Thanks, I'll check these out.
Which Independent News Source Should I Subscribe to? » All Comments
For Australia-centric news consider:
1. Michael West - https://www.michaelwest.com.au/
2. Crikey - https://www.crikey.com.au/
3. Macrobusiness - https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/For evidence based news, from experts in their areas, I read a lot of The Conversation. Non profit.
Skynews
Owned by News Corp (Murdoch) unfortunately.
and not really news
Corbett Report
Media Monarchy
Why the hate against murdoch ?
You have no issue consuming far left media in the guardian ?
I'd actually love a publication without attachment to an agenda, to be honest. The issue with Murdoch controlled media is the agenda is set for the benefit of Murdoch so you won't hear about things like corporate meddling in the NBN, for example. And you'll get front pages like this: https://i.redd.it/1uo8p3n27sa31.jpg or this: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/05/news-corp-jour… or this: http://i.imgur.com/JTsrkrw.jpg or this: https://i.redd.it/nz2qr0h0g5i11.jpg or this: http://i.imgur.com/MyU1MDV.jpg or this: https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/unrelentingly-p… or this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/09/for-30… or this: https://mumbrella.com.au/new-low-for-journalism-why-news-cor… or this: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/may/1556632800/rich… or this: https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/news/11109192
Is it too much to ask for a centrist publication that doesn't have a master?
Is it too much to ask for a centrist publication that doesn't have a master?
Yes, everyone has a stance. Whether it's for power, posterity or money. BBC used to be shining example of impartiality but there have been some questionable issues recently. Even Reddit's mindhive is controlled.
Jimmy Savile once told me that the impartiality has always been a bit of a lie.
So why are you asking, you have all these sources already?
He's not really asking, he's posted to bestow his knowledge to the rest of us to what are the centrist news sites.
You are linking to left wing guardian , left wing smh , left wing abc and left wing monthly
you dont want fair and centrist news , you want news you agree with .
We can clearly see which "news" YOU want…
That's definitely not the case – I'm even happy to subscribe to two sources so I can get a balanced view on news. All I've said is I'm not at all happy to suppprt Murdoch, why does that upset you?
Left wing ABC
God, you're embarrassing yourself.
@moggott: Mate. Chekc their coverage during the elections, see how they go against Labor and how they coddle the Coalition. You're kidding yourself.
You know FOX news in the states right? If you're oblivious to what's happening there then everyone may as well be talking to a brick wall.
I like to think im impartial to politics but I'm embarrassed by what mainstream papers are publishing.
I have a theory on the whole left-wing vs. right-wing debate and I am going to get downvoted to hell.
Anyone considered that maybe certain things appear to be 'left-wing' because they are the most logical and reasonable?
Maybe there is no centre because there is no 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'?I mean; Skynews, channel 9, FoxNews, etc. all lie and spin stories and are considered right-wing?
Yeah sure, and left-wing platforms never spin stories or tell lies. Nah…
America is actually lucky to have mainstream networks from both sides of politics. I swear, in Australia it's all just an echo chamber of the delusional left-wing trash that comes from American college campuses. Story on the gender pay gap…let's not bring in an economist or HR expert to give us a discussion, let's just get 3 hardline feminists to come in and scream in tandem about how evil the patriarchy is. Perfect!
@SlavOz: weird that you think Liberal party advertising served as news is left wing trash, but I'm sure everyone will continue reading the whole paragraph
@[Deactivated]: I have no idea what you're talking about.
Wouldn't Liberal advertising be considered 'right wing'?
Well said JoJoker
Murdoch press is right-wing propaganda trash.
Guardian - far left?
I don't read it, but every time I see one of those media-bias charts, the Guardian is on the left side in the neutral zone - maybe slightly further than that on some charts. Never seen it far left.
e.g., https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Med…
Alright, so far I have:
Nine Entertainment- AFR
- Sydney Morning Herald
- The Age
Scott Trust Limited
- The Guardian
Misc
- Corbett Report
- Media Monarchy
- Subverse News
- The Gray Zone
- Wikileaks
- Democracy Now
Just a thought, just because a site is biased doesn’t make them not worthy reading, sometimes in order to make a good case against a argument is to know an opposing arguement so well that you know where and why it’s wrong.
I think it’s fkne to read known biased news organisations, knowing full well they’re paid for by someone with an agenda and therefore could be influenced.
Democracy now is definitely not unbiased
In other words, biased.
