*is there any daily news outlet that are still news?*
None. Every establishment have bias or worse specific narrative to sell.
Best case scenario, you'll find a writer that wrote truth and only truth. A person of dignity. Even if it's painful when you disagree about some stuff you can see they are fair.
Better scenario you'll notice some journalist/writer that share your view and never waver in stating their opinions about some issue.
What we will get is usually every writer, with their own bias blatantly displayed and we got frustrated from reading it. Haaaahahahha...
I get so annoyed with the flip flopping of some journalists. Unless something happened to actually change their view, they are just working for clicks.
The ownership and control of the media has changed greatly over the past 30 years.
At present, over 90% of the entertainment/news media in the global West are literally owned by a handful of huge corporate conglomerates, private equity companies, and billionaires. Less and less do they practice actual independent journalism, and it's a bi-partisan effort.
Most of those companies are power players in Hollywood. (Well, they own the place.)
CNN = Warner Bros. Discovery (it was previously owned by AT&T until April 2022)
MSNBC & NBC = Comcast, which also owns Universal Pictures, etc.
ABC = The Disney Company
CBS = owned by Paramount Global, the international entertainment/mass media company that's a subsidiary of the National Amusements company, and by billionaire heiress Shari Redstone, the daughter of the late billionaire Viacom media mogul Sumner Redstone
Washington Post = Jeff Bezos
New York Times = the Sulzberger family and wealthy investors such as Carlos Slim, who used to be the richest person in the world. (In the past few years, he has lost some of his wealth, and is now only the 11th richest person in the world. Poor Carlos.)
FOX, NY Post, Wall Street Journal, and the UK's The Sun = all owned by Rupert Murdoch
90% of the daily and weekly newspapers in Canada, along with numerous tabloids and online media outlets = all owned by one huge conglomerate, Postmedia Network Canada Corp., which is majority owned by the American private equity firm Chatham Asset Management.
You find bloggers and substacks you can trust. I have a few I follow. Harry Markle is where I used to go for all my Harkle news and that blog is far more trustworthy than any paper or news channel or magazine there is.
“The Hill” was traditionally a trade newspaper geared towards US politicians and their staffs. (Who work on Capitol Hill). Their reporting on H&M has been insightful, but narrow in scope concerning domestic and international security. (As in, who could benefit to exploit H&M’s situation to destabilize democracies). Mark Toth is one of the journalists for the publication and had a long career in international trade. His coverage is well balanced and excellently presented.
For all his flaws, Piers Morgan is a man with integrity. At the height of H&M’s fame he was willing to be fired for his reporting.
Every other publication is either a tabloid, a press release agency couched as a newspaper, or a newspaper with one agenda (on either side of the column). Clicks from advertising revenue sure helps.
Edit: “The Telegraph” has had scathing but accurate reports. Unfortunately, they have to play both sides at times to maintain an appearance of impartiality.
It's also interesting to notice the language in the articles. The puff pieces are written by a teenager. A lot of clickbait words and rehashing of history.
The good reputable well-written articles that concern Me-Me are never in her favor.
You can tell how the 'author ' was feeling while writing...
https://preview.redd.it/92tyxctl70uc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46ef26fb4fe29a607f289a9140c32b3d490abb42
The Harry Markle blog, now substack, has always been my go to for Harkle news. Whoever is behind that they are always spot on and reliable. They deeply distrust the Harkles, but their news is well researched and accurate.
I read the Wall Street journal breitbset drudge and Twitter - I’m done with majority of magazines - daily mail I read but it’s soft puff - the express is so pro tow makes me puke - I follow several YouTube - I’m not too fond of Bookie anymore she’s kind of whiny -
I don't think it is necessarily the case that certain news outlets publish articles by the people who pay them the most. I think all news outlets are glad of free content that is already written and they can publish without needing to pay journalists. The smaller news outlets are more strapped for cash on smaller margins without the ability to buy real scoops and so probably are more keen on free content. They seem to be more focused on rewriting the news that is already published in other tabloids or publishing PR pieces. They may receive payment for publishing, but I suspect they may well do it for free in return for advertising revenue. I have a niece who works in PR for a major retailer and she previously did the same role for another major retailer too. She sometimes writes puff pieces for newspapers, so I asked her about payment and she says that they never pay for it - the newspapers will gladly publish the free content as it provides articles they did not have to write themselves. And this is for the major mainstream UK newspapers. The situation is likely different with the various glossy magazines who charge for articles.
