Reliable news sauces

people keep complaining about news being BS these days. are there any sauces that is trustworthy comrades?

Attached: news.jpg (960x520, 116.75K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Real News Network

RT and Telesur

just kidding

LookLeft Magazine is good, especially if you've an interest in Irish politics and culture.

No. Just use your are brain when you read the news.

If by "trustworthy" you mean confirms your own views then yes, check out the daily news thread and you'll find plenty of "trustworthy" sources in the op-ed section. Read from as wide a variety of sources as possible and form your own opinions and thoughts instead of having a talking head do it for you. You will never, ever find an unbiased or completely honest news source and should just give up right now if that's what you're looking for.

Jimmy Dore

Why did they pick such a ridiculous and tryhard name and stick with it throughout all these years? I generally like their content when I've seen it, but it must deter most people with bullshit-detectors, as the name is alike that of conspiracy or religious fundamentalists channels.

Tell me a better source for 'regular/normal/world' news. I bet you can't because the alternatives are either all pro-capitalist or so small that they can't keep up with the news-cycle.

Western media is unironically miles ahead of shit like RT, it has biases sure (Chomsky's five filters etc), but it isnt literal state propaganda. In the west the media has often been critical of the actions of elites and governments, it played a massive role in turning Americans against the Vietnam war, and it exposed shit like the Iran-Contra affair. American media is nowadays garbage for the most part, but the BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, the Independent, Al Jazeera, CBC, all have good stuff. TeleSUR and RT are still worth reading, but remember that they are state outlets and so should be read as such.

There are no reliable news. Read everything.

Yes, this includes liberal and right-wing sources. Filter for propaganda (it's not hard to figure out everyone's biases), but assume there's a core of truth beneath it. Faking things outright is hard, omitting inconvenient facts is easy. Again, read everything.


Indeed, Democracy Now! has a pretty lame name too.

Redacted Tonight is unironically a good source for finding out bits of important news that fall through the cracks.

insurrection news
earth first journal
it's going down
gods and radicals
& any gonzo reporter, really

I read financial biz papers like the Financial Times and Bloomberg with redirects to bypass their paywalls. Chomsky said once that the business press is the closest thing we have to a Marxist press, because the owners of these papers think in material terms and actually have class solidarity with their readers, except the solidarity is with the bourgeois investment class – and it turns out that the capitalists who run shit need information they can make use of.

I also like Jacobin for commentary (yeah fight me I don't give a fuck) and Chinese state media for world affairs. The Intercept is good. The Guardian is a mass-market liberal paper but it's probably the best one in that category.

Attached: xi_jinping_marx.png (691x599 369.02 KB, 83.71K)

What do you think of TeleSUR's content? Why choose Chinese state media for international news over TeleSUR?

Even an event which you witnessed first hand with your own eyes might be deceiving.
There's no such thing as a reliable news source.


generally the shit here works for me for the plebs

Oh I'm not knocking it. But the Chinese stuff tends to be a bit broader I think and more Africa coverage. Bigger budget. I should watch TeleSUR more though.

The New York Times


Western media is more professional than RT, therefore, RT is sometimes caught out when they actually do fuck up, whereas the Western media machine has become more subversive und careful in their disinformation. See the recent coverage of the massacre in Israel: Protesters just "died". Just like that, they just fell dead. Or how every anti-west government is called a "regime" whereas every pro-western government called a "government". The royal family of Saudi-Arabia is never called a regime.

This is part of their ideological superstructure. Die hard Red Scare bullshit from the 50s doesn't fly with people anymore, so they are putting on a left-liberal mask to give the impression to give a balanced, leftist view, but they will always be biased and presuppose the "evil" of the other side and use phrasings akin to radical centrism: "muh both sides", etc.

You just mentioned a bunch of western state outlets. I could also name the public TV in Germany, huge propaganda outlets. If you seriously trying to think you could find a neutral source, or that western media is to be read with less caution than RT you are delusional.

Look up Referer Control

For people who speak german, I can recommend

Doesn't exist. All media outlets have an ideological agenda. Everything is propaganda.

Jason Unruhe


Anarchy Radio, Jason Unruhe, Secular Talk, and RT.

