>I'm asking here because this is probably the most educated and rational, and the least hateful board on 4chan.

What kind of news? I have RSS feeds for all major newspapers in my country. I also have RSS feeds for some of the less well-known/more controversial ones. Then I have RSS feeds for the best tech related news sites (so, Ars Techina, Techdirt, Torrent Freak etc.). Then, various science blogs (e.g. Gene Expression).

One could also use WikiNews.

read multiple sources from all leanings.

on top of that, read up on in depth research about the topics that interest you. For example, if you are interested in global politics, read stuff like Foreign Policy and what else your library offers. This isn't so much news, but detailed analyses that give you the framework for reading other sources critically.

yeah, its hard work. tough luck. has always been this way...

>>2384347
I'm looking for something a little deeper than "Read this list of newspapers", or "Read a bunch of and stick with the one's you like".

I mean, how does one even evaluate whether or not their news source is reputable?

>>2384354

You can check their sources. Newspapers are usually terrible at linking or even naming their sources, but one can usually find them because they mention the authors name. Typically, it is about some paper published in some science magazine. If you have university access, you can find and read the original paper. I usually do that when I come across an interesting paper in the news. Very often, the fucking journalist got the paper wrong. If you don't have university access, you can sometimes find the paper on Google, or write to the author and they will usually send it to you.

This is the science related news. The tech news comes from the before mentioned tech sites. What other kind of news do you want? Political? I would guess that WikiNews is decent for world-wide political news, and that your local newspapers are good enough for local political news.

>>2384368

Forgot to mention that various Youtube based newssources are also okay. The first two that comes to mind are The Young Turks, and Russia Today (RT). The last is especially useful for news about the US from a non-pro-biased perspective. There is also the added benefit of the cute Russian accent. :p

>>2384381
>Young Turks

That isn't news, bud.

>>2384335

>Are there any honorable news institutions left, or do they all pander to either a liberal or conservative ideology?

There were never honorable news institutions. Smoke up, Johnny. CNN's the best you got.

the christian science monitor is excellent

maybe a bit leftist but certainly not pandering to a leftist ideology

and if you've never heard of it -- no, it's not a religious publication at all, it was just started by the founder of christian science and they never changed their name

top-notch reporting with a global perspective

You can also check out online news wire services (Reuters, Associated Press, etc). Most news nowadays is written from press releases. Investigative journalism is not dead, but not nearly as invested in as previously.

I just read from a bunch of different sources (I've been known to read African and Indian newspapers even though I live in Canada). Some magazines have pretty good in-depth investigative journalism articles (New Yorker, The Walrus, and The Mark come to mind).

http://yle.fi/radio1/tiede/nuntii_latini/

This will keep you up-to-date with the very most important issues of the world.

CNN is center-of-left, but they try their best to show both sides of the story. I'm a conservative, for the record, and they're the best news channel, because they don't spew blatantly biased shit like MSNBC and FOX.

>>2384818
>I'm a conservative, for the record, and they're the best news channel, because they don't spew blatantly biased shit like MSNBC and FOX.

Never thought I'd meet a conservative on here because everyone who claims to be one is also probably a troll. I know this because I am a concurrent conservative and troll myself.

>>2384804
Seconding this.

I'd add that their Arts coverage is basically the best.

>ctrl-f
>no BBC

>>2384876

They're so anti-racist to the point that they're racist.

I always see interviews or talks where there's one intelligent guy, but whenever he suggests something racist (that gang culture is mostly blacks, that it was blacks who robbed his store in the riots) he gets shouted down by idiots that try and put different words into his mouth to be politically correct.

Follow news agencies on twitter

>>2384381

>Newspapers are usually terrible at linking or even naming their sources

This isn't true at all. The bulk of news stories attribute their sources. Major news agencies, such as AP and Reuters, sometimes don't name sources under condition of anonymity because the source was either not authorized to speak on the topic or did not want to be named as a source. It is ethical to run the information with the anonymity disclaimer, but it is unethical to run the source's name if the source cannot or does not want named.

A typical newspaper, though, is not a national or international outfit. Issues generally aren't sensitive enough to warrant anonymity. I've worked in journalism for four years. I've never once read, written or edited a local story with an anonymous source.

RU is pretty good for non-russian news

>>2384876
BBC is biased as fuck. It really is one of the worst when it comes to serious news like war coverage. Some, like Fox etc., may be merely stupid, but BBC is outright dangerous.

>>2384381
>The last is especially useful for news about the US from a non-pro-biased perspective.