Have you tried Independent Australia? It's the only publication I'm aware of with true independence as opposed to the above
That list reads like a left wing extremists wet dream.
anything left of the herld sun is leftwing extremism? got it
I work in areas where I need to read multiple publications daily to get a sense of the overall policy agenda (i do read some blogs too, but if you're engagimg with the national conversation you have to be on top of major media).
I have previously paid for subscriptions to:
- Fairfax (SMH, Canberra Times, AFR)
- News (The Australian, Daily Telegraph)
- Schwartz (The Daily, The Weekly)
- Crikey
- The Guardian
- Financial TimesAlso some free sources
- ABC News
- The Squiz
- Google News (AMP Links to most sources)
- The Conversation
- various other specialty sitesAnd I can tell you I have only consistently kept up my subscription for Crikey. It's the best value for keeping up with the Zeitgeist of Australia and has been the most reliable for referenced material.
This is a great comment, thanks mate
No probs. It's a relentless task trying to keep a rounded view of the news.
Keep in mind that Crikey has a lot of critical analysis, so you'll have to keep up with a mainstream source as well.
If you're into deeper public policy analysis I recommend the Australian Policy Observatory. There is also The Mandarin, but that's only for the wonkiest of policy wonks.
I stopped reading news because it would either make me feel really sad or angry, but…
The Conversation publishes academics so people who are experts in their field.
http://theconversation.com/auand the Monthly occasionally publishes unique pieces
www.themonthly.com.au/Sixth Tone is China based and cover stories from a more intimate perspective and cover things that western outlets don't
http://www.sixthtone.com/Crikey is local and covers stories that the bigger papers gloss over
https://www.crikey.com.au/The Intercept does good investigative reporting though Glenn Greenwald is criticised by some leftists https://theintercept.com/
I've occasionally read the independent https://www.independent.co.uk
I would also recommend Twitter, as you end up following a whole lot of people who post articles that you are interested in…
As for the Guardian, sometimes they do amazing pieces and sometimes they do weird rightwing old person yells at clouds pieces and present it as a leftist viewpoint.
Betoota Advocate
ok boomer
Just in case you think its only boomers negging you. Not a boomer. Negged you.
Boomer isn't an age it's a mindset. You my friend, are a boomer.
@ds311: Or… It's jumping to conclusions and dismissing someone's opinion. I really dislike the phrase for this very reason. It's like the phrase kids would use "I know you are but what am I?" It's an empty response with no actual value or retort with logic.
Seriously, what's the point in having a disagreement and discussing it if all you have to say back is "Ok Boomer". As if anyone would reply with "Gee that actually makes sense, I'm convinced my ways were wrong"
Have lost count of the number of times I've started with the Betoota article and worked backwards from there
Independent and news source are oxymoron
Chaser & Betoota Advocate
Also The Shovel.
There is no such thing as mainstream independent news. Look further than the everyday choices.
can't believe no one has mentioned this yet:
theonion.com
Penthouse
I only read it for the news articles about wanting world peace
Your question was addressed a couple of weeks ago in an article entitled Where can Australians find trustworthy news and opinion?
For international news, most of the material from the first three sites mentioned by Diji1 is reliable. I emphasis "most" because many news outlets and commentators have lost their objectivity with their dislike of Trump. In those cases, pay close attention that they also criticise the corrupt elements of the Democractic Party to the same extent. There's also some good stuff from the likes of RT (slight Russian and Chinese bias), The Young Turks (democratic party bias), The Intercept (maybe just Glenn Greenwald), Mint Press, The Real News Network, and maybe The Hill. You can ignore the false comment from DiLs above as there are many independent journalists who have their own youtube channels and/or contribute to various decent networks.
Some journalists are more trustworthy than others and they don't always get it right. The important thing is that they appear to have integrity and don't simply repeat news from other sources and especially not from government agencies. Journalists are supposed to hold the powerful to account, be adversarial, and have some courage.
My advice is to use two simple checks to see if a news source is trustworthy:
1. They are critical of the US regime-change operations like those in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia, etc. (e.g. people like Aaron Matte, Glen Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Robert Fisk)
2. They defend Wikileaks, Julian Assange and whistle-blowers (e.g. people like John Pilger, George Galloway, Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky)On the lighter side, for some commentary on US issues presented with humour, you can check out Redacted Tonight (Lee Camp), The Jimmy Dore Show, and Secular Talk (Kyle Kulinski) on Youtube. Graham Elwood can be pretty entertaining as well. There's so much bad news out there that it can be depressing, so adding some humour to tragedy can help keep one's spirits up.
