Best Online News Sources? Paid or Unpaid?

[fastupslowdown]

Given that most news sites now limit free articles or are strictly subscription I find that I mostly run to the AP news site if I need more in depth. NBC News is also pretty good. I still have other sites but I need to login in via work to gain access which can be a bit of a hassle. -Mike G

[echappist]

Bumping this, as coverage of recent events illustrates just how abysmal some U.S. newspapers are when it comes to international news.

Of course, the main headline for the past few days has been Hamas launching an surprise attack on Israel and the subsequent retaliation by Israel. Almost all of the major U.S. newspapers are providing round-the-clock coverage on this.

Somewhat less urgent but equally newsworthy is the the gains made by CSU and AfD in German regional elections in the states of Bavaria and Hesse, but one would not be aware of this development were one to read only the WaPo for world news. The NYTimes does have one article on this, but one has to scroll all the way down in the "World" section of the NYT.

In fact, the WaPo is comically deficient when it comes to international news, and I'm not even talking about news in Third World Countries of little importance. New Zealand has an upcoming election, zilch on that other than an op-ed piece from one of WaPo's troll op-ed writers. At least the NYT has an article on this. WaPo, in contrast, has more coverage on New Zeland's national sport teams (women's football team, men's cricket team, and men's rugby team). One has to do a google search by specifying site domain to pull up the one AP article that WaPo used.

I keep on wondering why I still subscribe to the WaPo, but then I remember that it does a passable job for U.S. reporting, but that's a really low bar. At least Jennifer Rubin's columns are still worth reading...

[htwoopup]

We all should keep subscribing to all that we can. Otherwise we will lose them all (which might happen anyway) and then society/ civilization is totally effed.

The problem is bigger than just newspapers it is all news and all journalism.

I am old enough to remember that when you were traveling and wanted to know where to eat, you would call the news division and ask the folks in the bureau in whatever city you were going to. Local bureau news folks always knew the best bars and restaurants. But now you can't do that because the bureaus don't exist. Just look at CNN right now scrambling trying to figure out how to get reporters to Israel. It's a cost thing.

It used to be an investment thing but now it is a cost thing.

Back when CNN was created, the idea was to make bureaus along the lines of the great newspapers and Big 3 networks outside of the US. Inside the US it was to partner with local TV stations. Historically, local was always "if it bleeds it leads" but was always on the ground the best. Reason was, that for Americans if Mr Jones ran over Mrs White's dog at the corner of Main and Elm that was more relatable/ important than war in some place I don't even know where it is on a map. So the local stations/ newspapers had to make sure that they invested in newsrooms to get the local story. And the international bureaus were never justifiable on a cost basis but from a gravitas basis. It was important in a "respect" basis. It helped to get the booking for that Presidential or Congressional "get". A big part of the problem in the US is that for various anthropological, sociological and educational reasons Americans have never been as interested in the greater world as the rest of the world is. So, as time went on and investments became costs (partly driven by the "get" wasn't as important or difficult to get due to cultural changes) the justification became more of a rationalization. Which doesn't fly with the CFO.

That model of shared resources worked until local TV started to suffer (and it is going to get even worse with the move to streaming and CTV programmatically fed individual advertising). It also worked until Time Warner was sold to ATT (in the media business, the cable/phone guys are derisively called pole climbers because they have no vision but know how to efficiently string wire) and bureaus became costs not investments. Now, they are owned by a company that is very transactional in nature. Just look at how different Discovery network is from John Hendrick's original vision.

As another disjointed aside, those bars were partly great because the local newspaper and radio/ TV journalists would gather and share ideas and leads and so on. (As a further aside, some of the absolute funniest comedy acts are when old hand pretty well known journalists have a cocktail in them and do improv with each other in which they are all imitating a different public figure)

I bring up TV because the TV model was following (and in decline is still following) the newspaper business. For instance, AP and UPI are shadows of their former selves in bureaus and quality and the move to stringers as opposed to staff. Reason is their shared owners/ customers are dying as the internet ate them alive. Think of newspapers basically being supported by entertainment advertising (now you can look it up online the times and what's playing if you even still go to the movies), real estate (all moved online), public notices (Republicans trying and succeeding at killing that business), car advertising (again, online to manufacturer sites...build your own, look up inventory etc).

Historically in newspapers, the International Herald Tribune was great. But even it became a shared newsroom resource in the late 60's when it became jointly owned by The NY Times, WaPo and Whitney Communications when it was originally just the NY Tribune's Paris bureau.

