I used to think SMH was legit but they are indeed as dogshit as the Daily Telegraph. I could not find any reporting on the controversial UK stabbing. Search nowak or digwa.
Can't find anything.
Is there anything worth it out there?
Which Paid Australian News Source Is Trustworthy?
donnytuco on 03/06/2026 - 05:12
Comments
@Muppet Detector: I think it does mean what I think it means. It can sue and can be sued. It can enter into contracts. And it can hold property and other assets in its own right. It has legal personhood.
@Muppet Detector: No I wasn't. I was just speaking casually and obviously with insufficient specificity to be clear to certain readers who sometimes read and interpret things too literally.
But now that you mention it, it could, or rather its authorised agents could purport that it does have an opinion. And while it might be true in legal fiction, obviously it isn't true in reality, as you have so keenly intimated. In reality it would just be an agent for the ABC expressing their own or the board members' agreed opinion as if the entity had its own mind and could form and express opinions.
@Muppet Detector: I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. I wrote that myself and didn't consult AI to inform my response. I did use a traditional search engine to confirm my inkling that, technically speaking, they can express opinions.
@Muppet Detector: Who is "the man"? That sounds remarkably adjacent to the "they" those cookers go on about.
@tenpercent: "The man" is a colloquial term for "the establishment" or "those in power/authority".
Often expressed as "sticking it to the man".
@gromit: What scale are you using to judge?
For me, I don't think of extreme, it's just centre, centre right, and far right. Extreme is not in the equation.
By that metric, far left would be would be nationalizing all large business and confiscating their ill gotten wealth. Left would be allowing them to exist, but taxing them disproportionately high. Centre would be taxing them moderately, but allowing them to exist under fair rules, giving them protection at the cost of expecting certain responsibilities. Centre right (which is where we are) is taxing them lightly, plus giving them incentives to help them grow. Far right would be not taxing them and giving them privileged status while demolishing the things (like unions or workers rights) that get in their way.
Michaelwest atm is mostly focused on getting BHP to not get away with underpaying their workers and then using the court system to silence and reporting on that so they can keep doing it (and expand the program). By the above metric, that would be a pretty centrist take.
Michaelwest atm is mostly focused on getting BHP to not get away with underpaying their workers and then using the court system to silence and reporting on that so they can keep doing it (and expand the program). By the above metric, that would be a pretty centrist take.
The fact they have a political agenda at all is a massive problem, whether I agree with the agenda or not. That makes them less of a news site and more an activist site and that certainly is not a centrist take.
@gromit: You know, if you want people to take you seriously, your arguments need a better basis than because I said so
Al Jazeera is a good source for international news.
Al Jazeera is a good source for international news.
They also do good charcoal chicken…
good charcoal chicken
I wouldn't call it good. It's almost as dry as your humour.
Overpriced* smaller than Nandos charcoal chicken.
At KFC: can I order a beef burger, please?
When there isn't a war in Gaza anyway. But it is their region so don't blame them for focusing on war reporting.
Yes, true, it is extremely focused at the moment, especially on their social media feeds.
But they have also reported on what OP is talking about, amongst other world events not related to the current situation in the Middle East.
yep and their Gaza coverage has been some of the most biased bullshit I have ever read, I used to think quite well of Al Jazeera prior to that.
@gromit: I think it's just that Al Jazeera is accurate, when there is a middle eastern war, press job numbers increase by the thousands.
When news agencies during cøvid (the most coordinated, widespread and systematically relentless reporting we've ever seen as a planet) found the time to cover the blacklivesmatter campaign in great detail with daily front page coverage, I'm sure during a war that barely gets the coverage or accuracy it deserves, the news agencies could find the time to report the exact same flavour of events that were the precursor to the first movement if they wanted to.
Fact is, it doesn't suit their agenda.
Well at least 77,000 people have died in the Israel/Palestine war in the last five years. Over a million Americans alone died earlier than they should have during Covid.
@Rickysupertramp: The level of reporting on covid was justified. And it makes sense for Aljazeera to focus on war reporting, that's what they get all the awards for.