You jest…..
by diji1, OB's local greens subversive, so how can that be 'centralist'
Good response, not sure why you were downvoted. I've got you back to neutral.
Wikileaks is not exactly politically neutral. There is evidence that they may have helped the Trump presidential campaign where a former Trump aide is alleged to have coordinated or disclosed the timings of the leaks about the Hillary Clinton email server issue. There are also links between Trump's son and Wikileaks.
I'm all for whistle blowers, just not ones that further a political agenda - one way or another.
Come on fella regime change and you didn't mention Anya Parampil, Abby Martin or Eva Bartlett? Also Paul and Sharmini have been ousted from TRNN so not really TRNN anymore (unless they've been reinstated recently??).
Love Jimmy Dore, Tim Black I'd add to that list.
Anyway I'm 4 days late and a dollar short as usual..
I know :D. I read it about in the The DailyWire which had as it title The Bongino Report: The Newest Conservative News Aggregator It actually just went live a couple days ago.
The Economist. If you prefer a daily digest, Economist Espresso is only $5 a month.
Economist really good I find it better to understand events at the end of the week instead of "breaking news", I think they mostly lean towards globalization and pro-business view.
They were founded about 150 years ago on the principle of liberalism. I wouldn't call them necessarily pro-business – they take strong social stands as well. They're more about ensuring sustainable growth that benefits as many as possible.
Check your local library, some includes free digital copy of the Economist. I got one through my library.
I find Flipboard great, can customize the publication type or topics that are of interest … if other international news is the go, my other source is the BBC News app/site.
I have also found Flipboard more than capable for offering an array of in depth and 'politically variable' content from a range of sources… on another thing isn't this whole left /right or anti intellectual reality debate is a bit of waste in a post ideological news environment? Why is everyone so caught up statements like abc or guardian are blah while brietbart is blah blah..keep your left and right hand off it and you wont be a (profanity).
Facebook
lol - I downvoted you immediately, then realised it must be tongue-in-cheek…
I subscribe to SMH via my Google account.
Although I do occasionally disagree with some of the editorial stances taken with respect to some issues and the creeping sensationalism/clickbait, I think it's probably the best commercial newspaper site out there.
The Guardian is OK, but it really doesn't have much local coverage in comparison to SMH.
I certainly would not consider subscribing to any Newscorp site.
The Guardian have been investing in Australian investigative journalist teams. I reckon the next year or two will see them come more into their own.
Icij. Global journalism in depth. Ie Panama papers. Chinese camps.
Guardian for touching on national news. Michael West for in depth Australian journalism. Youtube juice media for hard hitting pieces targeted at young audience.
+1 for Juice Media. Freakin' hilarious.
Your aversion to anything Murdoch is well-placed, even going right back to Big Daddy Keith and his manipulation of politicians during World War I.
Really your best bet is to:
- Never just accept ONE source
- Don't let the right-whingers tell you ALL ABC is left-wing - it isn't, and they'd know it if they watched/listened to it
- On that, Media Watch is an interesting (if short) mirror to the mainstream media (including the ABC itself)
- Keep your mind and eyes open, and it will mostly become obvious when a news source is biased
It's always good to question what you hear, and from whom you hear it…
Very good point. I guess my question should really be "which investigative journalist publication should I support with a subscription?"
Why taint a great response with a petty remark against those who are more right-leaning? SMH
Left Wing Guardian Left Wing ABC Left Wing Age Newspaper they are the ones you should read and enjoy ok
Everyone and everything that disagrees with you seems to be "left wing"
Typical lefty comment, AndrewCh!!1!
White House Daily - a broadsheet of unbiased news from around the world, covering topics such as discrediting FAKE news by other media, US foreign policy (i.e. the Middle East, the Ukraine, Iran and Greenland), US domestic policy (i.e. the Democrat Party), trade (i.e. China), the FBI, the climate change hoax, the threat of immigration to Western civilization, social events (i.e. Putin)… as you can see, it covers everything of interest to the intelligent reader wanting to keep up to date with world affairs.
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Can you please provide a link to
White House Daily?Google search turns up lots of results but I cannot tell which one you are referring to.
https://www.google.com/search?q=White+House+Daily&oq=White+H…
Thanks.
Sheez, you’re right, it’s not there. Strange, it was yesterday. I’ve been downloading it every day since 20 Jan 2017. Maybe POTUS pulled it down until this impeachment nonsense is behind him.
