Sounds like you're looking for independent journalism, I'm in the same boat. I've found checking commondreams.org, scheerpost.com, therealnews.com, unicornriot.ninja, fair.org, thecanary.co, leftvoice.org, consortiumnews.com, labornotes.org, and popularresistance.org/news make for a great news feed. Those are an array of independent news outlets which keep it almost entirely just news. Setting up an RSS feed with these sites would be a solid move to ensure your getting news with none of the BS.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
93 points (96.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43744 readers
1502 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm having a hard time getting their URL feeds. I think your post is very useful. Since you mentioned the RSS feed, could you share the links, please? It would be awesome if you can spare the time. Thanks.
I just use radindiemedia.com as my source for these news feeds. It's curated by an activist who also mixes in some of his work as well as a few other news sources. But those sites make up the vast majority of the links.
Oh, that's it. Thank you very much.
I can recommend Reuters, given it still has a little bit of sports and opinion, but I find it's good at providing neutral facts and sources it's knowledge from appropriate experts for its opinion pieces.
It only lacks in providing local level news, where I turn to my country's national broadcaster.
Seconding Reuters. Their primary customers are other news agencies, so Reuters generally don't add spin to a news article.
I guess AP is similar.
providing neutral facts and sources itβs knowledge from appropriate experts for its opinion pieces.
Such as Adrian Zenz. A guy who was paid by the BBC to make up absurd stories about China and who thinks god sent him on a mission to rid the world of gays and communists.
load more comments
(3 replies)
News is a service that determines whatβs newsworthy and summarizes it. You canβt do that without bias at some level.
I think what you're describing is the need for RSS feeds. Generally, news outlets categorise their articles neatly so you subscribe with RSS to only headlines, or world events, or whatever. It requires you to have a look around the news site in question and setup RSS correctly.
The other neat thing is that you can read all your RSS feeds (ie multiple news sites) in one reader and there are tons of custom RSS apps.
I share your disdain for gossip and mainstream money grab promo. And ads. My god how much do ads suck.
Itβs funny how often this is brought up and how the answer is thatβs itβs been solved since nearly the begging of the web.
Iβve been using an RSS manager / server for decades! Right now itβs FreshRSS as the server and using Lire as a client on iOS. Thereβs arguably no better way to consume content.
RSS won't solve OP's problem. Most sites have a single feed with all their articles, if they have an rss feed at all (can't sell ads in an rss feed).
Aside from maybe just the raw AP feed (which is free through their app) I'm not sure any modern news room just publishes the type of feed OP might be looking for.
I think that really depends on the news site. News from my country is very well suited for RSS.
100% yeah. I guess I mean that OP is already frustrated by noise in their news sources, rss doesn't solve curation, which is what it sounds like people think rss does. But if every story you're shown needs to be relevant to your interests rss isn't going to fix that.
Even the perfect news outlet that OP describes is going to have tons of boring stuff. Social media tried solving it with algorithms and will probably move on to AI driven feeds in 18 months, but their profit motive spoils the effort.
Then again I've thought about curation vs. aggregation maybe a bit too much.
I'm subscribed to over 50 RSS feeds and never once have I wanted to subscribe to a site and they didn't have a feed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
News sites often have multiple feeds, but many these days don't. And the feeds still aren't as granular as I'd like sometimes. My regional newspaper has a feed for news more specifically local to me, but it's bogged down with children's sports and obituaries.
I think my dream setup would allow some intelligent filters to get rid of any categories I just don't care about, and any "top 8 widgets to do X" filler advertisement articles. Also, a way to lump together all news articles covering the same story, so I could either choose which outlets to actually read/compare, or mark all as read.
I recommend news agencies* like Reuters, AP, and AFP. If you want to just get pure news.
*News agencies are companies that primarily sell news to other companies like CNN.
NPR News is probably what you're looking for. sports and celebrity stuff is relegated to the Culture section, which is its own separate thing (although there are a couple of music stories that seem to have been misplaced). here is the RSS feed for the News section: https://feeds.npr.org/1001/rss.xml
I've had great experiences with reading socialist news sites. They tend not to care about 'the spectacle' and don't like ads. Although you still have to avoid the ones like WSWS who just use it as a platform to call other socialists 'pseudo-left'.
