jeffwThe slow death of Twitter is measured in disasters like the Baltimore bridge collapse
alekwithakI mean it was never actually a good place for news, aside from the top five trading stories, if you wanted infinite bad takes on them.
HypxIt's no longer a good place for news, discussion, or even real opinions. It's just an echo chamber of hate and closed-mindedness, and increasingly just bots talking to each other.
Right, and though it is certainly worse, my argument is that this was true before the rich brat bought it.
DarthYoshiBoyIt depends. In the early days of the Android ROM scene, Twitter was the best place for news. Cyanogen and all the crews basically announced their new releases exclusively on Twitter. There has been a similar vibe for other scenes over the years as well. Discord is largely taking over that space these days, but I miss the simplicity of following one or two people whose updates I cared about a bunch over the new reality where I'm in 30 Discords and they're all chock full of notifications for endless nonsense I care nothing about.
I mainly used XDA then, but you right. I had truly forgotten how nice it was around '10 - '11.
It was big among the netsec/sysadmin crowd too, it was the first place you’d hear of 0-days in the wild, or whether a popular site/service was down.
SeraphI'd argue it was a good place for FAST news. For a lot of major events you can find posts and videos from users before the media releases anything, which is kind of a first for humanity at least in terms of accessibility.
Now, if you're looking for ACCURATE news...
talYeah, I’d say that it was useful to gather sources that had to be vetted for accuracy. Honestly, I’d also say it made a good source for the media, where they’d have the job of vetting it and putting out material with more delay but also more accuracy.
OtterYep I heard that it was great for journalists looking for info on a developing story. You could usually follow a hashtag around to find videos from different angles and witnesses to follow up with / interview.
Hopefully that builds up on the new platforms too
It was good for fast news in the same way that I can multiply long numbers fast by always saying 62 immediately.
Its specific speed/accuracy tradeoff made it a very good fit for news which you need to know quickly, but had low stakes if it was incorrect. A great example of this transit delays/cancellations, where you probably don’t care about the specific reason why a train is delayed and just want alternative options asap.
It was often much more effective to directly follow transit agencies and/or workers for info, rather than use their official website.
You could follow journalists you like or outlets though
It’s actually crazy how low the percentage of people under like… forty is now that actually gets their news direct from a news site. Seriously, i don’t know a single person from like 20-35 who actually just goes on the NPR or C-SPAN app or whatever.
It kind of sucks. So much news is just reading the headline and seeing a photo now. And I just feel like there’s something bad about being able to see a comment section on Twitter or Reddit or even Lemmy now on every news event. Makes for a lot more group think rather than just reading the news and going “huh”
Sometimes there’s good discussion though, and it’s good to hear different takes.
Having comments also gives less power to the writer, like could you imagine if we all took Fox News or CNN headlines at face value and didn’t discuss them?
Yea, you can’t just read the news and go huh. anymore, because the news is no longer “this is what happened.” Now it’s “OMG YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS YOU’RE GONNA HATE THAT this happened AND EVERYONE IS PISSED”
Actually it’s really not at all. You’re probably just thinking about Reddit/lemmy/twitter posts when you write that.
Go on like NPR or C Span and actually read the news. It’s fine.
The number of those news outlets is shrinking, though. It used to be that every city had a local paper with real news. Now they’re all part of a media conglomerate and do the bare minimum of actual journalism.
mojofrododojosupport NPR and it’s journalism across the US. Support your local station. And support local papers (not ganett rags and conglomerates).
You can literally just read news from less overtly biased news sources. There are scant few articles that I can think of where I really need a redditors interpretation of it
It’s not so much what their interpretation is of the specific article is, it’s more that you might find more information from someone who has info that was left out, or maybe another source that has conflicting information.
Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.
It’s so much mess (through corporate ties or money) to sort through, it’s hard to trust any of them anymore
borariCheck out the articles posted on [email protected]. Every article is a summary of facts, followed by an explanation of the narrative being pushed by each side of the story.
In a recent article about Sam Bankman-Fried being sentenced to 25 years for example, there is a “Pro-establishment narrative” and an “Establishment-critical narrative” given. In an article about the FCC and TikTok there’s a Pro-China and Anti-China narrative given. When necessary there will be more than two narratives given.