BTW, impeachment or no impeachment, all the major US online betting agencies have Trump odds-on to win the 2020 election. They figure that over the past three years the sky hasn’t fallen in and the US economy is bouncing along nicely, so why would middle America vote differently?
Are you SURE you're not into unbiased news?
It seems some of our OzB comrades have yet to get a grasp on satire. I thought it would have been as plain as day. It seems not.
A teaching moment for you:
If you want to use satire in answering a serious question (from OP) , remember context is important.
Had you attached your original comment in reply to another flippant comment here , I would have guessed you were using satire.
But since you actually provided your original answer in direct reply to the OP's serious request , I had no inkling you were using satire.
Remember , context is everything when it comes to satire , and humour, for that matter.
@Lurker: I would have thought the chosen group of news topics alone would have been sufficient, let alone the Greenland and Putin references. A White House broadsheet? Come on. People read with different sensitivities. BTW, context is everything for everything.
@Ozpit: Sorry,
Your chosen group of news topics could have been interpreted one way or another , for people who read them with an open mind.
"covering topics such as discrediting FAKE news by other media, US foreign policy (i.e. the Middle East, the Ukraine, Iran and Greenland), US domestic policy (i.e. the Democrat Party), trade (i.e. China), the FBI, the climate change hoax, the threat of immigration to Western civilization, social events (i.e. Putin"
The 1st half of your list sounded like serious suggestions . The later half veered off into the dubious.
I gave your list the benefits of the doubt. Taking your list seriously.
Which turned out to be misplaced faith.
I was not the only person here who failed to detect your attempt at satire.
Make it clearer next time.
the climate change hoax
lol
So we know to completely disregard their opinion. Boomers gotta boomer
Doomers gotta doomer.
The Squiz, a free weekday news snapshot, with no bull. There’s only ever 1 ad in the daily email.
http://cloud.mythesquiz.com.au/signup?RefID=0036F00003HJE7sQ…
Why don't people just subscribe to both left and right news outlet, if you read the same issue from both sides then and only then can you truly understand why it is that way.
Very good point. Do you know of any decent right wing publications without links to Murdoch?
No, sorry I only usually read financial news from AFR and Bloomberg
AFR counts.
Wall Street Journal? edit: nvm still murdoch
Because it implies that there are exactly two sides, each giving you half the picture and adding up to a whole truth.
But if the reality is that the two news sources you read are both lazy/invested in their own half-truths without any facts supporting them, then reading them both isn't sufficient to get a clear picture of what's going on.
There are exactly 3 versions to any story. Your version, my version, and the truth.
Today, we live in a world where one should not read western newspapers.
All stories are simplistic, crude and propagandistic.
The public is being brainwashed with "Narrative Treads" devised, and controlled
by the Govt, in order to sway popular opinion toward "DUTTON'S" draconian state.We are witnessing this time and again, be it FAKE White Helmets, unbelievable Epstein FAKE suicide,
FAKE Russian poisoning, and FAKE weapons of mass destruction, just for starters.You would be financing this FAKE westernised propaganda medium… don't do it.
The New Daily is pretty decent. Just take note that they're owned by industry super funds.
the onion
allsides.com is a good US site. Shame there is no Australian equivalent as this is US-centric.
Quick skim and looks pretty good, here's there chart on media bias
Excellent chart
Reuters is my default go to for world news.
I can't believe nobody mentioned Reuters before this point!
Reuters is where they other outlets get the raw stories before the "spin" them!
I would go with…
- ABC - https://www.abc.net.au/news/
- The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/
- Crikey - https://www.crikey.com.au/ (if you want Aussie policial news)
You may want to consider:
- DW - https://www.dw.com/ (have heard some of their stuff on the radio and it's been very good)
- Aljazeera - https://www.aljazeera.com/ (I'm honestly not too sure how independent they are, but they do seem to have good coverage and articles)
- Don't forget about the BBC as well (https://www.bbc.com/)
+1 ABC and the Guardian. A bit left leaning but at least aimed at mature adults.
"a bit"
Lol.
If you want a more centrist view ignore every single one of the above list, especially the top three which are extremist left wing drivel with the ABC being a bit more to the centre, mainly it's radio broadcasts, than the other two.
These are all left wing sites (ABC, SBS, BBC, The Guardian).
Apparently reality has a left wing bias.
The Guardian. The news is balanced and there is an international perspective.
Otherwise The Saturday Paper or New Matilda.
