Where do you get your news?

[Lazarus]

Anymore I just go to my parents or GF because the news cycle has caused me so much unnecessary stress over the last few years.
I used to read a lot of PressTV, and State-Owned Syrian news sites.

[containercore]

Anymore I just go to my parents or GF because the news cycle has caused me so much unnecessary stress over the last few years.
I used to read a lot of PressTV, and State-Owned Syrian news sites.

I'm a recovering news junkie as well. It's nice to be informed and all but not when the information is encircling you in a hellscape of bitterness and bad vibes.

[DevilDoa]

.

[JacobGooch]

Am I the only loser that checks the drudge

[don]

Am I the only loser that checks the drudge

nah I check drudge too

[UniversalWorldBaby]

It's insane how many ads the NYT serves these days. In general news websites have probably the worst, most aggravating and least clear layout of anything on the Internet. Also you get tons of pop ups asking you to disable ad blocks... it's weird but news these days is where porn was in like 2004

>it's weird but news these days is where porn was in like 2004
And it's designed to be read in the same disposable manner and probably hits the same parts of your brain. Everything has either become marketing or porn.

The more I think about this the more true it seems to be. News has become hyper-targeted at relatively small communities, just like porn. It deals primarily with the fulfillment of secret fantasies of power and humiliation, just like porn... Was this inevitable as the news industry collided with the Internet? or have we made a terrible mistake somewhere?

we never made a mistake; it's just simply the logical conclusion of the modernization of the business model of the "news". the average person never bought newspapers for the juicy details of the international political columns and obscure police reporting, but instead bought it for the sports scores of the week or the latest gossip on the top celebrities of the day. Those factually important portions of the paper that could actually be relevant to somebody and affect your daily life were subsidized by these other sections filled with useless dribble as the papers held a de-facto monopoly on the dissemination of public information. It's the same thing that happened to cable once social media came into full swing: the only people left seriously watching the "news" channels are precisely people who watch to get that emotional high or become enraged. I notice that most news network television has turned to punditry and manufactured drama as the corporate need for chasing the dollar became ever more necessary. True reporting has been and always will be a luxury, afforded only by enforcement of the state (ironically enough) or an elite cabal of patrons who make personal sacrifices to uphold public duty and principle. It would be easy to suggest that the idea of an independent news media was the fluke in history and not state propaganda or tabloid-ism.
Also, news has always been hyper targeted; just look at what kind of print magazines existed during the height of the 1980's and decades prior: there was a niche bi-annual, quarterly, or monthly edition for anything and everything you could imagine. Most of these relied upon proximity to mass media and many of them have died since, but some do survive outside the mainstream still, though unbeknown to the average person.
I don't have much faith in seeing any sort of large scale return without some sort of drastic social change, as modern women are largely to blame. too many people do what is easy, not what is "right". People like us are the exceptional few...

[GenerallyKilling]

one of the weirdest things to come out of the news in the last 3 years has been the way they try to schmooze you into disabling adblockers and consider for a fraction of a second that they might not be for-profit rumormills. washington post's header has been 'democracy dies in darkness' for a minute now and every time i see it it's like a reminder that i'm being laughed at by these fucks who get paid to write mildly disagreeable drivel. or maybe they actually do think they're a light breaking through the clouds to enlighten the poor deluded american everyman? who knows

[UniversalWorldBaby]

one of the weirdest things to come out of the news in the last 3 years has been the way they try to schmooze you into disabling ad-blockers and consider for a fraction of a second that they might not be for-profit rumor-mills. Washington Post's header has been 'democracy dies in darkness' for a minute now and every time i see it it's like a reminder that i'm being laughed at by these fucks who get paid to write mildly disagreeable drivel. or maybe they actually do think they're a light breaking through the clouds to enlighten the poor deluded American everyman? who knows

the slogan isn't for you: it's for themselves. without universal suffrage, there would be no need for such a paper to exist. That header is there for those who publish on the site to remind themselves that without a very aggressive instigation of the public consciousness to remain vaguely politically active or engaged, they might all be thrown to the streets like the dogs they are. Unfortunately enough for them, this is happening anyways, despite their best efforts, so it's starting to look more like a cry for help than any real meaningful adage...

>Always
>Follow
>The
>Money

Today's a bit of a cynical day for me, but I don't see how this is far from the truth. The "news" sees the average man as an empty vessel; a tabula rasa, as you might, that they have some sort of solemn duty to fill with the TRUTH(TM) that you are unable to investigate or think about yourself. These sorts likely see their job as a holy crusade or divine mandate and use that to justify their sad existence and the protections flaunted so often in the face of authority. It reminds me of the old Catholic church pre-reformation that held the position that only they can be the ones to interpret scripture and the meaning there-in. The public has simply replaced a religious institution with one that is merely pretending to be a religious institution, at least in deed, if not word.
I would personally trust the Catholic Church to report on current events more honestly than the vast majority of media networks in the modern era, simply because as least they have a catechist and I know where they stand. It makes removal of bias very predictable in a way that a faceless publication that swings with the political pendulum and public response can't ever provide. I don't have any good idea how to solve the issue besides to just let them all die and try to rebuild from the ashes...

[RedRanger]

I use pol for the most racially charged and wittiest interpretation of the information.
I use my mother (who basically watches TMZ and "real news") for a diluted and edible version of mainstream media, and general pop culture trends. My mother knows my political allegiances so she always sends me articles like "Gay black tranny muslim(lol it wants me to capitalize mudslime) given award for bravery". She always accompanies it with something like "You go girls!"
In terms of videos 1791 is brilliant, crisp, and precise in their arguments. The graphics they put in their shit is mesmerizing as well.
On rare occasion I watch Steven Crowder or, who despite their ridiculous notion of not being in HER CORNER, can at least give out the information that's somewhat coherent. He gets very cringey at times though, shoehorning jokes into what is for all intents and purposes a conservative political news show. It's like a right-wing version of Jon Oliver.