jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (19 posts)

Which are the best alternative news sources (English) on-line?

  1. Tumbletree profile image59
    Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago

    As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough. American "news" really is designed to entertain, not to inform and empower, which is often anything but entertaining. I've found good stuff on Link-TV. MSNCB, well about 1/25 of its airtime is worthy of watching; none of it's commentators are immune from wasting peoples time; but mostly I go online a wander the web, but it's a big place and it takes a lot of time, to stumble upon a decent bit of reporting. I'm looking for the best "English" news sources around the world. Any thoughts?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know about the best, but they're pretty balanced;-

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/
      http://www.independent.co.uk/

    2. Mandrake_1975 profile image92
      Mandrake_1975posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think that really depends on your tastes, since Alternative News tends to talk about subjects the mainstream news won't touch and each news organization tends to have a different take from one source to another on those very subjects.  You really won't find certain alternative news sites featuring certain stories because the majority of their readers are not interested in that story.  A good example would be climate change.  I don't think there is an alternative news site that gives both sides to that story, either they agree with man-made climate change or they read the Climategate emails and know it to be a hoax, so they don't even give it the time of day.  With such contrary views, how could one site give serious attention to the other anyway?

      Even the alternative news sites tend to cater to a certain political philosophy or ideology (just the MSM).  It depends on what your's is, unless you honestly want the top ones regardless of their philosophies.

      Personally, I just read the news on my homepage, visit my local news, drop by a few favorite alternative news sites (and get email newsletters from some), and then I head on over to one of the most active forums out there which is known for having the news before it is the news to catch anything I might have missed.  I actually rely more on that particular forum to let me know what is important than anything else.  You just have to be extra careful and check up on your news sources.

      I don't think there is a fast way to get important news that effects you.  It is a big world and a lot happens from day to day.  Personally, I don't think anyone should spend less than 1 hour reading and/or listening to the news each day - it is that important to keep up on.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why alternative news sources?

        The three sites that I list (all mainstream) will give you a balanced view on whatever topic you want, even if that view does not fit in with the political direction that they are supposed to take.

        For example, the Guardian is very aware of global warming but will give equal coverage to disbelieving Luddites.

      2. Tumbletree profile image59
        Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I actually read a decent article on climate change on-line from a New Agency in Ireland; however it is a fallacy to think their are two side to every issue. When you were taking math, the didn't let the guy in that class who believed two plus two is five, so you could hear his side of the story. It's not difficult for a news agency to distinguish between those who are trying to seriously understand issues, like global warming, and those who are just trying to further their own agenda. That's exactly my point, most mainstream media outlets give far too much attention to fruitless even counter productive viewpoints. Global Warming, well what to the experts in "climatology" say? There are different legitimate opinions on the subject, but it isn't if there is man made climate change, it's how much is there, how severe is it going to be, how quick, and what are the geopolitical implications. I don't want both sides when one side is corporate money sponsored nonsense.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you don't actually want an open minded press, you want one that bolsters your belief!

          1. Tumbletree profile image59
            Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I am looking for news that share my values- true; which also include reason and honesty. It isn't reasonable to give equal weight on all issues.. If someone claims Jesus is going to drop out of the sky and the world will end tomorrow, a "real" news agency doesn't have to pretend that there are two potentially valid sides. The opinions printed on Global Climate Change in the news I'll read, should be by "experts" in climatology. Tell me, is 99% of Astronomers said an "asteroid" was heading for the earth and going to kill us all, if we didn't do something," do you think the news should give equal time to those who don't believe it, even though they've no education in astronomy? I'm not saying Global Climate change is that bad, but I am saying there is a reason experts are experts, and why we should listen to them.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, listen to all experts, on both sides of the argument, don't say"I don't believe in man made global warming so they have nothing to say to me"

              And I'm talking about hard news, Jesus dropping out of the sky isn't hard news, in fact it's not news at all, at best it's empty speculation.