The Guardian is centre left, still decent though.
Twitter. No wait I'm serious. Build & actively maintain a selection of individuals & organisations that provide information from different perspectives. You soon get a feel for how things can and do get distorted and spun, especially if you can access actual source material (which is often easy to find). But there are many individuals that provide thoughtful commentary on a range of subjects - eg Brian Cox (physicist). When you get a good balance & range you'll be able to keep abreast of key things that interest you with 10-15 minutes of enjoyable swiping each day. Also there's a level of "straight from the horses mouth" thats immediate & appealing.
Axios also seems pretty balanced to me & Kialo is great for constructive review of disparate views.
Journalism is a joke these days. Most news sources mainstream or not have some sort of bias in them.
People forgot that being human has ingrained biases, so not hard to imagine that all writings have some sort of bias, it’s just some are far more critical of their own views and therefore more balanced than others.
I've found SBS news to be fairly unbiased and to the point. They tend to just give you the facts and leave emotion out of it.
Government funding means they don't have to succumb to click bait articles or pander to any kind of base just to stay alive like private ones do.
SBS news tends to have quite a left wing agenda based on the types of stories they choose to run. It's quite common to see more positive articles about LGBTQIA issues as well as colour pieces on migrants in Australia. The latter is quite understandable as SBS's mission is to run foreign language content that other channels ignore.
Being positive and inclusive is a left wing agenda?
Doesn't paint a good picture for people who are themselves as right leaning.
Critiquing an opposing viewpoint is negative and bigoted?
Doesn't paint a good picture for people who are left leaning.
Wait what? LGBTQIA is a left vs right issue? I thought it was religious vs not. Are you saying there aren't right wing gay people?
Having a quick look at my Facebook seems to indicate most in the 45-65 age bracket rely on memes for information.
I don't think there is any tbh, I think there are people who try but inevitably lean left or right.
Imo the best bet is to go for people who state the facts as they are at the time of publishing then their opinion, slightly left-leaning ones then slightly right-leaning ones.
Back in the day ABC used to be about facts and just reporting the news. Now it's about opinions and political activisim. It's sad what it has become.
Totally agree, I used to watch it for facts but started noticing more and more preaching of opinion vs informing of facts.
In my opinion its important to read/watch all spectrums of news because of the ingrained political biases each have. Keeping up with conservative Murdoch publications is just as important as reading/watching lefty ABC or Guardian news.
It's important we consume a broad spectrum to be able to make our own assessments and form our own opinions.
I subscribe to The Economist. It's amazing and very reliable.
Reliably drifting into irrelevance. The quality of that publication has gone down a looooooong way over the past several years.
The New Daily. It’s on-line.
As opposed to all the others…?
If the ABC seems Left-leaning to you (anyone), I would suggest it's actually reality that's Left-leaning from your perspective, and the ABC are simply reporting truths that are uncomfortable/jarring for you.
For examples of truly Left-leaning media, compare and contrast with Vox or Huffington Post
overton window has gone right out the door
lol typical leftie response. "Our news isn't biased, you're just a Nazi".
get revved up buddy but not past 4000rpm
Surprised it wasn't mentioned earlier
ABC news is legally mandated to give politically neutral/balanced coverage.
The Conversation provides excellent articles written by subject area experts.
Edit: found this chart which may be of help (not sure of provenance) https://i.imgur.com/INOCxxA.jpg
ABC News and The Conversation claiming to be unbiased?????? You're joking right. Both are very left leaning despite their legal mandate in the case of the ABC.
The conversation has a bit of a lefty tendancy, sure. Academics in general trend left. They stick to matters which they are qualified to comment on though, and write excellent articles with links to studies etc. I'm not aware of a mildly-right-wing equivalent. Would be happy to have one recommended.
Can you link me some data showing left-wing bias in the ABC?
This is the only data I could find, which seems to show they're as close to neutral as practical (note: possible pro-coalition bias! but I don't think its significant) https://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/austr…
I posit that it's more likely your perspective is off-centre so you perceive neutrality as 'left'.
Here's an ABC story about having your second child:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-08/the-things-no-one-tel…
<q> As a result, parents find that their mental and physical health takes a big hit with two kids thanks to the effect of chronic stress.
And that's especially true for women in cisgendered, straight relationships, where both partners tend to slot, unconsciously or otherwise, into traditional carer/earner roles.
