Post: #1

Considering how most media channels do not report the real news or are very biased. I'd advise infowars.com and rt.com (admittedly Pro-Russia but seems less biased than a lot of Western newspapers). Any other good sources?

Post: #2

rooshvforum.com

Post: #3

That is true. Infowars.com was the only media source I saw that gave RooshV fair coverage a few months ago. I didn't see anywhere else.

(05-10-2016 01:01 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  rooshvforum.com

Post: #4

DrudgeReport.com, run by the great Matt Drudge, he links up the most relevant and truthful articles. Has 26M views daily.

Here's Donald Trump describing Drudge:

Post: #5

I check in with Breitbart.com & gotnews.com daily.

Post: #6

I read The Economist cover to cover every week. I will most likely to renewing my Wall Street Journal subscription at some point this year.

Once you get a feel for the ideological bent of the media you are reading, it becomes easy to make sense of what you are reading.

I read USA Today most every day to keep a finger on the pulse of the average prole in America.

If you really want to understand issues as they pop up, you need to keep up on your nonfiction reading.

Post: #7

Your daily briefing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

Also, http://www.pressreader.com/catalog to read global newspapers.

Post: #8

(05-10-2016 01:01 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  rooshvforum.com

I actually don't bother to read newspapers or watch news, because everything is here faster

Post: #9

I would check out this article: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/pol...ia-habits/

Relative photo:



The best thing to do is to pull from a couple of media outlets that cross both sides of the political spectrum.

I personally enjoy getting my news from Wall Street Journal and I have been going between reddit news and the_donald subreddit to get the rest.

I tried Washington Post, but the identity politics there were too much. New York Times takes the identity politics crap to nails on a chalkboard level. Some of Rupert Murdoch's outlets like New York Post and Fox News seem decent if you lean to the right on your views.

Post: #10

http://www.reddit.com/r/european

http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald

http://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryforPrison

Post: #11

I like WeAreChange. Good independent journalism.

Post: #12

You have to watch & listen to as many reputable sources as possible.

The number one method of bias is omission.

You have to watch CNN, FOX, BBC, Al Jazeera, MSNBC & RT to know most of what is being reported.

Then you have to have the common sense to know who is lying about what.

Post: #13

Al Jazeera English
CCTV America and CCTV Africa
BBC
Breitbart
NY Times
Vice News
Wall Street Journal
Jamaica Observer

That's the core of my news sourcing right there. Reddit, RVF, Twitter, and Wikipedia are good portals ("aggregators", if you will) to access multiple news sources at once. The CCTV and Al Jazeera sources provide almost all of the news video I watch - I find them to be far superior reporters of international news stories than anyone based in the USA. They go in depth on a global scale to a level simply unheard of in the USA. Only Vice comes close.
WSJ is mostly for business news; I don't read a lot of their other stuff.
The Jamaica Observer is there for me to keep tabs on the mother country.
I often use Breitbart and NY Times as counterbalancing sources to try and get multiple perspectives on a given topic, since the two are so far apart politically. I find that to be the best way to get a complete view on any given issue.

Post: #14

Instapundit is my homepage; basically libertarian, and skeptical of mainstream media BS:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

Post: #15

(05-10-2016 02:15 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  I read The Economist cover to cover every week. I will most likely to renewing my Wall Street Journal subscription at some point this year.

Once you get a feel for the ideological bent of the media you are reading, it becomes easy to make sense of what you are reading.

I read USA Today most every day to keep a finger on the pulse of the average prole in America.

If you really want to understand issues as they pop up, you need to keep up on your nonfiction reading.

You do realize that The Economist is a Rothschild owned weekly, right?