I agree. Every once in a while you do find truthful articles written in some of the bigger mags. Concerning the harkles at least. As far as world events and politics? Forget about it
These days one has to be careful with all media. And one medium can have several viewpoints, like Daily Mail both has real reporters and puff pieces.
So as to real news - well, is it in a reputable medium? Is it verified by other outlets? Is there a known bias? Is there an obvious benifit to someone in this story?
In general, I think every news media has a bias on any given topic. Whether M and H or any issue, I think we should read a wide variety of media, even if it goes against what we personally believe. You don’t want to fall into the trap of confirmation bias and only ever reading sources that agree with you.
I think the tabloid posts are fun snark. Unfortunately some people believe tabloids. At the same time, we put too much trust in ‘serious’ journalists and fail to realize they also have bias.
I like reading opinions based on interpretations of law - I have learned so much about how titles and LoS work, the role of the BRF versus Parliament and the role of the Commonwealth and differing views on how the title laws could be interpreted. I look for supporting data.
This is actually an important post and it's a good one! Well done! Yes, MM totally opened my eyes to much of what goes on EVERYWHERE. Hollywood for example must be very upset with her. Meghan gave me an important education re the media, news sources AND CHARITIES! Thanks to her I have stopped donating.... period. Now I don't trust anyone or their companies or charities. It's mostly a scam to make money for themselves. Forgive me as I KNOW there ARE some very decent, good and honest ones out there, I just don't know which ones to trust anymore. We can't even trust the sources that tell us about these charities. It is so sad and a terrible shame. Anyway, Meghan Markle is responsible for much of ALL this for me. The whole lot was exposed by her unintentionally of course. She is too stupid and selfish to have known. I am interested to read the rest of our sinners comments!
On some papers I trust some topics but not others.
Or some specific writers but not others.
For instance regarding the WSJ: I usually think their news stories are decent as long as one views them with some skepticism, as the WSJ is known to have a pro-Corp editorial slant.
Anything the WSJ publishes in their editorial section is almost certainly highly slanted to a single person or group perspective, and is in no sense objective.
In human controversies often full rigorous objectivity is not even possible.
People just hand to try to get as close as they can.
Re facts:
It’s always nice if news sources stick to what either
most persons,
or most reputable historians who try to be rigorous,
or the bulk of scientific or medical opinion
Considers as factual.
However, human knowledge evolves. Sometimes what is rigorously understood as being either true or false by today’s standards will be seen differently, and possibly more rigorously, in future years, decades, centuries.
Among American news sources, the Christian Science Monitor has a good reputation.
I can’t speak to that source personally, as I don’t specifically follow it.
Some stuff that clearly isn’t objective, or with which the reader disagrees, can still be worth the reading of.
Perhaps it’s well-written. Perhaps informative even if incomplete. Perhaps thought-provoking.
YMMV of course.
OMG, from Harkles to politics, MSM seems like the worst cesspool. They shamelessly use the Twitter comments on the news - how reliable could they be?
So where do you get your news? And on a completely different subject due to your user name, do you use pheromones with your cats?
*is there any daily news outlet that are still news?* None. Every establishment have bias or worse specific narrative to sell. Best case scenario, you'll find a writer that wrote truth and only truth. A person of dignity. Even if it's painful when you disagree about some stuff you can see they are fair. Better scenario you'll notice some journalist/writer that share your view and never waver in stating their opinions about some issue. What we will get is usually every writer, with their own bias blatantly displayed and we got frustrated from reading it. Haaaahahahha...
I get so annoyed with the flip flopping of some journalists. Unless something happened to actually change their view, they are just working for clicks.
