Do you Google search and click on whatever news sources come up or do you look into the news sources leanings, news reporting quality, and credibility? Maybe just if you can vibe with it or not in general?

Simplified

Do you save a list of specific news sites? Or do you just click on anything just to read that specific story on a search engine?

Me personally: I have a set list of sites I check. I know that they are credible and trust worthy to the public, being non profits and them having high standards to news reporting. (some of them include Npr, and Ap news) Most of their news stories are intended to benefit the public. Of course they aren’t always perfect, but a solid choice, especially if you’re starting out on picking a specific news source.

How about you all?

  • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    I mostly cut out the live news cycle from my life. There’s really no benefit in keeping up with the immediacy of the live news cycle.

    I still have the guardian news app just for the breaking news alerts in case of something major. The only reason I use this is that they tend to send the least number of bullshit notifications (e.g. no shit about British royal family drama).

    I’m finding the news experience is much better when I catch a summary of the news story a few days later when the situation is better understood and developed. I get almost all my news from the TLDR news YouTube channel.

    If you are going to use a news site, then I would suggest using it through an RSS reader app. That way the news comes through chronologically. If you do this, you get away from the bullshit prioritisation of stories on news websites.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    AP is basically where the news gets its news, so I go there if I’m not looking for commentary or discussion.

    Some comedy news programs have developed a level of journalistic integrity that frequently surpasses actual news outlets. John Oliver, the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart’s The Weekly Show podcast are really solid, not to mention much less hostile to sanity.

    NPR has historically been king for getting me to feel like I actually understand an issue. I’ve been wary of them ever since whatever record-scratching both-sidesing it was they pulled during the 2016-2020 Trump American Soulrape Era that made me think nazi cock might have npr spit on it. I might look back into them again. They were good for a long time before that, it’s been awhile, and I haven’t heard about it continuing.

    • laranis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      nazi cock might have npr spit on it

      Ne’er shall I find poetry as eloquent in sentiment and imagination on this hallowed Internet. Good night.

  • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    IMO you’re doing it the right way.

    If there’s a single indicator to pay attention to, it’s the source of funding. Where does the media outlet get its money from?

    Next is professional ethics: does it employ real journalists? Journalism is like medicine, it’s a profession with a code of conduct. In this case, a commitment to factual accuracy, a good-faith search for the truth, fairness in choices about what to cover, transparency about sources, etc.

    And if you feel the journalists are doing a bad job, then go back to point 1 and ask: Who is paying them? Are you? The reason for today’s crisis in journalism is not that journalists are lazy or evil, it’s that the internet cratered their business model. More of us need to step up and pay. It’s that simple.

    I have a couple of paid subscriptions. If that’s the cost of living in a properly informed society, it’s a great deal.

    • Rob200@lemmy.autism.placeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not a bad source actually since, you’re atleast getting mostly stories posted/shared by regular individuals and not a search engine algorithm throwing the same few sites all the time at you.

      I use Lemmy as one of my secondary primary sources for news, while not my major, which happens to be a small handful of nonprofit ones. For tech news particularly, Lemmy users tend to do pretty good at sharing some good stories.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I posted this in a different thread a while back. Here are some primary news sources:

    • New York Times (NYT)
    • Reuters
    • Associated Press (AP)
    • BBC News
    • The Guardian
    • Al Jazeera
    • Bloomberg
    • The Washington Post
    • CNN
    • Deutsche Welle (DW)
    • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      My issue with ground news is it doesn’t give any weight to funding sources when making its’ bias ratings, which makes it easy for billionaire-funded media conglomerates with a “neutral and unbiased” front to fly under the radar.

    • nnullzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Seconded. Been using it since early summer and it’s been great having instant access to bias and credibility data. Its also been nice to be able to easily read other perspectives on the same topic.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    If I don’t see it on Lemmy, my parents usually let me know.

    No don’t worry they are progressives so it’s almost always NPR or local.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Mostly Reuters as I feel news wires are inherently more likely to report just the facts as their main customers are other news outlets. This provides an incentive towards accuracy in a way that I find the current news landscape does not have. Beyond that I have a handful of podcasts and other more niche publications I love like Ars Technica.

  • justhach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    You can reliably quickly tell if a news source is credible depending on how many appeals to emotion and superfluous adjectives/descriptors are found in their articles.

    A lot of it is about parsing multiple sources, and extrapolating the data from the spin.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Never just one source, ever. For specific resources, newswires can be more or less good. I’ll often also use some sort of news aggregators like news.google.com as well as forums like Mbin and Lemmy to initially hear about things - if I want to go digging them I start checking out different resources.

  • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I like to look at who owns a news source and which country it is operating in to get an idea how reliable it might be.

    It is also worth looking at the rethoric: do the headlines seem clickbaity? Do the articles cover more than one side to a story?

    I also look at the kinds of stories a news source covers, and whether it seems like they push some sort of agenda from the things they choose to report on.

    But yeah, I have come to find a bunch of sources I trust, and that I go to for news.