Here's a good rundown from Zeroherdge, an excellent red pill financial and politics news site:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23...mist-cover

There are no major professional mainstream news magazines, the only reliable sources are user-supported websites and podcasts. I recommend the Corbett Report, run by a British Canadian expat living in Japan, he's made some outstanding documentaries like these:









He's very thorough in his approach tothe various subjects he covers, he's got hundreds of reports on subjects like Soros, Gates, 9/11, global politics, and a weekly news commentary podcast.

https://www.corbettreport.com/

Post: #16

Here are my go to sites for news:
https://voat.co/

http://magafeed.com/

Lots of crazy on here but also new, direct, unfiltered information and crowd sourced investigative journalism.
http://8ch.net/newsplus/
https://8ch.net/pol/

http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://theduran.com

http://breitbart.com

http://thefreethoughtproject.com

https://theintercept.com/

https://www.superstation95.com/

https://ageofshitlords.com/

http://www.cnsnews.com/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/

http://www.awdnews.com/

http://thegoldwater.com/

Post: #17

Here's my cheap plug,

I run my own website on geopolitics/social issues:

http://www.wethevigilant.com

Post: #18

You run we the vigilant eskimobobseal? I love that site.

Post: #19

(05-11-2016 03:21 PM)Sam Malone Wrote:  You have to watch CNN, FOX, BBC, Al Jazeera, MSNBC & RT to know most of what is being reported.

Then you have to have the common sense to know who is lying about what.

What is important to understanding news is being able to decipher how news stories are told. I guess I have an unfair advantage when it comes to this but all viewers should understand the story telling aspects necessary to tell a news story and how this is presented to the viewer.

People here seem quick to discount reputable sources of information that have checks and balances necessary to report more accurately than some blog or non-traditional new source.

I also read a lot of regional news specific to a country or region. (more than half of what I read, especially about breaking news/issues)

Economist
New Yorker
Intercept
AJE, PBS NewsHour, RT, Channel 4, France 24, Frontline (also watch regional channels)
Harpers
Monocle
NPR
Foreign Policy
NYT, LAT, FT, Guardian
Der Spiegel
London, New York & LA Book Reviews
WarIsBoring, WarOnTheRocks, Roads & Kingdoms
Wired

I read various outlets to fulfill various needs I have concerning information/news and mental stimulation. For example.... I'm not reading The Intercept or Wired for the same reason I read The New Yorker or Harpers.

I also read various Journals, Think Tanks, & NGO's. One that many here might not read but would be interested in is International Crisis Group.

Not all news is equal and we are starting to see a desire for more long form news pieces which are beyond what the average consumer is interested in but as more and more news caters to instant gratification long form will continue to grow.

Post: #20

(10-31-2016 03:15 PM)CamelToe Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:21 PM)Sam Malone Wrote:  You have to watch CNN, FOX, BBC, Al Jazeera, MSNBC & RT to know most of what is being reported.

Then you have to have the common sense to know who is lying about what.

What is important to understanding news is being able to decipher how news stories are told. I guess I have an unfair advantage when it comes to this but all viewers should understand the story telling aspects necessary to tell a news story and how this is presented to the viewer.

People here seem quick to discount reputable sources of information that have checks and balances necessary to report more accurately than some blog or non-traditional new source.

I also read a lot of regional news specific to a country or region. (more than half of what I read, especially about breaking news/issues)

Economist
New Yorker
Intercept
AJE, PBS NewsHour, RT, Channel 4, France 24, Frontline (also watch regional channels)
Harpers
Monocle
NPR
Foreign Policy
NYT, LAT, FT, Guardian
Der Spiegel
London, New York & LA Book Reviews
WarIsBoring, WarOnTheRocks, Roads & Kingdoms
Wired

I read various outlets to fulfill various needs I have concerning information/news and mental stimulation. For example.... I'm not reading The Intercept or Wired for the same reason I read The New Yorker or Harpers.

I also read various Journals, Think Tanks, & NGO's. One that many here might not read but would be interested in is International Crisis Group.

Not all news is equal and we are starting to see a desire for more long form news pieces which are beyond what the average consumer is interested in but as more and more news caters to instant gratification long form will continue to grow.