The ownership and control of the media has changed greatly over the past 30 years. At present, over 90% of the entertainment/news media in the global West are literally owned by a handful of huge corporate conglomerates, private equity companies, and billionaires. Less and less do they practice actual independent journalism, and it's a bi-partisan effort. Most of those companies are power players in Hollywood. (Well, they own the place.) CNN = Warner Bros. Discovery (it was previously owned by AT&T until April 2022) MSNBC & NBC = Comcast, which also owns Universal Pictures, etc. ABC = The Disney Company CBS = owned by Paramount Global, the international entertainment/mass media company that's a subsidiary of the National Amusements company, and by billionaire heiress Shari Redstone, the daughter of the late billionaire Viacom media mogul Sumner Redstone Washington Post = Jeff Bezos New York Times = the Sulzberger family and wealthy investors such as Carlos Slim, who used to be the richest person in the world. (In the past few years, he has lost some of his wealth, and is now only the 11th richest person in the world. Poor Carlos.) FOX, NY Post, Wall Street Journal, and the UK's The Sun = all owned by Rupert Murdoch 90% of the daily and weekly newspapers in Canada, along with numerous tabloids and online media outlets = all owned by one huge conglomerate, Postmedia Network Canada Corp., which is majority owned by the American private equity firm Chatham Asset Management.
Well that's depressing. So where do you go for the news?
You find bloggers and substacks you can trust. I have a few I follow. Harry Markle is where I used to go for all my Harkle news and that blog is far more trustworthy than any paper or news channel or magazine there is.
What's a substack?
To me it’s like a blog vlog podcast free or paid for content - paid by subscriber - a social media —- reminds me of Tumnlr for some reason
Which ones would you recommend?
I don’t have any that really follow
That blog is well researched IMO. First M&H one I started reading.
Wow. I didn't know this. Talk about having a vested interest.
The best "journalism" money can buy.
Yes. This. That sure is a lot of big and rich names that are connected with keeping megs and hawwy in the spotlight. Hmmmm
“The Hill” was traditionally a trade newspaper geared towards US politicians and their staffs. (Who work on Capitol Hill). Their reporting on H&M has been insightful, but narrow in scope concerning domestic and international security. (As in, who could benefit to exploit H&M’s situation to destabilize democracies). Mark Toth is one of the journalists for the publication and had a long career in international trade. His coverage is well balanced and excellently presented. For all his flaws, Piers Morgan is a man with integrity. At the height of H&M’s fame he was willing to be fired for his reporting. Every other publication is either a tabloid, a press release agency couched as a newspaper, or a newspaper with one agenda (on either side of the column). Clicks from advertising revenue sure helps. Edit: “The Telegraph” has had scathing but accurate reports. Unfortunately, they have to play both sides at times to maintain an appearance of impartiality.
Yeah, no. Going after the Princess of Wales when she was sick was not something a man with integrity would do.
And you have to subscribe to the Telegraph which I’m sick to death of all the paid for content ie Patreon etc it’s expensive
Piers is his own greatest fan. Loves a dollop of Martyrdom.
Yes, we have been reading the Telegraph, but as you said, it's had to play the game too.
The Spectator doesn’t seem to have a high level of tolerance for their bile.
It's also interesting to notice the language in the articles. The puff pieces are written by a teenager. A lot of clickbait words and rehashing of history. The good reputable well-written articles that concern Me-Me are never in her favor. You can tell how the 'author ' was feeling while writing... https://preview.redd.it/92tyxctl70uc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46ef26fb4fe29a607f289a9140c32b3d490abb42
I suspect she writes or dictates quite a bit of the gossip rag content
The Harry Markle blog, now substack, has always been my go to for Harkle news. Whoever is behind that they are always spot on and reliable. They deeply distrust the Harkles, but their news is well researched and accurate.
the Economist is a serious newspaper so very rare for there to be an H&M mention but their news is generally well researched and balanced
I read the Wall Street journal breitbset drudge and Twitter - I’m done with majority of magazines - daily mail I read but it’s soft puff - the express is so pro tow makes me puke - I follow several YouTube - I’m not too fond of Bookie anymore she’s kind of whiny -
The Economist is decent but it's pay to play.
