News Websites

Hey Sup Forums, what's your go-to news site and why? How'd you rate the BBC - redpilled or no? Also general news thread, I guess.

Other urls found in this thread:

timebomb2000.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?9-Timebomb2000&s=
spidr.today/
businessinsider.com/stratfor-has-11-chilling-predictions-for-what-the-world-will-look-like-a-decade-from-now-2015-6
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Anyone who gets their news from one source is an idiot.

Tell me about where you normally get your news then, user.

timebomb2000.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?9-Timebomb2000&s=

abc, guardian, s mh, news.com.au, brietbart, fox, rt, etc

Actually, I buy the Guardian from the shops when I have the cash. Only one I'd probably question you on is Fox, thought they were shitbags? Correct me if I'm wrong, mate

>Guardian
Kill yourself

right here my man

Nuuuu u biatch

gtfo shitposter, unless you put in the literal 10 seconds of thought it takes to explain your option, i give zero shits mate

Sup Forums for modern discussion

primary sources for history

Everything else is Jew controlled

TheRebel.media probably the best redpilled news source in Canada

in order of importance to me.

NPR

New York Times

Washington Post

BBC World

CNN

i give zero shits mate

>2016
>actually unironically buying paper press
Tip-top fucking kek

news.google.com

use aggregators not news sites noob

Drudge is my first and foremost aggregator. One of the biggest reasons for people realizing media narrative and Donald Trump's popularity.

I go to National Review for Armond White and to shitpost about the cucks they are.

>news

yeah thats some good stuff already.

i woud add:
Breitebart, Zerohedge, Infowars, TRS, Radix, r/politics

I like to draw in my spare time, and I think it's quality banter to draw shit on politicians in newspapers, also prefer the feel of paper in my hands. Bonus: them puzzle sections mate

Tell me a little bit about the NPR? New to me

Unfortunately it's just another Jewish news outlet. It's essentially aimed at the Goyim who slip past the first net of mainstream media.

>rpolitics
>reddit
kys
kys

> r/politics

Nice bait

Do you know any good mobile news apps that let you pick your own sources? Sony News Suite sucks penis.

Reuters and Sup Forums

So you are a raging liberal.

I look at most major newsites. The trick is learning the bias of each and reading between the lines. Only then can you get a small portion of truth.

Honestly? Sup Forums

You have to take everything you read here with a massive grain of salt - demand multiple sources, demand details, etc, and even then it could be fake or biased.


But Sup Forums always breaks the news first.

Interesting shit, user. Might follow your example.

Agree and disagree - I come to Sup Forums to get afterthoughts, not breaking news. Like you said, you need to read it with that massive grain of salt, but there's enough salt already here when you mention muslims/women/anything even slightly controversial. Out of curiosity, what's your brief political views mate?

All english language media is shit. Used to respect NYT until quickly learned its biased money whore with no concious and selfrespect.

In ters of from less shitty to more shitty would be BBC > CNN > FOX

British media are slightly better than american, with BBC and Guardian SOMETIMES trying not to be complete crap - but mostly failing.

US only had CNN as respected international media, but its beyound salvaging now

Reading mostly german Zeit and Spiegel since its fun reading shameless propaganda and from their articles can see how the Lugenpresse narrative sways with each order from above - litterally reprinting same articles at same time, or omiting same stuff until claring what the "official reaction" should be.

Other than that - forums that monitor news for specific topics that interest me (like war in Syria/Ukraine) that gather all available info/articles/updates from all sources, and Sup Forums as main sourc of "happenings" often before it news (or rather not to bother to check the sourced media manually since it`ll get posted here - be it RT or Fox or whatever).

Russian media only follow the news tickers like Lenta.ru and Ria.ru where you can just get basic info without "opinions".

Ukrainian pravda.com.ua and censor.net.ua - since reading the parallel crazy reality "news" is entertaining like reading Alice in Wonderland

NPR is National Public Radio. Its honestly one of the few news sources left in America that is not completely fucked over.

They do old school investigative journalism, one on one interviews and round table discussions. Their morning and evening news shows are amazing, as is Market Place, and the Diane Rehme Show.

Much of their filler is hippy clap trap though. But seriously, if you want actual intelligent political discussion...

drshow.org

I don't look at the news for the editorial content. I look at the news for the news. I can make my own opinions based on that. NPR and the New York Times are still independent producers of content, and their actual hard news is better presented and is not trying to force feed an agenda.

lol you do a great job selling me on it user, will deffo check it out at some point, thank you

good response mate, enjoyed reading that.

worst datamining thread ever

SAGE

Daily Mail for the shits, BBC for the big stories and Breitbart for less reported pieces and to check if BBC has been missing stuff out/twisting the narrative.