(And if you want to depress yourself about the ways which Australia's parental leave system and work culture subtly but forcefully discourages men from choosing to be more hands-on parents, then you should pore over Annabel Crabb's recent Quarterly Essay, 'Men At Work': the patriarchy does a hell of a number on dudes as well, it turns out.) </q>
The article basically says having a second child is hard, but being in a straight relationship makes it worse due to the traditional patriarchy, yet there is no discussion about about trans/bi/gay etc relationships.
@TheOtherLeft: That's an anecdote, one sample. Not data.
I'm sure you could find an opinion piece (which this is clearly identified as) with a conservative slant on there too.
yet there is no discussion about about trans/bi/gay etc relationships
And if they were discussed in more detail (instead of just as a point of comparison), would that make the article more or less 'lefty' in your opinion?
@TheOtherLeft: Username seems appropriate ;)
I don't have a strong political leaning (according to those compass tests), but I fail to see how this article is particularly left leaning?
To me it's just saying that having 2 kids is harder than just 1, because you're sleep deprived for longer, shit costs more, etc. Which sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps you're just reading into it too much?
But the main message in all of this is for any parent of a new baby who's feeling that they're not coping the way they should be: you're right to feel stressed and exhausted, because kids are stressful and exhausting.
That's what they're saying apparently. Kind of a boring article to me, but doesn't seem to be pushing an agenda.
Can you link me some data showing left-wing bias in the ABC?
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias
ABC is left wing. This is complete denial. If they used taxpayer money and leaned RIGHT, there would be mass hysteria and triggering meltdowns all over.
@abuch47: Sure you can, it's called error since they both have the same name. Not a panty snatcher. Here's a a bias check for Aussie BC
@SlavOz: Not having a good day, are you.
To quote you so far:
lol typical leftie response. "Our news isn't biased, you're just a Nazi".
as a response to a comment that never mentioned or referenced Nazism or anything like it in any way
ABC is left wing. This is complete denial. If they used taxpayer money and leaned RIGHT, there would be mass hysteria and triggering meltdowns all over.
and links to a source about American ABC
Here's a a bias check for Aussie BC
You didn't read the article there either did you. The indicator falls between Left-Centre and Centre (they call it Least Biased, but that's not necessarily true either). They also rate the ABC High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and being a certified fact checker.
Maybe if they did some legitimate journalism they wouldn't need money from the government.
Seriously? Try and think before you type.
Any news organization that receives government funding should be a red flag. It's basically like when video game companies pay reviewers. Does anyone really expect a truthful analysis?
By that analogy, the government must be getting biased reporting in their favour as the government pays for them. But the current government is right-wing. Oops!
If you want to understand a serious issue you need to take the time to learn about it yourself instead of relying on other people to collaborate facts for you.
read verified data about certain events or topics
Interesting. You believe in reading. I suggest you take you own advice…
ABC has had Murdoch and other plants for decades. Also they will bow to political pressure time and time again so they can get interviews ect. Still better than nothing but certainly with bias and undertone.
ABC has been completely neutered by the Lib government defunding them anytime they report on something they don't like.
The ABC might be "left leaning" but it cannot report on any issues which seriously damage the governments credibility or else it risks more defunding. It's become pretty worthless.
Maybe if they did some legitimate journalism they wouldn't need money from the government.
Any news organization that receives government funding should be a red flag. It's basically like when video game companies pay reviewers. Does anyone really expect a truthful analysis?
Maybe if they did some legitimate journalism they wouldn't need money from the government.
Any news organization that receives government funding should be a red flag. It's basically like when video game companies pay reviewers. Does anyone really expect a truthful analysis?
Maybe taking money from the government, rather than private companies, is the only way to be sure they can truthfully report on matters which might be detrimental to said companies? I mean, that's kinda the point you're making, except you seem to have a weird interpretation where the ABC provides anti-government coverage by virtue of receiving money from the government??
As a public news agency (note: distinct from state news agency like the old Pravda), I actually want them to be critical against whoever is in power, to hold them to account.
@abb: Private companies and people will never match the government when it comes to scandals, cover-ups and bad agendas. If a news agency is going to receive money from anyone, I'd much rather it's private corporations, who's only goal is usually to get rich. We've seen what happens when governments start controlling the media and get their way.
Sure the ABC is critical of the government already but as others have pointed out, this continues to lead to fund cuts. How long until ABC gets the message and decides to only report on what the government wants? It's a dangerous game.
