minimal partisan bias
I'm not even all that political, but come on. That's blatantly false.

Also:
>Slate
>Not Clickbait tier
Pic related. Source: slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/11/25/apple_pie_at_thanksgiving_wrong.html

"Economically right but socially left" is a retarded bro meme that needs to die. You can't pay lip service to equality then be in favor of policy which reinforces existing inequality while only benefitting a small subset of the population.

But it's 1 misleading and 2 shows a double standard. A headline that read "Black American men age 14-35, 4% of the population, 50+% of the murders" would cause riots and public outrage over racism.

This but unironically.