As a bonus there’s usually a “Nerd Narrative” with a percent chance of occurrence of something related to the story. I don’t know what Metaculus is or who comprises their “prediction community”, but saying shit like this is a bit ridiculous:
There’s a 50% chance that after a (weak) Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is created, it will take at least 28.7 months for the first superintelligent AI to be created, according to the Metaculus prediction community.
Thanks, that’s really helpful there lol. Sometimes they can be genuinely informative, but it’s the only thing I view with any real skepticism in any particular article.
Dank, thanks
Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.
Have you heard of Ground News? It’s basically a news aggregator that shows multiple stories on the same event, but with a bias rating and a factuality score, as well as a ownership category. Also, a blindspot category which shows articles being shown predominantly by one side and not the other.
The Ground News bias ratings are calculated using three independent news monitoring organizations: All Sides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. This score does not measure the bias of specific news articles. It is an assessment of the political bias of the publication. The rating takes into consideration things like the wording, story choices and political affiliation of the outlet.
Looks good. It’s there a free tier?
Unfortunately, not to my knowledge. Cheapest is $9.99/year.
You can just read articles, web.ground.news
Clicking in a bit looking for coverage of drumft’s criminal issues, his opening page doesn’t even mention such and displays him as just a candidate.
Just my first look though.
WahotsI get my news from a paper and it is a decent blend of good and bad news. Quality journalism. I gift articles often just to kinda fight back against the whole title-and-picture-only news.
I gift articles often
FYI if you do so on [email protected] you’ll reach several hundred people.
New York Times gift articles - Sopuli
Share your New York Times gift articles links here. Rules: - Only post New York Times gift article [https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360060848652-Gift-Articles-for-New-York-Times-Subscribers] links. Info: - The NYT Open Team [https://medium.com/@timesopen]. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories [https://open.nytimes.com/a-new-way-to-share-new-york-times-stories-3e66e8d7e620?gi=9041294bd213]”. open.nytimes.com [https://open.nytimes.com]. - “Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers [https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360060848652-Gift-Articles-for-New-York-Times-Subscribers]”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com [https://help.nytimes.com]. Tip: - Google “unlocked_article_code” [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22unlocked_article_code%22] and limit search results to the past week. - Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page [https://mastogizmos.com/gag.html]. (ref [https://sopuli.xyz/post/9278900])
So much news is just reading the headline and seeing a photo now.
Mexico’s new president: 3-year-old Alfredo Pequeño Lobo becomes nation’s youngest elected and first canine leader. But can he be rough on the cartels?
Oh my I’m so invested in this story now.
MethylchloroisothiazolinoneHmmm, 3 years old seems young. I know nothing of mexican politics but still skeptical. That said best of luck to el presidente lobo, looks like a good boy.
The term may be 4 years but it will feel like 28 for him.
It’s actually a 6 year term for Mexico
Black_Gulaman
KissakiI think we saw how that goes in a Rick and Morty episode - Lawnmower Dog.
Lawnmower Dog
We are not them! We are not them.-Snuffles"Lawnmower Dog" is the second episode of the first season of Rick and Morty. It is the second episode of the series overall. It premiered on December 9, 2013. It was written by Ryan Ridley and directed by John Rice. The episode is rated TV-14-DLSV, and has 8.7 stars on IMDB. Rick creates a device to make family dog Snuffles smarter, but it goes poorly. Rick and Morty invade the dreams of Morty's math teacher. Jerry complains that the family dog, Snuffles
Ruff. “Can he be ruff on crime”. It was right there!
You can find out the event from the news, but then get the facts from industry experts. It’s much better these days.
That’s what places like Lemmy are for though.
VeganCheesecakeGreat for seeing a headline and then finding an article yourself. Less great for finding articles. Half of you people here have a penchant for linking super weird news sources.
douglasg14bSure, but you find out about things hours days or even weeks after they happen.
Lemmy is massively biased though. While that doesn’t mean the articles aren’t factual, you’re still only ever hearing one side of the story. What I find time after time is that majority of people who have strong opinions about current events are completely uncapable of fairly steelmanning the opposing side’s argument.