@SlavOz: Political ideology is driving the funding cuts, not critical stories. Funnily enough the same political ideology would be very happy if all news media were controlled by big business (and therefore critical of any politician who is not sufficiently pro-big-business), as you apparently would be. I would not.
For many decades we had a strong independent ABC. We can continue to do so.
@abb: I'm not saying I would be happy with big business controlling the media, just that it's a much, much safer option than having the government control it. Big business has never been responsible for oppression or tyranny.
At the end of the day, news outlets rely on money to survive and thrive. The money has to come from somewhere.
Haha no wonder ABC is not responding to my enquiry when I approach them about making a public interest disclosure.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Note that this site leans slightly to the left, so keep that in mind whenever you visit.Russia today and Sputnik
I must apologise but I did read your OP and know my suggestions below go against your request. I'm curious however, about what you have against Murdoch press - the below can be referenced.
The below will give you additional viewpoints (whether good or bad depends on your confirmation bias)
- The Bolt Blog/ Report (TV & Media) - in-depth analysis of Australian politics & culture, mostly focussing on politics, immigration, climate change and the lack of evidence for it, and Islamic culture in Australia.
- Peta Credlin or Rita Panahi articles - similar to above
- Anything from FOX News (Popular show Sean Hannity ) - US centric news & op-ed shows based mostly on politics, popularity and sensationalism
No bias or agenda whatsoever.
Wikipedia still has a lot of bias. A short list, from a bias POV. https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
Conservapedia, on the other hand, is pure objective fact with no partisan agenda at all?
"from a bias POV" FFS
@pformag: Sorry I read that as "looking at wikipedia with the intent to assess bias", rather than "an assessment from a biased source".
Seems decent to me:
"Bestiality/zoophilia
Domestic sheep
See Wikipedia on bestialityAs of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on zoophilia/bestiality has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "Zoophilia and the law" article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.[29]"
If you cite The Bolt Report as a credible source of "alternative facts" on Climate Change, why not go the whole hog an provide links to Anti-vax and Flat-earth websites while you're at it?
Literally pedophile apologists, can't understand why anyone would want to associate with them.
I find it best to read from both sides. If you only read news from 1 or 2 sources, then you will get only those viewpoints.
I do find for international news, AP News and Reuters tend to be more center.
Reddit - its also a great source, sign up to both sides and you can get the same story told from completely different angles. r/politics is a complete waste of time, unless you love Trump Bashing 24/7
I pay to support https://www.michaelwest.com.au/ - but don't tend to read it first thing in the morning or the outrage upsets my rice bubbles
but for the story behind the latest profit making corruption, it's a whole different world.
I believe Michael West used to work for Murdoch, before he longer fit that culture.
He's hilarious and I watch a lot of his videos. But he is definitely biased and panders to a base.
Bwahahaha
Not sure how accurate this chart reflects reality. The comments in this thread may be worth reading.
Australia Media Bias Chart
02 Jul 2018
https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/8vgokb/australia…FactCheck: is Australia’s level of media ownership concentration one of the highest in the world?
December 12, 2016 3.07pm AEDT
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of…
me grandma is quite independent
Definitely New York Times. There is a slight liberal bias but highly factual with well known reporters and fact checking
Noo Yawk Times?
Nu Yawk Thames
Why watch any mainstream media? It’s all biased and 95% of it is owned by 6 companies.
I think your best bet are a variety of independent left and right YouTubers like Tim Pool, Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson. Stephan Molyneux is also good (but considered right).
You can't get any more independent than viewer/Patreon funded YouTubers.
Lots of great ones to choose from.
I subscribe to SMH on iPhone private browser
I'd recommend The Guardian, The Conversation, Reuters and The Associated Press
Triggernometry, conservative leaning but relatively non partisan political viewpoint interviews.
/r/the_donald
"This community is quarantined" lol
Don’t trust any source as independent, they’re all biased. Have some media intelligence and understand the bias of the writers/papers and read any source for your news.
Don't read any news. Spend the time reading and learning. You'll save yourself from the subscribed depression of the world.
Wikipedia has a current events page to glaze over if you must know whose killing who.