BBC, Independent, Jacobin, RT.

This.

It's the [CURRENT YEAR] get with the times.

>replying to data mining threads with anything other than sage and junk info

>How'd you rate the BBC
Zionist agenda feeding goyim blue pills.

CNN used to be alright but I think they are tired of low ratings and have gotten pretty out of control on the left lately.

just asking people's opinions mate, don't get your tits in a twist

Sorry Mi5 I mean nothing is going on here

I get my news from your dad after he watches me fuck his wife

Unironically Sup Forums. I really don't give a shit about the news unless it's so important that there is a thread about it.

>buying the guardian

Kill yourself.

BBC is bluepilled as fawk

pic related

you think so? normally i don't sense any zionism in their articles

RT and RT only

Pretty much every site that isn't far left or far right.

timesofisrael
jpost
haaretz

>the Guardian
Fuck off.

>using one source only
I like RT even though their obvious Russia bias.
Been having troubles with their website on my PC for a while though.

>They do old school investigative journalism
Yeah, it's not the clickbait trash that most media outlets do nowadays, but it's mostly advocacy journalism. Most of their (((investigations))) are set up to to generate sympathy for women/minorities/fags and make whites/men/Christians look like the bad guys.

Drudge Report
The Daily Stormer
Amren.com
Breitbart.com
infowars.com

>NPR
>New York Times
>Washington Post
>BBC World
>CNN
Are you trying to sound impressive or are you a neo-con/liberal?

One of my fav quotes from the late academic Chalmers Johnson is: "The NYT is like pravda now; you don't read it for the news, you read it for the lies."

there is not a single trustworthy news source there.

The order news is:
>FOR UNBIASED WORLD NEWS- antiwar.com (a non-profit, up for 20 yrs, run by a libertarian solely on conations

> FOR FASTEST NEWS- RT. always keep the Rt alert on, sometimes they break stories literally an hour before the Western media picks it up

> FOR IN DEPTH NEWS- UK Daily mail. You probably think I'm joking or I'm White Trash. i'm neither. they are now most viewed news site in the world (and luckily most of their readers don't know how to use ad block). DM breaks things fast, yes always sensationalized but you learn how to read between the lines. When they have to do token PC story, they do it as a troll and let moderated comments tell how they really feel.

and best TV news is now Sky. They get shit on terrorist attacks on air fast, they are as unbiased as you can get on TV.

Fucking CNN, I cannot watch anymore. It's like the Us is now a one-party state. They report on Clinton like DPRK news reports on Kim Jong il or the Zim Herlad reports on Mugabe.

The guardian's "news" is all liberal masturbation. There's a reason they're going bankrupt.

The Guardian shouldn't even be called news. It's a disgrace

Sup Forums

This has to be the easiest board to troll, out of all the boards on the entire internet Sup Forums wins easily.

>fox
Saudi Arabian royal family owns stock in Fox.

I get my news from a Balinese shadow puppet enthusiast bulletin board service...

How is a genuine question bait?

cheers for an actual coherent answer unlike half the people in this thread

if i was trying to troll people, i wouldn't be sticking my neck out like a bloody wallop trying to respond to people's answers ha ha

Google News and Drudge

Breitbart
RT
Al Jazeera
The Times
Sky News

>run by a libertarian solely on donations

And clearly, not biased at all towards Libertarian concerns or an anti-globalist agenda?

>RT

Well at least you diversify. When you aredone getting your Anarchist news/opinions you can leaven it with propaganda from Authoritarian Russia.

>Daily Mail. In depth

Sure, if you are interested in 13 year girls having weddings that cost 100,000 Pounds and then have 8 kids over their life time paid for by the Welfare Dole, the Daily Fail is definitely the in depth journalism for you.

Brookings.edu
cfr.org
larouchepub.com
nzz.ch

BBC is EU propaganda

Daily Telegraph - I used to think most based in UK especially on their comments (which are now closed). Unfortunately the commenters were bitter boomers (think Sup Forums in 40 years time) who have now switched to:

The Independent - far from it, more like center-left, but still a decent read, the more I read it, the more I do see center-ground stories. The commenters are all ex-Telegraph commenters.