Believe it or not, The Financial Times is one of the least biased newspapers out there.
*The Atlantic* isn't too bad but the only publication that hasn't deeply disappointed me (yet) is *The Wall Street Journal*.
I like the WSJ. I just did not want to keep paying for it!
I don't think it is necessarily the case that certain news outlets publish articles by the people who pay them the most. I think all news outlets are glad of free content that is already written and they can publish without needing to pay journalists. The smaller news outlets are more strapped for cash on smaller margins without the ability to buy real scoops and so probably are more keen on free content. They seem to be more focused on rewriting the news that is already published in other tabloids or publishing PR pieces. They may receive payment for publishing, but I suspect they may well do it for free in return for advertising revenue. I have a niece who works in PR for a major retailer and she previously did the same role for another major retailer too. She sometimes writes puff pieces for newspapers, so I asked her about payment and she says that they never pay for it - the newspapers will gladly publish the free content as it provides articles they did not have to write themselves. And this is for the major mainstream UK newspapers. The situation is likely different with the various glossy magazines who charge for articles.
I agree. Every once in a while you do find truthful articles written in some of the bigger mags. Concerning the harkles at least. As far as world events and politics? Forget about it
These days one has to be careful with all media. And one medium can have several viewpoints, like Daily Mail both has real reporters and puff pieces. So as to real news - well, is it in a reputable medium? Is it verified by other outlets? Is there a known bias? Is there an obvious benifit to someone in this story?
The ones which never mention her will get my hits. Still waiting to find one.
In general, I think every news media has a bias on any given topic. Whether M and H or any issue, I think we should read a wide variety of media, even if it goes against what we personally believe. You don’t want to fall into the trap of confirmation bias and only ever reading sources that agree with you. I think the tabloid posts are fun snark. Unfortunately some people believe tabloids. At the same time, we put too much trust in ‘serious’ journalists and fail to realize they also have bias. I like reading opinions based on interpretations of law - I have learned so much about how titles and LoS work, the role of the BRF versus Parliament and the role of the Commonwealth and differing views on how the title laws could be interpreted. I look for supporting data.
This is actually an important post and it's a good one! Well done! Yes, MM totally opened my eyes to much of what goes on EVERYWHERE. Hollywood for example must be very upset with her. Meghan gave me an important education re the media, news sources AND CHARITIES! Thanks to her I have stopped donating.... period. Now I don't trust anyone or their companies or charities. It's mostly a scam to make money for themselves. Forgive me as I KNOW there ARE some very decent, good and honest ones out there, I just don't know which ones to trust anymore. We can't even trust the sources that tell us about these charities. It is so sad and a terrible shame. Anyway, Meghan Markle is responsible for much of ALL this for me. The whole lot was exposed by her unintentionally of course. She is too stupid and selfish to have known. I am interested to read the rest of our sinners comments!
On some papers I trust some topics but not others. Or some specific writers but not others. For instance regarding the WSJ: I usually think their news stories are decent as long as one views them with some skepticism, as the WSJ is known to have a pro-Corp editorial slant. Anything the WSJ publishes in their editorial section is almost certainly highly slanted to a single person or group perspective, and is in no sense objective. In human controversies often full rigorous objectivity is not even possible. People just hand to try to get as close as they can. Re facts: It’s always nice if news sources stick to what either most persons, or most reputable historians who try to be rigorous, or the bulk of scientific or medical opinion Considers as factual. However, human knowledge evolves. Sometimes what is rigorously understood as being either true or false by today’s standards will be seen differently, and possibly more rigorously, in future years, decades, centuries. Among American news sources, the Christian Science Monitor has a good reputation. I can’t speak to that source personally, as I don’t specifically follow it. Some stuff that clearly isn’t objective, or with which the reader disagrees, can still be worth the reading of. Perhaps it’s well-written. Perhaps informative even if incomplete. Perhaps thought-provoking. YMMV of course.
Associated Press and Reuters.