The old saw in newspapers was that advertising was at least 80% of the revenue and subs were 20%. But now that is just that...an old saw. Now subs have to drive it and the hard part is that the total revenues are by definition substantially below what they used to be.

I am ranting all of this because while I may be just an old media guy yelling at clouds, I think it is also important for all of us to recognize the why and what of what is happening as I fear it will have impacts far more important than just us as individuals and with horribly destructive consequences.

I think the clouds are darkening and it is bigger than any of us but if we all get together and support the few places trying to make an effort wherever they are (also look at what some folks are trying to do in Philly with that non-profit) perhaps the rain will be good for the crops or hold off the killer storm that will destroy society.

I am going to go ride now because, as should be evident, it is the perfect solution to what is ailing my psyche right now.

[Mabouya]

Bumping this, as coverage of recent events illustrates just how abysmal some U.S. newspapers are when it comes to international news.

I may have mentioned this above, but I'm too lazy to go check:

BBC radio (on my local NPR station) helps with international news.

[holliscx]

I've read numerous articles on the NYT where, say, a building is burning. The paper has a knack for finding nonbinary bystanders and then quickly points out that they use the pronoun they. I was left scratching my head when I saw this 3-4 times in a short span over a variety of news. The censorship on their comments section is with an iron fist: they will post a handful of contra comments but the bulk is to feed the narrative. I was discussing this with an Aussie friend recently. He swears by the AP and Reuters for neutrality.

[j44ke]

I've read numerous articles on the NYT where, say, a building is burning. The paper has a knack for finding nonbinary bystanders and then quickly points out that they use the pronoun they. I was left scratching my head when I saw this 3-4 times in a short span over a variety of news. The censorship on their comments section is with an iron fist: they will post a handful of contra comments but the bulk is to feed the narrative. I was discussing this with an Aussie friend recently. He swears by the AP and Reuters for neutrality.

NYC is a refuge for all sorts of people who are persecuted elsewhere in the US and the world.

[sk_tle]

I've read numerous articles on the NYT where, say, a building is burning. The paper has a knack for finding nonbinary bystanders and then quickly points out that they use the pronoun they. I was left scratching my head when I saw this 3-4 times in a short span over a variety of news. The censorship on their comments section is with an iron fist: they will post a handful of contra comments but the bulk is to feed the narrative. I was discussing this with an Aussie friend recently. He swears by the AP and Reuters for neutrality.

I don't think neutrality is as important as say, having a variety of sources for any given subject.

[bcm119]

I've read numerous articles on the NYT where, say, a building is burning. The paper has a knack for finding nonbinary bystanders and then quickly points out that they use the pronoun they. I was left scratching my head when I saw this 3-4 times in a short span over a variety of news. The censorship on their comments section is with an iron fist: they will post a handful of contra comments but the bulk is to feed the narrative. I was discussing this with an Aussie friend recently. He swears by the AP and Reuters for neutrality.

The framing of news stories is left-leaning but decidedly not progressive. But re: the comments, I think they are mostly curated to maintain a high level of quality, particularly in style/writing. And you can sort by popularity to see what is resonating with the bulk of readers, which mitigates the Times' hand in steering the narrative. In fact, I haven't found that the comments consistently feed the narrative -- I'm thinking of Paul Krugman's band of detractors, who usually rise to the top, and the recent skewering of Michele Goldberg in the comments on her column about the Ibram X Kendi academic center debacle.

[j44ke]

I’ve always thought the NYTimes editorial management was pretty conservative. They regularly quash direct statements of fact as too assertive. They end up with statements like “many scientists accept data that suggests the world is round and orbits the sun.”

Comment sections are worthless though. That’s not news.

[beeatnik]

https://checkout.pasadenastarnews.co...FALLSALE23EM1B

[Mabouya]

The censorship on their comments section is with an iron fist: they will post a handful of contra comments but the bulk is to feed the narrative.

In that case, I must be a wuss, because in my case I'd guess that they post roughly 75% of my comments. Most of the ones they quash are the short, snarky ones, but a surprising number of those also get through.

Lately they must have some sort of AI system vetting the comments, because in the last few weeks at least two of my comments have been posted very shortly (minutes) after my submission. Others have taken longer to go up. I'm not sure how they do it.

[ides1056]

You could do worse than read the Economist.

[htwoopup]

Not a direct answer to the original question but related/ apropos...

https://www.cjr.org/local_news/solut...oundation.php?