RedFoxAgreed.
Lemmy, you are biased. You probably don’t intend to be, but it’s true for now.
Going to sound weird, but I came here because of who I knew the vocal people were. I didn’t understand many of their view points and reasons for being mad/hateful/etc. I am much more enlightened now and learn different perspectives everyday.
It is a giant echo chamber though if you are already very rooted in the spectrum here, and voicing decent usually leads to dog pile.
This is related to attitudes about news, politics, etc.
hamidAll outlets are biased. There are no exceptions.
So what are you implying? That it doesn’t matter where you get your news because all sources are biased anyway?
I didn’t imply that at all. You wrote a description of literally every news source in existence.
There’s still a massive difference between news sources like NY times and Breitbart. It matters where you get your news from and even if it’s coming from a biased source you should atleast be aware of the bias. Some sites atleast try to counter their bias while others embrace it. These things matter. It’s not binary.
Difference in quality? Yes. Difference in bias? No. The NYT has an extreme neo liberal US oriented business empire bias that as a refugee of the Iran Iraq war and victim of US foreign policy they supported that I don’t trust. I also don’t trust Breitbart.
I’m not sure why you think that news orgs aren’t also biased. Everything and everyone is biased, even those that genuinely try to not let it show through and be fully impartial.
Even Lemmy does that, though. You’re still influenced by the headline, the community/moderation and the users.
Assuming that everyone clicks through to the article, and doesn’t comment before reading the headline, anyhow.
And at the news organization, you are influenced by the editors and framing by authors.
Why go to propaganda source
That’s how I get my news. I visit the Finnish equivalence of BBC once or twice a day and that’s my news diet. If they don’t report on it, I don’t need to know. Something like what a VOX journalist thinks about Twitter I couldn’t care less so I don’t even bother reading it. I’m proudly unaware of most of the things that non-serious news organizations report on.
vikingSame for me with news from Germany. Technically tagesschau.de is a news magazine run by our largest public broadcaster and not the broadcaster itself, but it’s the same thing really.
And then I casually browse news.google.com in German to skim over headlines that might not have made the mainstream news. My blocklist there features more than 200 “news” sites, so that I really get a curated feed of some 20-30 trustworthy ones.
I wish there was a whitelist instead of a blocklist for news.google.com
Vox is a reputable and very thorough news source, though, usually worth the read.
This two-pager, for example, highlights false Twitter journalists popping in Baltimore to politically spin the recent bridge collapse.
That’s not my point. What I’m saying is that I knowingly limit my news diet to what is the most important/interesting and this is neither so I’m not bothering my mind with it. I don’t need to know and not knowing has zero effect on my life.
Honestly I think a big part of people looking at headlines and pictures is closely related to people’s attention span. Why read many words when less is better. Those same people can’t hold conversations for more than a minute or two on the subject then it spirals into speculations which is where the misinformation starts to take place. Society is bombarded with so much information hour by hour people don’t want to miss anything so they skim through an immense amount of partial information. It’s wild and I’m guilty of it myself so I’m in no place to speak ill of anyone.
I’m guilty of doing this as well. I usually do it for these reasons:
-
I don’t care enough to want to read more. For example, news about US politics. I don’t live in the US. I feel that reading the headlines is enough to keep me informed about what’s happening, but I really don’t care any more than that.
-
The details aren’t valuable to me. For example, the Apple anti-trust lawsuit… Is it important? Yes. I’m already well aware of the horrible anticonsumer practices of Apple. But do I need to know all the particular details about the lawsuit? Not really. In fact, the only thing that matters is the final verdict, which hasn’t happened yet.
-
I care, but I already know enough details.
-
I don’t feel like the article would bring a lot of value, especially if the title is click-baity. I’ve encountered too many articles that are void of content, just the title repeated in 10x more words.
I don’t like visiting news sites because, in addition to all of them being obnoxious and ad riddled, I feel like I’m wasting a lot of time reading long articles that could be rewritten as 3 bullet points. On platforms like lemmy, users will highlight the important bits in the comments which saves a lot of time.
I have grown to like www.axios.com for reasons like your last bullet point. Frequently they give 3-4 bullet points that tells you the story without a shit tone of editorializing.