BBC - forget it, extreme left

Newsnow - good aggregator

The Diplomat - best source on APAC geopolitics. Sadly being a paywall after a handful of articles

Did someone actually say Infowars? Jesus

>>bbc
>>redpilled

The Guardian has excellent reporting and some fantastic writers. Their opinion pages suck, but as a place for in-depth news from around the world, they're the best outlet I know. What are the serious print rivals?
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
The Times
Washington Post
Boston Globe
Deutsche Welle
Der Spiegel
Le Monde
El Pais
BBC News

Personally, I think that the Guardian is the most thorough and reliable of all of these. The trouble with conservative news outlets like Breitbart or Fox News is that they're really obviously propaganda and this make me annoyed and not inclined to trust them.

My wife loves the BBC

Only RT.

Also redpilled to where I believe in YouTubers Beng gangstalked and Jade Helm.

Anyone else Vice News?

I usuaully just use google news feed and ignore the sites I hate.

I absolutely hate the BBC!!! They lie every chance they get. They don't even get the weather right these days.

I use the BBC just because I like to keep an eye on what they post. But it's really very bluepilled, very biased in some areas (very pro remain on Brexit and also very pro Hillary now).

They're good if you want to know what's going on at a glance, but if you actually want to read their more serious articles, I would suggest you read a few other outlets to get the full story.

Their Technology stories are utter trash now though. Most are adverts these days, disguised as "news".

RT and the BBC
And the equivalent of CNN for Brazil, Globo. It's shit, but the others are worse

>The Guardian.

I quite like there 'long read' articles.

RT, Breitbart and any western MSM outlet (they are all the same anyways)

Breitbart
Drudge
AmRen
Steve Sailer
Stratfor
TakiMag
Tyler Cowen
Sup Forums

>The Daily Stormer
my nigga

Agreed. They're reliably very good quality. Also the pieces they pull once a month from the LRB.

There's not enough deep, investigative journalism in the world that gets far into a complex story with completely new insight and understanding. The Guardian is one of the few papers that still pays journalists enough to produce stories like this. Such stories used to be more common, but they've diminished as budgets have been cut as circulation falls. Journalism is worse now than it was 20 years ago, in general.

The toppest of keks.

see, that's what I thought! they're usually well written, easily understandable, factual, non-bias (though they do tend to lean right at times) and their independant journalists have some dead interesting shit (sometimes!). as for other newspapers, red banners = cancer and most broadsheets = sports/business news that's irrelevant

Journalism shot itself in the foot when it started going after the easy, gossip celebrity stories instead of doing any deep investigations.

Not that investigative journalism doesn't exist, but it's a lot smaller now and we see less stories being broken that really should be.

It's easier to do the following...

- Write gossip columns
- Be the marketing department for a political campaign

Brookings.edu
cfr.org
larouchepub.com
nzz.ch

>is the BBC redpilled?

YOU
POOR
DUMB
FUCK

>I get the same propaganda from multiple sources. I'm well rounded.

Bbc used to be a trustworthy news service, even if it was a 'little' biased.

However in the last 10 years they have become so strongly left wing they are almost unwatchable. They tread so carefully with any story that might show muzzies in a bad light.

For instance the Nice truck attack.
Took an hour to run it as breaking news, even though it had already cut into normal programming on other major channels.

Then for the next few hours bbc maintained the following angle
> serious incident in France
> first reports indicate terrible accident
> some have suggested gunfire, but its believed they're confusing that with the sound of fireworks
No mention of islam, terrorism, or even criminal act which all the other media were already discussing. In fact on a studio interview as the story was unfolding pundit says 'suggestions now coming through this is looking like a deash inspired incident', interviewer flat out says 'that's pure speculation and based on rumour which is a sad indictment on how quickly people will jump to conclusions. Conclusions that are often proven wrong.'

Then about four hours after this- everyone knew this had been a muzzie attack, the Paris prosecutors office all but confirmed it, even Hollande heavily talked about it in his emergency speech.
I turned back over to the BBC to see this
> now some suggestions this was not a terrible accident but possibly a deliberate incident
> motives unclear
> we now cross live to our reporter on the ground
> hi yes I'm standing on the promenade in the aftermath of this terrible incident. I have spoken with a muslim family who have just seen their daughter run down in this incident. In traditional customs when their has been a death the father has...
I was shocked. Still heavily suggesting unclear if terrorism, and straight off the bat using the muslims are victims too angle.

BBC was always treading apologist islamic line. Rotheram is a perfect example. But for me, the Nice attack is when they jumped the shark.