              1. Tumbletree profile image59
                Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There are no other "experts" on the other side. We've played this game over and over in history, powerful interests can always drum up "so called" science to back their interests "smoking isn't bad for you" how long did news companies cover that one, DDT is harmless, blacks aren't aren't as smart as whites, Hollywood is full of communists spies...Unless your a climatologist you can't intelligently distinguish between the arguments being made by them, so when 95% of them agree on something, and 90% of the world scientist agree, do you really want to place the other 5% ad ten percent on the same level; especially when the fossil fuel industry is shelling money out right and left to anyone who will say it ain't so, while they are also arguing over drilling rights under the Artic for when it melts.There are biologists who don't believe in evolution. That's why they have peer reviewed science so the scientists can argue amongst themselves, not so they can try and win a "popularity" contest with a public, that can't understand their science. Science has much better filters. When Einstein published his special theory of relativity, there were only twelve people on the planet who could understand it. If you haven't got a good sense of who to listen to in the scientific communities, then your lost and if a newspaper doesn't then it's equally lost, and or a source of disinformation.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I can't work out whether you are arguing for or against the idea of man made global warming!

                  1. Tumbletree profile image59
                    Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    well the fossil fuel giants aren't spending tons of cash to get results saying, "global warming is real and the whole world needs to quickly reduce how much money they give to us," so the suspicious "science" comes down against mad made global warming. So yes, I very much believe in man made global warming, but even if I wasn't as sure; even if far fewer scientists believed in it, it would be prudent to act. Science validates or invalidates itself through prediction; do we really want to wait and see it climate change's prediction comes true? No, we don't especially since the prudent action also reduces the power of some of the most powerful/destructive/anti-democratic industries in the world.

  2. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    I agree with your list John, when it comes to news about America, It amazes me that I get more truth from the BBC than I do from any American news service. I suppose this is due to the fact that they aren't pushing the political view of their owner with their reporting. I have just recently found the guardian webpage and I get the same impression about this news service. I have no idea abouttheir reporting on news in your country but tend to find very little I can disprove about their coverage of America.

    I have heard that Murdoch has ownership in one of the news services in England but forget which one it is. I am looking for additional sites from around the world in my quest to learn the truth about America. I hope the absurdity of that statement hits home for Americans that swear by their favorite nightime entertainment show.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      News in the UK owned by Murdoch;-

      News International
      News of the World
      The Sun
      The Sunday Times
      The Times
      Times Literary Supplement

      And of course Fox, but not the Fox you get in the US, he knows he wouldn't get away with that in the UK.
      ------------------------------
      Sites to avoid for serious news content would have to include "The Telegraph" and "The Daily Mail" good for a laugh but nowt else.

      On my stay in the US I was surprised to see international news tagged on to the end of news broadcasts and with the sort of emphasis we give to "cat up tree" stories here in the UK!

      1. Tumbletree profile image59
        Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My country's embraced ignorance frightens me. CNN covered Leon Panetta leaving the CIA to be the New Secretary of Defense, and their big scoop- he'll be taking his dog to work with him.

    2. Tumbletree profile image59
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      YES BBC, Al Jezeera, these are better, in general than CNN, MSNBC, but I know there are others. I read "The Australian," and the "Independent" in Ireland today, on-line, but I know there must be hundreds of others. The people in France don't get their news from BBC.

      1. Tumbletree profile image59
        Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Right now, I'd like to be getting a better perspective about the situation in  Greece, but from the perspectives of the Greek people, and not from American talking heads (which we obviously don't export enough of).

  3. classicalgeek profile image88
    classicalgeekposted 5 years ago

    I think Deutsche Welle has an English page, and Hong Kong puts out an English-language programme that is pretty informative.

    I get my news from the Le Monde, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel. If I have extra time I'll read some more French papers.

  4. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago
    1. Tumbletree profile image59
      Tumbletreeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      These are very useful, thank you.

 
working