News sources
- Thread starter William_Montgomery
- Start date
-
BushMoot: Come along to the amazing Summer Moot 31st July - 5th August (extended Moot : 27th July - 8th August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
But of course no matter what is reported and where, we all reserve the right to believe or disbelieve what we see and hear.
On the basis of the belief that the camera never lies when I was at college I did a study on the political misuse of photography, to find much, even evidence of conflicts started just by changing the image subject and location details
On the basis of the belief that the camera never lies when I was at college I did a study on the political misuse of photography, to find much, even evidence of conflicts started just by changing the image subject and location details
I find this person on substack to be a good source of news. It's mostly commenting of geopolitics or precious metals but sometimes covers a range of other subjects currently in the news cycle.
I have no idea who writes it but I've been reading their posts for a few months now and find they have some very clever and interesting insights as well as mentioning some information which I had not seen anywhere else. They also have a separate substack running alongside the main one which shows all of the source material used for their reference.
https://no01.substack.com/
I have no idea who writes it but I've been reading their posts for a few months now and find they have some very clever and interesting insights as well as mentioning some information which I had not seen anywhere else. They also have a separate substack running alongside the main one which shows all of the source material used for their reference.
https://no01.substack.com/
I mentioned earlier in the thread that *content removed*is the most comprehensive military and WW3 news source that I have found. This morning their news report was a particularly in depth and informative one.
*video removed*
*video removed*
Last edited by a moderator:
That video isn't what was asked in the OP, and I think pushing your favourite news opinion onto the forum is out of order. Precisely why I avoid in depth world news and politics, and here it is.
In honesty I would prefer not to see alarmist clickbait headlines in attention-grabbing colours like the one visible in the image of that video.
One of the things I've been keeping an eye on is less whether the site is left-wing, right-wing, centrist etc, and more the extent to which its approach to a narrative is (potentially) "ramping up" fear and anxiety.
eg. Do the headlines include words like "could," "may" and "might" ? In other words, is it focusing on possibilities that aren't necessarily based in fact?
I've learned over time that fear-based media makes money, and that includes YouTube where people get to earn an income from creating videos.
One of the things I've been keeping an eye on is less whether the site is left-wing, right-wing, centrist etc, and more the extent to which its approach to a narrative is (potentially) "ramping up" fear and anxiety.
eg. Do the headlines include words like "could," "may" and "might" ? In other words, is it focusing on possibilities that aren't necessarily based in fact?
I've learned over time that fear-based media makes money, and that includes YouTube where people get to earn an income from creating videos.
Yeah, got to say I am not keen on the nonsense ‘expert’ YouTube commentators who are self proclaimed experts on global affairs. Fear mongering, it’s insidious.
In my various furtlings here, I saw a thread titled "Is 'preparedness' a state of mind?" by @GreyCat (thank you) and picking up on that idea, a so-called prepping channel that appears to intentionally stoke a sense of fear and threat is unhelpful in that regard.
Indeed. And there's at least one "prepper" type channel which I suspect is a government "nudge" operation. It's very low-key, and basically repeats the standard gov resilience advice in different ways. (There's some phrases on there which get my attention because they are typical in govt stuff). Nothing wrong with that in principle it's perfectly valid comms and is not a fear-based thing. But is a reminder that all sorts of people and organisations create content for all sorts of reasons these days.
The other challenge is that AI is so getting good that it is becoming ever more difficult to pick out AI generated content from real. For example, there's some channels that are specifically AI content, e.g. exploring ideas from the Star Wars fan-verse and they are getting incredibly good. Won't be long before the AI vs Real issue is basically imperceptible for some types of content.
I tend to subscribe to long-form long-established news/analysis text-based publications that present both sides of an argument. Not many around but they do exist if you seek them out. Other things I might skim- with a mental note that they have a bias e.g. not forgetting that the BBC is the national state broadcaster and the World Service used to be funded by the Foreign Office as propaganda. Doesn't mean they are bad, just that they come from a perspective.
I don't think that "independant" media is possible. What is possible is a properly balanced consideration of both sides of the story.