I have to disagree on the BBC reporting Islam. Their head Middle East correspondent is Frank Gardner, who is fluent in Arabic and in the traditions of Middle Eastern countries. More than that, though, he's in a wheelchair now after being shot by terrorists in Saudi Arabia. His reporting shows no sign of anger, bitter, malice, or bias. He's incredibly good at interpreting the gestures and strategies of Middle Eastern leaders. I always go to read his commentaries when I'm trying to work out what the fuck is up with Islam and the Middle East. I can't name someone better (Robert Fisk is good on geopolitics but not on cultural nuance, as I'm not even sure that he speaks Arabic).

I recommend his autobiography. I've also met the guy and he's a totally standup, honest dude.

>For instance the Nice truck attack.
It sounds like responsible reporting to me since there have been cases recently of the misrepresentation of crime as terrorism (the Florida attack was more about gay self-hatred than Islam, for instance). They were waiting for official confirmation, rather than going all Reddit-after-the-Boston-bombing on everyone. People expect instant conclusions when events happen. The result is people concluding too soon and getting it wrong in ways that reinforce stereotypes. You too are drawing a strong conclusion from one single reporting situation, it seems. I'd recommend the kind of caution in your own thinking that the BBC are showing in relation to terrorist attacks.

I must agree with most of what you say about their reporting on Islam related topics. The BBC like it play it safe. It might be slower, but it stops them getting in a pile of shit, especially when they are funded by the public as well.

Sup Forums

Agreed on your views on sky.

Also
>cnn now DPRK or Zim herald tier
This. I didn't even realise it was happening but now they are wall to wall Clinton stronk, Trump bad.

Of course the bbc follows this line too. But in the interests of 'balance' 'cough' they'll throw a second amendment or muslim angle into their story.
> meet Randy, he's a sixth generation miner from West Virginia, he's an avid hunter with a large collection of weapons who strongly supports Trump. ( footage of Randy wearing a grubby ripped singlet while riding an ATV through mud )

> meet Fatima. Originally from Egypt, she now runs a successful real estate business in Tampa, FL. A business she built from scratch after moving to the US with only $20 in her pocket. As a strong independent woman, she supports Clinton's candidacy, let's find out why. ( footage of hijab wearing Fatima walking through high end housing complex under construction with a clip board, looking over plans and giving suggestions to tradesmen)

This. Thru all the shitposting and retardation on Sup Forums you will never find a happening and it's related information faster than right here on Sup Forums

This senpai desu.

I come to Sup Forums, filter through the blatantly fake news reports, then when there is real stuff the sensationalism is off the charts (in a good way).

I checkc reuters at lunch at work, and otherwise use it for headlines. They're the most balanced site I've ever read on such matters.

I will rarely use BBC because they do have a left wing tilt, but they make for good sleepovers. David Dimbleby is a top-notch man when it comes to covering election night.

just wanted to say cheers to everyone who's posted in this thread, i've read everything and there's some ace suggestions here and you've all helped me a lot. have a nice evening all

>lol what a white knight faggot kill yourself

> Getting news online from only one source
Try spidr.today/

I miss the Savile threads on here and Sup Forums, the toppest of bants were had.

I'll look into your suggestions mate. Cheers.

But as for Nice, the French government were already calling it. That's official confirmation.

Yet still the beeb where saying let's not jump to conclusions.

Of course there's got to be balance, for instance RT jumps straight onto anything that is anti American police and/or pro blm in a rabid fashion. But bbc is so slow on breaking news and plays the safe 'hold on just because it looks and quacks like a duck doesnt mean it is one'.

There was a recent commentary piece, sorry on my phone I can't link it, just last week
> institute confirms anti islamic feeling in the UK. Spike in hateful tweets during month of June when attacks where prominent.

The whole piece was a telling indictment on where they have positioned themselves

> Stratfor

It's like infowars for smart people. I like their crazy predictions.

businessinsider.com/stratfor-has-11-chilling-predictions-for-what-the-world-will-look-like-a-decade-from-now-2015-6

>How'd you rate the BBC

I used to like the BBC News but they're a mouthpeace for London left wingers - like all the BBC stations.

They're not terrible, and some of their content is interesting, but their political programming is terriblely biased. Just watch Question Time or any documentary that is about black people, muslims or women. With the latter they will speak to very reasonable people of the above mentioned identities but will use the biggest idiots they can find to talk about the counter-arguement.