This isn't true. Russia Today is owned and operated by RIA Novosti, which is Russia's state-owned news agency. At best, it's an alternative voice in news. However, RT has been accused numerous times of promoting a pro-Russian agenda. Because it's run by the state, this isn't surprising.

To find one good news resource in my country, I had to check dozens upon dozens of them. I have gound that the greatest one is often well-known, but it never is the huge famous one - i.e., it's often neither obscure, nor outright mainstream.

Both the major news outlets and the screaming, frothing oposition papers turned out to be equally biased and generally terrible, though.

I haven't found a single good international news resource yet. They're either completely inconsequential (female typists go on strike in France, a man eats rocks for dinner in India), or terribly biased.

>>2385014
At least it's not a western perspective, it's better than 99% of all other news stations because of it's anti-west (bias)

>>2385034
The leftist media does not have a western bias, it has a pro-jew and pro-commie bias.

>>2385047
On the contrary, they have an actual fair view on israel vs palestine, as opposed to the jewish controlled western media

Communism isn't bad

>>2385053

that's stormbabby he's not going to listen to your argument

>>2385055
Okay thanks for the heads up, evacuating the premises

>>2385053
>the left
>supporting Israel more than the right

If we had a conservative president right now we'd have invaded Iran as soon as Israel pouted about them

Al Jazeera

Haaretz
PressTV
RT

Christian Science Monitor

Foreign Policy

Guardian

whatever. The thing to realize is that all news stations will pretty much carry all news. At the very least they'll have an AP release on the subject. Reputable sites (even fox) won't just make shit up, but the spin comes from 1) what details they provide 2) The conclusions they draw. For raw news, just read the same story from a bunch of different outlets, to make sure you catch all the details. For good all-inclusive overarching "tying it all together" stuff, this is where the differences between outlets really shows, in their op-eds. I personally like the atlantic, salon, and some bloggers for this kind of stuff.

Also never watch cable news. Ever.

>>2384818
>CNN is center-of-left, but they try their best to show both sides of the story
lololololol. True, they don't write at a 6th grade reading level but that doesn't mean they lean left. I guess though it would depend on what you consider leftist.

>>2385077
hint: neo-con's are leftists.
The right, actual conservatives, nationalists, patriots, etc do not support kikes or israel.

>>2385053
>Communism isn't bad

go burn in hell, faggot.

The "palestinians" is an invented issue, so a few thousand terrorists have died in 60 years? no big damn deal.

None of the other arab states wants these people either.

BBC for tv news (though I agree with the point made earlier in the thread about racism).

Al-Jazeera for middle eastern issues which let's face is, is where the interesting stuff is happening at the moment. Some of the opinion pieces are also good but others seem a bit pro-Islam/anti-western.

Private Eye magazine.

I will occasionally read the Guardian/Observer if I'm on a train but other than that I don't read newspapers. I might also check out Russia Today or this Christian Science Monitor thing.

>How do I get news?

Read headlines to get a general idea of what's going on. Don't bother reading the actual articles -- chances are they're shit. Be especially sure to disregard anything that uses a lot of buzzwords. For important events, wait a few months for real analyses to show up in scholarly publications.

>Are there any honorable news institutions

No.

>>2385055
I always knew this board was full of shit

>>2385268
this might be what you want to do
if i were you, i would ignore the "news" as much as possible. it's a timesuck.

I generally can't be bothered with most newspapers.

I read the wire services (Reuters, AP, Bloomberg), they have good information and occasional analysis / features that are quite stringently edited for "opinion".

Then I follow certain specific industry news that is relevant to my job or or that I find interesting (Insurance, Shipping, Geopolitics, Finance, Economics, Policymaking)

I don't really know what to tell you with regard to news and what is good to read. No matter what newspaper you read most of their "news" will be shit ripped from the wire services and jazzed up / flavoured. The only thing different newspapers bring are political flavour, so what you want to look for are the people who do good analysis, because that's what you should be doing, based on the "hard" news that you read on the wire services.


Foreign policy
The Economist (Coloured, but some good analysis and international news summary)

I am not going to recommend anyone in particular on economics because the topic is so sore at the moment you get the rabidos from either side coming at you if you happen to not agree with them. But various websites are ZeroHedge (not that big a fan of it, most of the stuff on there is shit but there is the occasional gem), FT, NBER


If you're in the UK, the Private Eye is a must.


Avoid RT unless you're up for a good laugh, don't buy into the "non-western point of view" bullshit. Every single report of theirs has an "anti-western" point of view, not a non-western point of view. That's what they're there for, any news, no matter what, will be spun against america or europe, and you will often hear both named with frothy dribble out of the mouths of the commentators.