The Guardian will give you what you are looking for. It has UK, US & AUS sites with Australian journalists.
It's trustworthy but biased.
It's free but has nag pop ups.Guardian is a bit lefty but not stupidly so. Given most of the rest of our media is raging far right its not too bad.
I count myself as a bit left of centre and even I think the Guardian is more left than centrist. They report the facts but their analysis is definitely biased.
The Guardian has some good content like recipes, fashion, trends, sport, tech but when it comes to politics, geopolitics, economics, finance, history it's unreadable - unless you're a champagne socialist (like many on OzB are).
I'm confused.
The facts on the ground suggest the Guardian is accurate. But you said to ignore them and only trust facts.
Maybe you meant ignore the facts so you can then disregard them? 🤔
The facts on the ground suggest the Guardian is accurate.
Although the OP was specifically referencing a particular UK incident, its obviously a question in the broad context of news media reporting in general. Whether the media report or dont report and if they do report the facts are often skewed to the medias political leanings and narratives.
My point is to seek the facts reported on the ground, ascertain their accuracy and use your own noggin to assess the situation instead of outsourcing your thinking.
Maybe you meant ignore the facts so you can then disregard them?
If ignoring the facts is your methodology, you're cooked.
Do you have the same views about the Murdoch media? Given you're so concerned about bias and all?
Crickets.
All media sources, Murdoch media included, are swinging solely to commentary round tables, by selectively reporting and providing biased commentary as a form of brain washing and propagandising the public.
@abuch47: You're confused about "right wing" and "left wing", which are largely meaningless tribalism.
You could just as easily argue all our media is left wing, and almost zero right wing. This is actually a more defensible position since, unlike in the 90's, the current anti-establishment group (far right) is now up against legislation designed to suppress them (such as being arrested for "hate speech" on facebook).
In reality, the "far left wingers" fighting the neoconservatives in power 2000 are the same "far right wingers" fighting the neoliberals in 2026, and both neocons and neolibs are just all the worst parts of capitalistic and communistic, interventionist and isolationist, etc, policies.
Damn I’m framing this one
There are a lot of things happening in the world. They can't all be reported in the media.
News consumers seek out the view of the world that they consider important, and looked at in terms of their values.
But journalists have formed themselves into ideological and media outlet tribes which each decide what is important enough -"newsworthy" enough - to be worth reporting. With each tribe having a different idea of what that is. That's why the mainstream media hates social media, because it lets news consumers do the same as them. It denies them tribe the power to dictate the news that people get, and therefore the response of politicians. To set the social and political agenda.
I don't find a very good fit between my own idea of what I'm interested in, and how it should be reported, and any single one of the journalism and media outlet tribes. I have to look right across the range of different ones.
I primarily read and watch the ABC, because I think it tries to get the underlying facts right. But there are a huge number of things it seems to be afraid to say because that would upset politicians who decide its funding. I read the Michael West Media because it isn't, but it only publishes a small number of articles. I read the Guardian Australia because its interesting, I watch Channel 7 TV news because its local, and tries not to be political. I read the local Murdoch media outlet despite it politicising everything, but is also locally focused. And I still read the SMH, because I lived there for many years, but we have increasingly grown apart in our view of issues I consider important.
No news is good news…
You can not read the news and be uninformed, or you can read paid news and be misinformed.
If you're looking for as unbiased as possible, then paying for APNews or just using the free APNews site is about as good as you'll get. Your other option is Reuters.
In terms of trustworthy though, to a degree they're all 'trustworthy' as long as you have some critical thinking skills and can read between the lines. If you take the writing as face value then you're going to have a bad time no matter where it comes from.If you're looking for as unbiased as possible, then paying for APNews or just using the free APNews site is about as good as you'll get. Your other option is Reuters.
Well that's got to be an oxymoron now.
The same APNews and the same Reuters who are founding members of the Censored Approved News Initiative. Cartel behaviour in the news press market.Exactly! APnews is as sold as they come.
Not all opinions are equal.