Own preconceptions are also important. I remember one evening I accidentally heard Jacob Rees-Mog chairing a debate on the radio. Now, I would have normally turned him off, but I was in a traffic jam and it caught my interest so I listened. He had presenters with diametrically opposing views on a sensitive/contentious subject and (to my surprise) he handled the debate with tact, fairness and with both presenters putting their views in a calm respectful manner and listening to the other. A proper grown-up debate. It made me look at myself- at my own preconceptions about Rees-Mogg- as it was the first time for ages I had heard a proper respectful grown-up debate on the particular subject and his handling of the debate impressed and informed me. Basically- it can also be difficult to engage with something truly balanced if one has subconscious preconceptions.
My basic screen before I will even view something is my personal scoring "click-bait fear-promoting level" level score. There's a lot of content doesnt get past that- including the linked video up thread. "Don't feed the algorithm!"
GC
The other challenge is that AI is so getting good that it is becoming ever more difficult to pick out AI generated content from real. For example, there's some channels that are specifically AI content, e.g. exploring ideas from the Star Wars fan-verse and they are getting incredibly good. Won't be long before the AI vs Real issue is basically imperceptible for some types of content.
I tend to subscribe to long-form long-established news/analysis text-based publications that present both sides of an argument. Not many around but they do exist if you seek them out. Other things I might skim- with a mental note that they have a bias e.g. not forgetting that the BBC is the national state broadcaster and the World Service used to be funded by the Foreign Office as propaganda. Doesn't mean they are bad, just that they come from a perspective.
I don't think that "independant" media is possible. What is possible is a properly balanced consideration of both sides of the story.
Own preconceptions are also important. I remember one evening I accidentally heard Jacob Rees-Mog chairing a debate on the radio. Now, I would have normally turned him off, but I was in a traffic jam and it caught my interest so I listened. He had presenters with diametrically opposing views on a sensitive/contentious subject and (to my surprise) he handled the debate with tact, fairness and with both presenters putting their views in a calm respectful manner and listening to the other. A proper grown-up debate. It made me look at myself- at my own preconceptions about Rees-Mogg- as it was the first time for ages I had heard a proper respectful grown-up debate on the particular subject and his handling of the debate impressed and informed me. Basically- it can also be difficult to engage with something truly balanced if one has subconscious preconceptions.
My basic screen before I will even view something is my personal scoring "click-bait fear-promoting level" level score. There's a lot of content doesnt get past that- including the linked video up thread. "Don't feed the algorithm!"
GC
Worst news for bias BBC and Sky. Gave up on news channels. Pick and choose what “I” want to read now
In honesty part of the reason I come here is to escape the 24/7 fear generating media onslaught.
Video and link to ww3 prep source removed.
Let’s keep the videos out of the thread.
We are making an executive decision that there are news sources, and single subject narrative sources. The latter might have news, but they also consistently push a very narrow narrative and while you can mention them, please do not link (especially video) to them.
For examples of narrative sources I sometimes look at. Tousi TV, Tal Oran, and Digging Into China. They might add an interesting perspective, but they are all biased and I would not consider appropriate to share here….and they are less alarmist that the video that was removed.
Another class of YouTube, not news, but analysis, can be interesting but again not for linking. I think “WarFronts” and “Megaprojects” by the same presenter are well researched and presented without a lot of bias. Not news, but analysis of things in the news.
Let’s keep the videos out of the thread.
We are making an executive decision that there are news sources, and single subject narrative sources. The latter might have news, but they also consistently push a very narrow narrative and while you can mention them, please do not link (especially video) to them.
For examples of narrative sources I sometimes look at. Tousi TV, Tal Oran, and Digging Into China. They might add an interesting perspective, but they are all biased and I would not consider appropriate to share here….and they are less alarmist that the video that was removed.
Another class of YouTube, not news, but analysis, can be interesting but again not for linking. I think “WarFronts” and “Megaprojects” by the same presenter are well researched and presented without a lot of bias. Not news, but analysis of things in the news.
Our news breeds fear and stress. It’s nothing like it used to be eg, 1980s.
It’s also amazing for you and me how chilled/ calmer you feel just not watching the news and choose what you what you want to read.
