I’m curious as to what people read, and find most reliable in the UK for news sources. And i’m curious if anyone subscribes to any news papers.
I’m on a hunt to find some good relatively unbiased (or not extremely biased at least) primary news sources.
I found some interesting info, how accurate im not sure
It would be good to gather more information if anyone has any to share, and opinions on the quality of news papers out there.
I just read what the bills and legislation’s are on a weekly basis. And give my governor and state senate my own two cents on them. I don’t bother with my mayor since my city is corrupt.
A good idea… but not really related to the subject 
Hard to say there’s a proper link between political leaning and trustworthiness. Most non-opinion articles are pretty samey across papers, because a lot of them use the AP as a source.
Best to do a mix. Opinion articles either affirm your opinion, or get you angry at other people haha
I think papers with an opposing political stance to the government will always pick out worse aspects.
It’s difficult to find good information.
I found this http://www.humantruth.info/uk_newspapers_comparison.html
But im not sure on the methods used, it seems to have leanings in the ‘analysis’
I’m considering that it may be worth taking notable news stories from several news sites and comparing them to the strictly known facts to come up some some better indications of accuracy of their reporting.
On opinion pieces, i do find many of them laughably ridiculous on certain sites beginning with a g…
Newspapers? People still read newspapers? Wasn’t that a 20th Century thing? 
Seriously though, if you want to work out what is really going on in that particular Orwellian police state you are probably better off reading what comes out of the international desks of overseas news outlets (like Der Spiegel in Germany or RT in Russia, for example).
RSS feeds from their websites are (still) a great (and ad-free) way to stay informed.
You’ll just end up brainwashed if you expose yourself to local rags. (Same applies to every country, not just the UK.)
Referring to any news source. online, offline, daily, weekly, or otherwise.
Ok, that makes sense then.
Yeah, my advice is reading what comes out of the international desks of news outlets based in other countries. Preferably countries that aren’t obsequiously sub-servient (or historically friendly) towards the country in question. That seems to net the best objective reporting.
Definitely a good approach, but I think it’s best not to pick sources where the government has a lot of media influence, like RT.
Not just the government. Any media in any country may present the news as it helps them in their country.
anti border control media in the US are unlikely to publish positive news about EU border control for example. So the same issues apply really. Accuracy of the news.
sadly you cant rely on news agencies to print or report the truth without being politically biased. its the rage factor they depend on for circulation( If you get people upset or perversely interested in a situation they are going to follow and purchase more news media)
and ratings and money influence their actions.
and as long as media agencies are not held responsible they will continue to spread garbage instead of news.
and it does not matter what country it is in!
Regardless of “Left” or “Right” wing, I used to read the Independent, and then for a bit the “I” when it started, but gave up on newspapers soon after.
I guess the rule of thumb is to try a variety, and see which ones resonate to ones own personal biases? Because they are all gonna have opinions; the stories are (Currently?) written by humans…
I personally like Ars Technica (Used to have a UK wing… RIP Mr Seb) or the BBC (not unbiased, but not horrendously ad infected) I tried the independent website for mobile, but it’s pretty galling
Folks that know what “confirmation bias” is — and why it is bad/dangerous — should probably be taking active steps to fight/neutralise it — not feed it. Objective/impartial/disinterested sources should be the most sought after. Failing that I would say that you’d be better off seeking out sources that oppose/challenge your biases, rather than reinforce them.
That is, of course, assuming that you consume ‘news’ in an effort to try and understand how the world actually works, rather than just for entertainment purposes, to justify the crimes committed by your nation’s military, etc., etc.
The days of reading the paper and watching the evening news is over.
Russia has allot of alternative opinions and Pravda has a former Reagan official as a contributor.
Rush Limbaugh noted that for his show prep he was relying more and more on British sources to find out what is happening in the US.
The days of every news outlet having a correspondant in every area of the globe was a failure anyway. Walter Durranty was the NYT soviet correspondent and peddled FakeNews, effectively covering up the mass murder in the Ukraine under Stalin.
Youtube allowed me to see interviews with key members of the British and EU MEP’s but Youtube is going full dark under the full weight of Censorship.
It’s like the 50’s all over again, if you had an uncle in the CIA and a cousin in the KGB you might know what’s going on.
When an MEP is on a 1 or 2 hr interview on a podcast they may slip up and let you get a glimpse of what is going on.
If you compare documentaries of The Faulklands war 1 year after and 10 or 15 years after you will note they are very different. Wanna guess which one showed the horrors of war?