At these are the ones I visit quite often.


The Intercept.

This, for mainstream news sources. The Guardian and Economist also.

Chinese news is extremely biased, so read their foreign policy articles critically. SCMP is good though, and People's Daily officially reports on the CCP policy.

That was the NYT, but Reuters for example:

[i]You're[/i] fucking biased. HK newspaper "good", are you serious? You're not even pretending not to be a liberal, are you?


Korean Central News Agency
Pyongyang Times
Rodong Sinmun

Attached: 36368576_387055268471309_4774716899604824064_o.jpg (1080x529, 51.89K)

I read my news in Stallman's website.

I can't stand any of this "Oh I'm actually a progressive centrist" bullshit served with my porky propaganda, especially from The Economist. Financial Times and Foreign Affairs are where it's at if you want to know what the ruling class is thinking, they don't make any pretensions of writing for anyone else.

The porky press was never against the Vietnam war, read some actual period coverage of it. They played every propaganda tune needed throughout the war, from sucking up to the early Viet Minh and then vilifying them, to sucking up to Diem and then vilifying him in preparation for the coup, etc. It's true that the editorial boards started to question the war after the Tet Offensive, but this was only in conjunction with a shift of opinion in the ruling class. The war was beginning to look like a bad investment as the balance of payments crisis threatened the Bretton Woods exchange rate, and the coverage reflected this: much more "failing to achieve our strategic objectives" than any principled opposition to the war.

As for my favorite news sources, I generally just follow NewsAnon for my daily update, followed by more thorough analysis a few weeks later at and leftist economics blogs (Michael Roberts and Tony Norfield). If I want to get a relatively propaganda free take on the latest imperialist news I'll generally go to the WSWS first (don't trust them on anything else though).

Well, it's owned by a mainland Chinese company, but isn't reluctant to criticize mainland related events and it's not particularly overly negative towards the mainland either. As mentioned, many Chinese publications tend to be nationalistic and focus on more mundane things. The SCMP is not really that favorable to any side, as far as Chinese coverage goes.


Got to know the neoliberal media's reports, and those two have pretty decent reportage.

Attached: stallman_at_battlestation.jpg (900x675, 205.23K)


This but unironically.

So are you denying shit like the Pentagon Papers which exposed the lies and scheming of the US government in Vietnam going back all the way to Kennedy? What about reports from early in the war which exposed US war crimes and terrorism against civilians?

Or was this just 4D chess too?

Forgot link.

Did newsanon die?

Good god what a horrific post. To think there are actually liberals hiding amongst us here. I don't even know where to begin or what the worst part of this post is but giving Al Jazeera a pass while thrashing TeleSUR&RT for being state-owned is pretty bad. Your naive bourgeois faith in the superiority of private business over the state is also damning. But what makes me 100% certain you're not even a socialist is the fact that you find BBC and The Guardian tolerable. Please leave this board, it's not for you.

asian feet

Attached: i want to.jpg (321x322, 24.51K)

It’s not an issue of private vs public, it’s an issue of relative media freedom. Russia is notorious for being repressive towards the press, while Western media is relatively open about criticizing the state and its policies, at least within the paradigm of liberal democracy. Also since making that post my opinion on TeleSUR has changed, but my statement on RT still stands. Also there’s one Al Jazeera article in particular that has helped me BTFO mang “capitalism brings people out of poverty” meme, so they have my respect for that. The Guardian has cringe OP eds but it’s actual reporting is good. Overall I think that western media is still of superior quality to most alternatives, but I take everything I read with a grain of salt and always seek to corroborate it with multiple sources.


It's best just to post the whole PDF now. That article was a report before Hickel completed his study and published.

I’ve read both actually, although I discovered the article first.

saving thread

The Financial Times


russia today

the only two good sources

TeleSUR sure, but Chinese news like People's Daily or Xinhua News are more recommendable for news than the bourgeois nationalist propaganda that gets spewed systematically on a daily basis by the likes of RT or the middle-eastern state-owned media agencies.


Xinhua is actually fairly decent. The Chinese and international versions of Chinese news publications also may differ in content, so read both. Definitely also read foreign news publications.