Also the problem is it’s on 24hours a day
Try it for a few days
It’s also amazing for you and me how chilled/ calmer you feel just not watching the news and choose what you what you want to read.
Also the problem is it’s on 24hours a day
Try it for a few days
I might have said this somewhere before. I’ve mentioned it on several discussions in line:
I read Reuters.
It undoubtably has some sort of bias, particularly it your viewpoint tends to the anarchical. Rightly or wrongly this is how I see much of the current rejection of anything organised or established.
The vantage of Reuters is that it reports internationally. I don’t have to read of my country’s day to day ineptitudes neither do I have to filter the hysteria of the press and alarmist conspiracists.
Britain does get reported but only when it makes a globally significant contribution or error.
For illustration: This week it has reported both the globally positive and negative effects of American presidential action. It also reports the degree to which he is altering the American democratic process. It points out his many inaccuracies but also that he has fulfilled some of his election promises.
I can handles that.
What I find difficult is what I read as the all too accurate reporting by the BBC of the ever recurring ineptitude of my own political leaders of all stripes and colours as we head down whatI perceive our self created plug hole.
I have shut down my BBC channel because it is stressful and bitterly disappointing, not because it is inaccurate.
Edited to add:
I can handle what I believe to be factual reporting of events whether or not I like them. I just don’t want it in my life on a daily basis. I prefer the consolidated view of a remote agency to the immediacy if day to day happening which is rarely complete but to which everyone reacts.
I must make my own judgements as to accuracy, something that is becoming increasingly difficult.
I have little interest in the opinion of journalists.
I read Reuters.
It undoubtably has some sort of bias, particularly it your viewpoint tends to the anarchical. Rightly or wrongly this is how I see much of the current rejection of anything organised or established.
The vantage of Reuters is that it reports internationally. I don’t have to read of my country’s day to day ineptitudes neither do I have to filter the hysteria of the press and alarmist conspiracists.
Britain does get reported but only when it makes a globally significant contribution or error.
For illustration: This week it has reported both the globally positive and negative effects of American presidential action. It also reports the degree to which he is altering the American democratic process. It points out his many inaccuracies but also that he has fulfilled some of his election promises.
I can handles that.
What I find difficult is what I read as the all too accurate reporting by the BBC of the ever recurring ineptitude of my own political leaders of all stripes and colours as we head down whatI perceive our self created plug hole.
I have shut down my BBC channel because it is stressful and bitterly disappointing, not because it is inaccurate.
Edited to add:
I can handle what I believe to be factual reporting of events whether or not I like them. I just don’t want it in my life on a daily basis. I prefer the consolidated view of a remote agency to the immediacy if day to day happening which is rarely complete but to which everyone reacts.
I must make my own judgements as to accuracy, something that is becoming increasingly difficult.
I have little interest in the opinion of journalists.
Last edited:
It's certainly nice to be able to ignore the news but many of us need to keep an eye on it for one thing or another. At the moment, for example, I'm having to do essential round trips of 500+ miles so it's useful to keep an eye on things that will restrict petrol. So I topped up on Sunday rather than waiting a few days and now a few stations have run dry at a few pumps. I just hope it doesn't come to filling bin liners in the boot time!
The weird thing about BBC bias is that those on the right think that the BBC is left biased, while those on the left think it is right biased. The BBC will take this as an endorsement that they are getting it right.
As far as accuracy in reporting goes, I've seen a few sources on Twitter say that there is a massive under reporting of the damage being done to Israel by Iranian missile strikes by mainstream news sources. Some suggestions that this is because Israel itself doesn't want that news to be reported. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any foolproof way to verify either way as all the sources have their own bias and it's never clear who is telling the objective truth. It really seems like we are in a post-Orwellian phase.
A smart person can catch AI.
For now.
But most folks arent smart enough.
For now.
But most folks arent smart enough.
If anyone is dealing with any kind of mental ill health and lets face it probably most of the UK is to some degree or other to account for the low morale, keeping away from sources of fear propagation is probably a very wise move and particularly so if one is in fact helpless in being unable to do anything about what one is being told.
Fear generation and propagation is a very effective tool of control
Sorry everyone. I was attempting to be helpful rather than annoying. I won't mention anything like that again.