Groundnews
I've found them to be decent but never tried the paid version
Reputable Aussie publications like the ABC are full of Aussie stabbings. No room for pommy stabbings. Why are they "controversial"?
Showing 10376 results for “stabbings”
The news aspect is the police response to crime, not the crime itself.
I think it's worth reading from a variety of sources, but keeping in mind who works for/owns them, and being able to identify biases. For example, Murdoch-owned media has been traditionally anti-Labor.
- ABC: Taxpayer funded, stacked by ex-NewsCorp staff
- 9 News: Peter Costello was a former chairman (ex-Liberal Party Treasurer)
- 7 News: Kerry Stokes, mining billionaire
- NewsCorp: Rupert Murdoch (also owns The Australian, News.com.au, The Advertiser, etc.)
- Fairfax: Owned by Nine Media (AFR, SMH, The Age)
No, no, no. The media is meant to be too leftist, you can't show them as tools of billionaires!
Since when was the left exempt from being tools of those in power? The Russians had their useful idiots during the Bolshevik revolution, and when they were no longer useful, just idiots? They got rid of them.
Agree.
Just noting that the usual comments about bias all assume the mainstream media are Bolsheviks where they are overwhelmingly the tools and products of the wealthy.Useful idiots and social engineering has been a characteristic of the SU/Russia for centuries.
wait people actually pay for news?? lmao
None, I am serious, none are.
The closest you'll get from the 'truth' and typically non-bias are ironically from "influencers" trying to deconstruct the bullshit that's going on.
I studied media and news at uni and the amount of bullshit twists and spinning a story of personal bias and agenda is outstanding. Every time I watch the news, I can typically call out the bullshit.
That story is fkd - the UK's George Floyd moment.
More support for Reform and Restore incoming.
Nearly all news sources are biased - left or right. Read them all and draw your own conclusions.
Bit different to George Floyd, by all accounts this guy was just a normal fellow, not a known repeated violent felon who was high as a kite.
Agree but I was referring to the change that the death of Floyd caused. Hopefully, the indigenous population of the UK rage against this horrific death and bring about the end of race bias policing.
Hopefully, the indigenous population of the UK rage against this horrific death and bring about the end of race bias policing.
For some reason it makes me think of this
yeah if it was a black guy that got stabbed by a white guy the far left would be rioting (when dont they). but george fentanyl floyd dies of an overdose and cities got rioted by leftist
Genuinely don't think there is one.
You should try the social media slop method. Get Instagram to think you're a Nazi, tiktok to think you're a communist.
For reference I literally cannot avoid news in the stabbing in my insta. They've already posted the body cams, the 999 call, speeches from families involved etc. Even if SMH etc weren't so bias they wouldn't be able to provide that depth of info.
None.
1st stupid sensationalist / fake headline…..and they are out for me.
Every news service I have seen has failed this test so far.
but then you become a hermit living under a rock like myself.. until on completely unrelated forums (like this) someone mentions a stabbing, and you're only just catching up on who tf george floyd is right now - eh.. okay maybe it's not so bad
Our patron saint of fentanyl, praise be to him.
Depends on what your define as trustworthy - generally spealing every bit if mainstream media has its own bias as everyone is paid/funded by someone or somewhere
this will suprise people but i probably read/watch the ABC the 'most' i rip them for being left wing bias (i really wish it was impartial) but when they report on something that is against the agenda then i know it isnt just sky news sensationalism - ill also flip that for Sky news if they are ripping into something right sides then it isnt just woke tards losing their head - ill add this and say things ABC 'dont report' i pay close attention too one of the biggest ones was the mis-reporting of the Voice and sexual hassasment that Lidia Thorpe commited during a night club incident would be worth noting as the ABC wants to protect agenda. Also they way they have fake reported on One Nation not wanting to talk to them when they dont mention they published a ON staffer and refused to retract the name was also interesting - People like Patrica Karvals etc i will just turn on straight off because the bias is simply to much for mean to even ignore.