Those "checks and balances" don't mean more "accurate reporting". Almost all of these outlets are there to push their agendas and the editorial lines of their owners. There are no 4-page exposes of the Clinton rapes, but you'll find countless stories about Trump's alleged abuses of women by previously well-respected outlets like the NYT or the WP, which has a team of 20 reporters working on digging dirt about Trump, when there is already a mountain of dirt dug up about the Clintons that is already out there and that is never covered. "Accurate reporting", my foot.

There is a firewall and an omerta where mainstream media journalists will not go, either out of ideological conviction with their owners/editors, or to protect their career, working in a fairly precarious profession. The LAT has actually banned any stories that might cast any doubts about the official AGW narrative, so much for checks and balances...

I used to subscribe to the Economist 10 years ago, but their agenda has become gradually more evident and intolerable. It would be crazy to financially support a Rothschild news arm when underfunded maverick reporters like Corbett or Sibel Edmonds are barely able to finance their own independent work. Just look at the Economist's latest cover, which is a piece of shill vilification of Russia, yellow journalism that ties in neatly with Clinton campaign themes:



Zero Hedge offers this alternative cover below, which you would never see in the MSM, even in so-called progressive outlets like The Nation or Mother Jones (both tied with foundation money and NWO enforcers like the CFR). Even outlets like Democracy Now or The Intercept are controlled opposition, those two medias are extremely well-funded (follow the money). I'm not saying they don't have quality material, but there are subjects they won't touch.

Post: #21

What you are saying is that you want to go from one inaccurate news source that pushes an agenda to another source pushing an agenda you agree with more.

Readers have a responsibility to ingest different opinions/ideas. The problem is people don't necessarily like to read/understand the other side. This is one of the reasons that news organizations have become more focused to specific demographics. I actually find the concept that news should be objective to be counter intuitive.

Deciphering news is the responsibility of the viewer. I will say, I work in long form journalism and many stories that I work-on take 6months to 1 year to complete. I never tell a story without an objective, that would be pointless and boring. I don't have an employer but when I go to sell my stories I know which stories will sell to which outlets based upon the line I'm pushing.

The entire concept of news/information is about influencing people and their ideas. If you aren't doing this then you aren't doing an effective job.

Post: #22

Also, dupe.

/thread-58818.html

Post: #23

I follow a lot of sources that are frowned upon in the manosphere. NPR, sometimes NYT, Cato Institute, Independent Women's Forum, establishment thinktanks, etc

Twitter has really opened up the news. I no longer see the point in slanted news aggregates, most writers lack any insight, so I'd rather follow the few writers who contribute something rather than relying on some corporate org to choose who I should read.

Whenever some event happens that is newsworthy, I try to find local sources who are covering the story from the ground.

Reihan Salam, Robert P George, Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff Sommers, Judicial Watch, W Bradford Wilcox, Jonah Goldberg, @selfgovwest, Charles Payne, Steven Crowder, Asche Schow..

a lot of the typical suspects

Post: #24

Also zero hedge and Armstrong's blog should be required reading.

I can speak first hand about Inforwars. When they've reported on events I was involved in, his reporting was factually accurate but led into batshit crazy conclusions. One example was the institution of military "courtesy patrols" in uniform to pick up drunk soldiers downtown. Alex claimed this was to get Americans used to martial law......but this practice was one copied from other military bases, and takes place in military towns where people are already used to seeing soldiers in uniform everywhere.


Wall Street Journal is a "must read" for anyone in a white collar job. Not so much because their reporting is that good (it isn't) but because it helps keep track of major business news items and it is a good way to keep tabs on what the current groupthink is.

NPR is also worth keeping a tab on because, as Stuff White People Like points out, "all white people's opinions come from NPR".

Post: #25

https://www.rt.com/ but they go a little too far in criticizing the US as they are a Russian State News outlet