.

OP, you could get a sub for 'Delayed Gratification' magazine. It's a slow journalism magazine quarterly magazine that takes a reflective hindsight angle on big news and world events rather than a rushed quick opinion.

It isnt cutting edge and you wont be up to date but It gives you a detailed, more objective and considered view of world news.

(Note: It is a UK based mag, so maybe just google around for some reputable U.S/your country "slow journalism" publications.)

>>2384335
watch the colbert report every monday thru thursday after the daily show

>>2385014
I'm having very much difficulty believing you. You must have some really low standard of citing the source. Typically its something like "a new study published in [journal]"... and then they mention one of the authors (usually not all of them). They don't mention the name of the article, or link to it. I usually find it by googling the authors name + keyword + journal name.

>>2384970
You misunderstood. I said it was not pro-US, and it isn't.

>>2385351
>Avoid RT unless you're up for a good laugh, don't buy into the "non-western point of view" bullshit. Every single report of theirs has an "anti-western" point of view, not a non-western point of view. That's what they're there for, any news, no matter what, will be spun against america or europe, and you will often hear both named with frothy dribble out of the mouths of the commentators.

That's good. I want to read something with anti-western perspective.

>having books
>2012
Bitches don't know about my pdfs

http://www.alternet.org/

>>2385428
Still better than most broadcast television news

>>2385856

>You must have some really low standard of citing the source.
Well fuck you very much.

>The rest of the stuff you talked about.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You mentioned newspapers not using sources. I said you're wrong because attribution is all over the place in newspaper articles. You come back with something about scholarly articles. I don't understand.

Again, what are you talking about? I can talk about how journalism works as a professional who works in the field. But, I can't help you if you don't make sense.

read Zero Hedge OP, that shit is gold

Twitter is good for this kind of thing. Most news channels, streams or whatever have their own twitter accounts now and you can now have constant updates from over a 100 different sources directly to your computer.

i watch bbc news, read al jazeera and the times. those are the staples of world news i would say.

the best way to stay informed is to keep it local. local/regional newspapers and news should keep you pretty well informed about things that might actually effect you, even though sometimes it might seem like they arent talking about anything important.

>>2385055
>Makes an irrefutable statement about western media having pro-israeli bias

>HE'S A WHITE NATIONALIST
Get the fuck back to /b/, you shit-posting faggot.

>>2386540
Also,

>BBC
>The Young Turks
>CNN
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Great thread.

>>2386540
we're just on edge lately with that cunt, honestly i don't even think that was stormbabby, some jumpy jew shitstain decided to jump the gun ZIONIST SCUM

>>2386509

Those staples of news are nothing but cultural marxist indoctrination camps. Pretty much all international media is jewish controlled and this is obvious if you spend five minutes reading any of it. Let's get back to ramping up the propaganda to invade iran or syria, i hear they are a threat to israels national security

>>2386559

While you're right that BBC is horse shit anti-racist, pro-immigration propganda news, and yes, jewish organisations in America and Europe are trying to get America into a war with Iran, you have to stop using the term "cultural marxist". Just say what you have to say and leave the rhetoric out of it.

>>2386567

Cultural marxism is an academic term though. If it weren't for Anders Breivik people wouldn't be cringing at the phrase.

>>2386571
it's really not if you don't consider kevin macdonald a proper academic
seriously, fuck off to /pol/ or make an attempt at subtlety

>>2386574
oh boy here comes the fascist police

>>2386576
i'm trying to meet you halfway and you're a rabid racist
can you not appreciate how rare that is?
do you live in northern idaho? are you unaware that the entire world is hostile to your views?
fuck, seriously, get it together.

>>2386574

Kevin Macdonald did not coin the term cultural marxism. Could you enlighten me as to what word I should use instead of cultural marxism? Otherwise go push your newspeak spreading agenda elsewhere.

If you want to criticise Kevin MacDonalds integrity as an academic then do so, because I would sure love to hear what genuine criticism there is of him besides "he's an evil anti-semite".

>>2386577

Are you jewish? You argumentation style resembles it very closely.

Prove to me race is a social construct first and foremost before you even tell me to think races are equal

>>2386577
I'd say the entire world is pretty anti-Semitic on average. Anyone who isn't the Jewish lobby is extremely outspoken against overextending our country into another war to protect Jewish interests. I'd be hard pressed to walk around and find people who like Jews in most parts of the world.