Independent News Sources is a bit of a broad term and like other have said, is a bit of an oxymoron. Personally I go
Internationally, the following news sources are considered extremely reliable and unbiased:
- AFP
- Associated Press
- Reuters
- BBCIn addition, I also pay credence to:
- Bloomberg
- PBS
- CBS
- Wall Street Journal
- NBC NewsOf course, you'll likely get some give-or take on either side of total neutrality. Reuters, AP, AFP and BBC use extremely dry language and try to give a proportionally representative perspective or equally balanced perspective on many sides of a debate if they decide to explore a topic beyond just reporting events. They are also the eminent sources for on-the-ground journalism and fact-finding, which is why you'll generally see them in the byline of publications and news broadcasts around the world. They will do pieces on the plights of humans in conflict zones or poverty, but it is made fairly clear that this is not factual reporting but rather a series of stories meant to illustrate the human impact of an issue.
Bloomberg, PBS, WSJ and NBC news are obviously heavily focused on domestic US news and international news pertaining to the United States. They lightly skew to either side of non-partisanship but generally provide unbiased commentary or reporting of events and issues. You can trust these to deliver astute commentary.
ozbargain forums is best
I read every response so far and it seems that only DarthAntz had the right answer.
Traditional "News" is a fool's game. It's a quick-fix designed for lazy people who want to understand everything happening in the world in 22 minutes or by skimming a few headlines. No news source is going to give you enough information to form a valid opinion on something…they need to leave time for their advertisers and other sponsors. If you want to understand a serious issue you need to take the time to learn about it yourself instead of relying on other people to collaborate facts for you.
Join social and political forums, watch lectures, read verified data about certain events or topics, and arm yourself with more than just knowing what happened - you'll also find out why, how, by whom etc.
Sure, you can switch to the news that tells you about a worldwide conspiracy of the gender pay gap. Or you could switch to the news that tells you there is no gender pay gap. Or you can look up independent government data on workplace statistics and do your own digging. Check the number of hours women work per week and compare it to men. Check for the industries with the highest median income, and then compare how many women work in these fields compared to men. Finally, search medical journals for the biological differences in psychology and materialism between women and men. All of this will help you form an insightful opinion on the issue rather than listening to an echo chamber that tells you how to think.
I don't think it's fair to characterise it as "lazy" not to research to that extent on every pertinent issue. Ain't nobody got time for dat
Right, which means they're hardly interested enough to have to worry about whether their source is reliable or biased.
If I hear something on the news that really interests me, I'll do my own research. If I hear something that doesn't interest me, it's not important enough for me to care about.
DailyWire and Breitbart are good, a little right-leaning, but if I guess that's just reality.
I'm surprised at the participation of, may I say, "liberal" thinkers here, it's refreshing. And agree with DarthAntz comment mostly.
My Picks, ones which I probably trust, more than others, or subscribe to:
- BBC World News
- Al jazeera
- The Guardian
- ReutersOthers which are often informative:
- RT NewsAnd others which I liken to propaganda:
- Fox News
- Sky "Commentary/Analysis" Shows (ie. Bolt Report, Rita/Peta)
- North Korea News (similar to Fox but more direct)Most news, unless very trivial, cannot be compressed into 30-second news bites which is unfortunately what really important policies or positions, global ones especially, are reduced to.
Best either to analyse & debate in-depth (for months or years) or to get on with your day-to-day work without overthinking it too much. :) IMHO.
- Al jazeera
I stopped listening to them after I heard them described China "A country who values money over their own people" in a video.
- North Korea News (similar to Fox but more direct)
Nice lol
Sky "Commentary/Analysis" Shows (ie. Bolt Report, Rita/Peta)
I just can't believe Mark Latham ever became Labor party leader - and people say Kevin Rudd is insane?
North Korea News (similar to Fox but more direct)
I had to laugh at that. It's always so funny to see their news lady (can't remember her name) spouting forth about the Glorious Leader when they use footage on Have You Been Paying Attention…
Daily Stormer
Great. I Googled that and now I'm probably on some sort of list ;-)
Wow lots of crap recs so far! The Guardian is entertainment not journalism.
For top quality journalism I'd suggest The New York Times, The Economist and The Financial Times. Be aware of their respective bias leans but they are truly world class publications.
Just read a spread. In pre-Murdoch monopoly times, it was supposed to reflect the public interest (which was why we had media-ownership laws in the first place) and while they're more concentrated by agenda now, it just means we have to read more widely. I read 'em all if they're not totally paywalled which really only rules out The Australian (which appears to have completely jumped the shark in recent times anyway). You can spot the articles designed to get people all wound up in their left or rightism and are easy enough to ignore.
Someone already mentioned The Betoota Advocate - I think it's really important to read the satire as well because it's a good check and balance too.
Democracy Now.
Wikileaks.
The Gray Zone.
Subverse News have the right idea if not execution.