al jazeera isnt bad as long as it dont get anything to do with the middle east from them - it is essentially good for anything that isnt based on their region
Independant journalist from writters to the blokes on Youtube like Topherfield, PuntersPolitics etc are all worth a listening to because they at least arent being 'paid off' (yet)
This will also be unpoplar but on Election 'nights' Sky News is far and away the best to watch they will have Independant/ALP/LNP staffers on the table giving their opinion uncensored
ill note this i 'dont directly' pay for any news but i may/may not have an IPTV set up that gives me access to it all
All news/media outlet have some sort of lean - right or left, depending on their and your perspective and prior experiences.
https://ground.news/ gives some sort of breakdown of the news and media outlet bias
If we’re adding polls later I vote compuhyperglobalmeganet meme group on facebook
Is your issue that Fairfax isn't quick enough?
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/i-can-t-breathe-stabbed-…I guess if it makes the print edition it will be tomorrow.
I'd also say take a breath and consider why you had such an extreme reaction to a slow news post about a court verdict on the other side of the world.
What has influenced you to think the whole media company is "dogshit" that you didn't see the story you were looking for as quickly as you expected?
Maybe other sources besides the media are influencing you to seek out bias or to jump on perceived biases?
I'm skirting around the point a bit, because this story is about racially charged subjects, there are lots of bad actors on the internet trying to use it to drum up support for their racism.It would suck to be manipulated in that way.
Or come to a bargain site and try covertly stir up that sentiment by using a missing news article to talk about it.
TLDR news is pretty good. They remain apolitical, don't do bait but mostly cover big picture stuff.
They remain apolitical
They are left leaning; they did a video on it addressing viewer complaints.
None.
Take a look at Ground News.Jesus wept, this feels like low tier bait. I'm literally watching the BBC world coverage on this on SBS now followed by the France 24 to so you can't have tried to damn hard. Just come to harvest answers about media and trust like some sort of 1984 social experiment.
Only Reuters and Associated Press ever had reputations of credibility and truth in journalism but it can be incredibly hard to detect subtle bias, and every sentient being has bias.
Unfortunately journalism is all about making up stories and pushing for the narratives these days.
These days I go straight to AAP for domestic, and Reuters for International.
Usually via the apps.
SkyNews
This is gold!
Lol
Just watch friendly jordies on YouTube.
Michael West Media isn't bad - they still have a bit of a bias, but they are one of the few orgs doing real investigative journalism these days, and standing up for the little guys - see the BHP vs coal miner stuff they're running now.
Fairfax media used to be ok-ish 10+ years ago, but since they got acquired by Nine, they've apparently gotten rid of most of the real journalists.
Smh is mostly crap now but they still have a few good investigational journalists lurking about and they come out covering good stuff from time to time.
the Daily Mail is a (giggle) credible news source and will no doubt have one, maybe even two, stories on the said event
The Guardian covered it.
Why even read the news when you can read the judges findings for yourself?
Bypass Paywalls extension - then you can read both left and right of any issue. When you lean either left or right it is very important to sometimes read the other side. It stops you appearing like a goose to others if you can see and argue from either side.
You can simply use Bypass Paywalls Clean in Firefox and you can read all you ever want to know about the Henry Nowak case and more in The Telegraph for free. In today's paper alone we have:
- Badenoch: Henry Nowak’s parents want common-sense policing
- Forever 18’: Henry Nowak’s sister shares tribute to murdered brother
- Hampshire police face emergency inspection over Henry Nowak murder
- David Frost: The British state will learn nothing from the horrific murder of Henry Nowak
plus oodles and oodles of comments from right-wing blowhards about this and anything else related to Johnny ForeignerThis is a never-ending cycle. Incident occurs, people yell and scream "why isn't this being reported on" - but they know about it, because it was indeed reported on.
Soon it will transition to people claiming the media is racist because they don't label them as "terrorist." This is in spite of the fact that they cannot label anything like that until they are convicted.
Then, in an effort to understand the motive, media will start publishing the accused photos, family stories, childhood accomplishments, etc. People will claim this is trying to humanize the perpetrator.
And finally, once they're convicted, the story has now lost momentum.
@Muppet Detector: The ABC is a legal person. Not a human person.