Racism and sexism are incredibly powerful accusations that can be thrown at a person when you cannot meet their arguments with reasoning of your own. I disrespect anyone who resorts to cries of "RACIST" to invalidate another's opinion. There are often very real reasons why people are anti-semitic. The propaganda campaign against Iran is disturbing, to say the least.

protip: not sucking zionist israels cock makes you an anti-semite

>>2386579
do only jews bother to confront your bullshit?
i just see it almost every day and am wondering what your fucking deal is
also i am drunk and so become more easily irate
i don't believe that races are equal or that race is entirely a social construct (UNLIKE MOST PEOPLE, YOU COCK), i just am baffled by some cunt on the internet who is obsessed by race to the point that he needs to make it an issue on a LITERATURE image board
it's fucking weird, don't you agree?

>>2386589

>do only jews bother to confront your bullshit?

It's not the fact you are arguing. Something about the way you argue reminds me of all the times i have argued with jews over this subject matter

> i just am baffled by some cunt on the internet who is obsessed by race to the point that he needs to make it an issue on a LITERATURE image board

You think I came here to troll? You think I don't read literature and am only here for this? See, it's not weird I'm just being honest.

>>2386587

Racist. It's the result of a losing argument by a CULTURAL MARXIST and is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and an appeal to emotion for anyone witnessing the debate

>>2386591
but why bother with this here? there are other places for it. it's just out of place here. i want my stormfront on stormfront and my DFW on /lit/, do you not understand that people would be pissed off by having to deal with this shit unexpectedly?

for the record, i'm not jewish, but the way you describe a "jewish" argument just sounds like anything that makes you butthurt

>>2386591
jesus christ, lol'd at pic

>>2386591
>>2386589
I sincerely enjoy the freedom we have on the chans to discuss controversial and whitewashed topics so openly. Nobody here is calling for the extermination of Jews, except for stormfront, but let's all ignore that particular brand of trolling. What I'm really liking is how my understanding of race relations in America and throughout the rest of the world has become significantly more complex as I'm exposed to UNCENSORED opinions held by real people. When someone comes by and tries to sweep this shit under the rug, just like all my professors do at school, I really have to stand up and say, no. Can we please not put race off the table because you're uncomfortable discussing it? This is one of the most important and defining issues of the last 200 years of globalization--learning to live uneasily amongst each other. It's not easy. So let's not pretend like everything is A-Okay. Let's bring it out on into the open and share our opinions and debate.

NPR is usually good. If you want to be thorough, look through NPR, Al Jazeera, the BBC, and maybe Yahoo News or something. American broadcasters have proven that they can't be trusted, not that the BBC is much better.

>>2386599
Oh, and The Economist is usually pretty good, although they try too hard to be hospitable to the conservative viewpoint instead of outright mocking them when they say stupid things like "The Free Market will fix everything!!1"

>How do I think for myself, /lit/?

>HURR YOUNG TURKS AND NPR LOL
>FOX NEWS AND WSJ FAGGOT
>JEWS, NIGGERS, KIKES STORMFRONT. JEWS!
>RussiaToday, bro. No, better yet, just read the communist manifesto.
>LOLZ NO SUCH THING AS BALANCED REPORTING
>Race is a social construct
>etc., etc.

What in the fuck?

An atheist, communist, ACLU lawyer professor was teaching a class on Karl Marx. "Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and accept that Marx was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, greater than Jesus Christ!" At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL stood up, holding a rock. "How old is this rock, professor?" The arrogant professor smirked and smugly replied "4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian." "Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now." The professor was visibly shaken. He dropped his chalk and stormed out of the classroom. The students applauded and all registered Republican. An eagle flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. That flag waves until this day, despite the lack of wind in the classroom. Semper Fi.

>>2384804
>the christian science monitor is excellent
>>2384872
>Seconding this.
>I'd add that their Arts coverage is basically the best.

Sound great, I should try that. Hmm, the first link on the site... about a war in Syria, good...
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Articles-on-Christian-Science/2012/0207/The-struggle-for-freedo
m-in-Syria
>“The Principle of all power is God, and God is Love” (“The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany,” p. 278). Thinking of government from this standpoint helps erase the cloud of complexities that makes understanding the situation in Syria seem so difficult.
Hmm...
>Instead of being drawn into the political and religious complexities, my prayer has turned to the one God, who unites all of us in goodness and peace ...
Hmmmmmm...
>God’s loving power is still present today, and it is on the field in Syria, guiding and strengthening all who are committed to good, just as it is with the international leaders pondering their next steps.
>The Bible states, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16). This tells us that prayer is not in vain. Nor is ...
:/
Fuck you, gentlemen >>2384804 and >>2384872 . Fuck you.