Side note: There's a great famous analysis of the US media in the book Manufacturing Consent. You can find a PDF online, but at the very very very least you should read the Wikipedia summary. It explains the reasons why media organisations almost inevitably have some of these biases and bullshits.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Id probably use AP (Associated Press) since they seem to provide the least biased and most fact based reporting. However looking at their front page right now I see minimal content involving celebrities so it might not be your cup of tea.
I have the AP Top Stories page as my bookmark. It gets rid of even more of the stuff OP doesn't want.
Only borderline story is about Taylor Swift and food banks, but the focus is on the economics and other issues food banks face, so I feel it is still within guidelines. There's no celeb drama or gushing in it.
This and my local NPR affiliate are my primary news sources.
load more comments
(2 replies)
All media are biased. Some are open about their bias (communist media) and some are not (Wikipedia says it's "neutral" but there's a catch). Western media are all very polular and one-sided so I recommend reading english.news.cn.
Every news agency will have an inherent bias. There is no such thing as purely objective news without a perspective. However, you can learn to identify the biases, cross reference news with different sources, especially ones from different countries to see other perspectives, and then think about the topics yourself to get a deeper understanding.
This is the way. It's a ton off work and often, you have to be willing to be wrong about what you thought you knew going into a subject. Approaching news from multiple perspectives reveals your own biases too.
The perfect news source for me would be a single, trustworthy aggregator that showed me several perspectives on every story, all in the same place. That doesn't exist though.
there are some attempts like ground.news but I agree they leave a lot to be desired and tend to completely ignore non western sources
1440 is what I use. It's literally bare-bones news articles devoid of any opinion, just facts. They cover both US and international news, and have small culture and sports blips that aren't click-baity. And it's emailed to you every day. :)
I've not read 1440 at all, so this may or may not apply, but I'd offer a word of caution to any news that purports to be "just facts". You can absolutely promote an agenda with only facts by choosing which facts to publish (and what stories to even cover). It's sometimes better to aim to get news from sources that are just very transparent about their biases instead of claiming they don't have any.
load more comments
(2 replies)
AlJazeera
I like to listen to NPR's up first. They don't have too much time to editorialized. I'll then go to AP or Reuters if I want to follow up on something.
I really wish there was a news source with coverage weighted by humanitarian impact.
That might actually be too far in the other direction for what you're thinking of, though. Most political news wouldn't be there, just because it's hard to draw a direct line objectively to the impact it has. Many sites provide categories and filters, so maybe just using those more would be a start.
I like Axios because it's short form but has extended versions of I find it interesting enough to learn more.
Generally just use multiple sources, I used Ground News for quite a while.
Every news outlet will have their biases, that is completely normal everyone has biases, even when you have multiple people reviewing the content, only a fraud will tell you they're completely unbiased. So just seek multiple sources, preferably from also multiple countries and languages when applicable.
For US news, I really like readtangle.com.
DW gets my vote
All the βnewsβ people care about is clicks so you will read their ads. That is why they cover Trump so much so you will outrage click. Case in point, look at HuffingtonPost.com It is a left-leaning outrage bait website. They no longer care about actually reporting anything. They position themselves as a women-staffed site but if you look, right this very minute, it is about 100 photos of Trump. I agree it is getting old, but they are all doing it. Real news? You just have filter through the shitshow of 2024 journalism.
Yeah, there's no way to make money covering important but boring stuff in a neat, concise fashion.
Before cable news and before there was such an appetite for political news, real news sources were very diverse. Every newspaper had a sports section and an entertainment section. Also opinion was in the opinion or op-ed section. Nowadays I'm more leary of news sources that are strictly political news. Everyone has a Washington DC correspondent. Lots of news sites will buy all of their news outside of DC from a wire service or even sometimes their story is "reporting" what another agency is reporting. Maybe I'm just old and set in my ways but I prefer the traditional well rounded sources. Others just seem cheap and have an agenda
everyone has and always had an agenda.
Aside from that, generally I can agree, the commodification of news and profit-seeking, as often is the case, have ruined everything.
It became really difficult after billionaires bought up much of the smaller/stagnant media companies and turned them into "cut research and investigation departments, copy the NYT, and push ~~entertainment~~ opinion articles"
My rule of thumb unfortunately has become: is it a large corporation? Then it can go fuck itself. As others have said AP is good too
I like allsides.com
mintpressnews, the grayzone
view more: next βΊ