>>2384353
This.
Hop around different news sources and you'll eventually form some sort of logical conclusion to what actually happened, hopefully without being influenced by ideologies. Also, learning a bit of history always helps.

>>2386704
Why are you everywhere?
Go take your propaganda elsewhere, knave

>>2384353
>read multiple sources from all leanings.
I thought this was a great idea at first, but turns out that oppositional papers all somehow serve the same misinformation purpose. I thought lies from the opposite sides would cancel each other, but they seem to combine instead.

I think it works like this:
SITUATION A. When the opposite sources work against each other, they won't reveal the truth - you'll only see who's probably lying.
INFORMATION: ZERO.

SITUATION B. When the opposite sources work against you, you're DOUBLY FUCKED. Information is fucking negative. I.e. you're less informed than you were before you read those papers.

Neither seems good.

>on top of that, read up on in depth research about the topics that interest you. For example, if you are interested in global politics, read stuff like Foreign Policy and what else your library offers. This isn't so much news, but detailed analyses that give you the framework for reading other sources critically.
And this is the only right way, agreed.

>>2386728
It's actually a reddit raid.

>>2386704
I sort of lol'd.

>>2386724
that's an opinon piece

>>2386736
But he said
>and if you've never heard of it -- no, it's not a religious publication at all, it was just started by the founder of christian science and they never changed their name
and lied. Their journalists pray to God right int heir articles. I'm not Atheist, it's just something... something you don't do in competent press, you know?

>>2386724
So it's ok for the rest of the media to be run by jews and leftists.

But god forbid christians have their own news site?

>>2386724

Christian media is all fucked up because of how christians in america have been convinced (by the jewish infiltration of christianity not less) that the jews are gods chosen people and we must protect them at all costs, including at the risk of our own demise.

>>2387753
ya

they call it "judeo-christian" traditions as if jews are somehow related to christianity....

>>2387763

Judeo-christian is a relatively modern term though that didn't come into popular use until around world war 2. The fact that the term is used is irrelevant anyway though. What made christian turn into people that worshiped the jews?

The christians of old kicked them out of their nations for stirring up shit but now christians complain about things like the anti christian bias in the media without batting an eyelash at the fact the the media is a jewish cartel. They care more about the safety of israel than of their own children being sent to die in wars for israel

Just because jews are related to christianity is no reason to give them priority over yourselves and this is a modern occurrence.

>>2387776

The term has been around since at least the early 19th century, you stupid anti-semite. Nietschze used the term judenchristlich in his works. This was quite a while before WWII, in case you hadn't worked the historicity out.

Why is it that you accuse Jews of controlling the world and having all the educational advantages and they you idiots still go up aganist us on matters of knowledge? It's like a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest.

>Listening to BBC.
>Woman host sounds delightful and cheerful when talking about some stupid sort named grasshopper or cricket or whatever.
>News switches to something about the USA, hosts voice turns spiteful sounding and full of rage talking about some weather related thing.

>>2387790
*sport

>>2387782

>Judeo-christian is a relatively modern term though that didn't come into popular use until around world war 2
>popular use

You rabid jew, can you even read with all this hatred inside you?

>you accuse Jews of controlling the world

Where did I do that? They control the media and have a hugely disproportioante amount of power, but no one controls the entire world you fool.

>all the educational advantages and they you idiots still go up aganist us on matters of knowledge?

That's why you hate freedom of speech on the internet. Information has become widely available to everyone so your so-called educational advantage doesn't mean shit in terms of learning history and politics, only your access to law schools where they teach you to be social parasites profiting off peoples pain.

Let's not forget that while jews may be statistically more intelligent, there are still more gentile geniuses due to the larger population number so that air of jewish superiority you carry around with you doesn't mean you are more intelligent than every goy you encounter

>>2387793

whats ur fav seinfeld episode

>>2387782
>If i shill for the jews on the internet, they will reward me :D

hint: they have a word for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy

>>2387801

I can't remember I haven't watched it for years, a lot of them were pretty funny though for scatalogical jewish humour

>>2387810
I used to do this kind of stuff when I was a kid for an old Polish woman in the apartment across from mine

One time she was late and couldn't press the button for the elevator because it was after sunset

When I came into the lobby she popped up out of her seat and yelled out "my goy's finally here!"

The Economist is the best news source I know of. They throw some bullshit in sometimes but most of it's good.