You must log in or register to comment.
Propublica is a great nonprofit investigative journalism site that could use your support! They often partner with local news agencies to help give them interesting content and further the impact.
Their stories hold powerful entities accountable for pollution and corruption and have a really good track record of initiating legal or regulatory consequences.
Also there’s never a paywall
There should be a post about all the non-profit, grassroots, funded exclusively by the people journalist sites and media that people know of.
We need to share and learn about all the media we should be supporting and getting our news from. It’s one of the foundations for an actual democracy and a better society.
I also like AllSides, which I believe is part news agragator and part unbiased reporting.
It give you unbiased headlines, then links to the L/C/R articles that they come from:
And also articles like “Why CBS and Fox Selectively Editing Interviews Is Bad for Voters” that cut out the bias.
When CNN was bought a couple years ago one of the biggest investors in WB (obviously a right wing billionaire) flat out said the goal was to make CNN more like Faux News…
And people are still shocked CNN acts like Faux News now.
The mainstream media will always want to drag both parties as far to the right as possible, because you don’t become rich enough to own mainstream media if you value literally anything over money.
Edit:
We’re fifty fifth out of 180
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
Well behind every other first world country
Before shrugging and moving on - ask yourself if you support any smaller private media companies in any way at all - enabling them to bring you news with less bias, less agenda, and more fact checking.
It could be by viewing their ads with your ad blocker off, paying a subscription, or donating.
If you are unwilling to support any such media company in any way, I don’t think a complaint that media is all consolidated and doesn’t have your interests at heart is particularly compelling.
there is one local private media thingy locally. I’d support him, but dude is a far right crank.
I do support organizations like digitalcourage, netzpolitik and the guardian. Organizations that do their job, doing investigative journalism. I don’t support parrots.
And the same people that own the media also own and operate the state.
I’m so glad this stuff is starting to finally bubble to the top of the public consciousness.
Now, everybody read Marx.
And the same people that own the media also own and operate the state.
Hey now. They don’t own and operate the state. They simply receive large low-interest loans to trade parcels of real estate that happen to account for the overwhelming bulk of developed property in the country. It’s you, the people, who are afforded the opportunity to meet and choose between the California Criminal Prosecutor and the New York Land Baron.
Just look out! One of them is a soulless fascist who will invoke the powers of the state to terrorize migrants, minorities, and labor activists. Meanwhile, the other is a goofy dimwit who will be too hobbled by bureaucracy to effectively delivery any of their campaign promises.
Find out which one during our Full Team Electoral Spectacle News Coverage! And remember, if the wrong person wins, you know know exactly who to blame. <JillStein.jpg>
Now, everybody read Marx.
Nice try. But I have it on good authority that learning to read makes you a Communist, so I dodged that bullet early on.
We have state funded news where I live and I feel like it’s keeping the other commercial news channels in check in term of tone. It’s obviously not without biases but it’s a lot better than the situation in the US in my opinion.
That said the current coalition wants to cut funding to it because of the unfavourable coverage.
Are you Canadian? Because defund the CBC ( gov funded - not operated) has been increasing in volume by the bros here over the past few years.
Nope, I’m Dutch.
I agree. I think people might have the idea that the states dictates the contents, but that’s not at all how it works in well functioning democracies. It’s there to serve the public interest: to have a relatively unbiased news outlet that’s accessible to all and without (or with little) commercial interests. It coexists with commercial news outlets.
If you don’t pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.
Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.
you think you would get anything else if you do pay? honest question. what incentive is there for “individually funded media” to report anything better? In fact, why would they NOT sensationalize stuff? it leads to better sales and a stronger reader retention.
it’s not the solution you think it is, your best bet is to go to news aggregators like ground news and even that isn’t a 100% solution.
You might be missing the point of the OP, your news aggregators is an aggregation of a story you’re being told.
you do realize that there are other news sources like DW or AZ who do publish counter to the big cooperate news outlets as well?
DW or AZ
You might want to spell those out. I follow a lot of indie journalists and I have no idea what these stand for.
Cool. Which one of those has the information about politics and laws and other news in my state that I should be paying attention to?
Because right now, as far as I can tell, it’s either state public media or one of the corporations.
they both have reporters around the world in unlikely places, go check them out yourself
They don’t have them in Indiana. And they certainly don’t have any reporting regularly on state issues.
did you actually look? or are you just assuming? because they both have an India branch
If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
That is a lot of wish thinking there my friend. do you know why sensationalism works with the Google feed? because it works at getting people to consume your media. any business that relies on people consuming media wants as many people consuming said media as possible, incentivizing them to sensationalize.
You on the other hand made the moral argument in capitalism, something that should be so obviously wrong that unrealistic is an understatement. And look at you, it worked, by sensationalizing the issue of news, you now mainly consume their media.
You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.
And as an alternative people migrate towards social media that’s owned by even less, even larger companies and filled with false, emotional clickbait and algorithms that want you to stay within your dedicated filter bubble.
This is why it’s so important to support independent news outlets. E.g. Kyiv Independent in Ukraine or Zetland in Denmark. I’m fine paying for independent journalism that’s really well made. But not for copy-pasted propaganda.
Free to be overrun with capitalist interests.
Freedom^TM brought to you by The Panopticon Corporation. Do what you like, we’re just watching!
Also in partnership with Justice Industries. Come watch the latest Tribute to Justice as well punish the guilty LIVE! ON! AIR! If you love people getting what’s coming to them, you won’t want to miss T2J!
“Would you like to know more?”
Yes, we’re all “free” to CONSUME
Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here’s American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you! -Bill Hicks
I’m in a book club that is reading Brave New World. Several members bristled when I pointed out that sporting events and booze are basically our equivalent of Obstacle Golf and soma.
Sadly, I haven’t read that one. I’ll add it to the reading list.
No, its called free and open because you can blog about damned near anything without getting thrown out of a window. Some small time blogs get big views so no, your premise has no merit.
Hard disagree my friend.
A small time blog is hardly journalism. You won’t see Joe’s blog as a reference for the news at 11.
There’s a shitload of blogs out there, and even if they’re trying to be the “news”, it’s 99% opinion based “reporting” on blogs.
It’s hard to compare someone’s personally owned blog with someone like Fox News, which has publications (websites, and blog-like content) as well as TV channels and webcast videos, both audio and video content available in every location where people consume news.
Unless it’s the largest blog to ever exist, it likely won’t hold a candle to the media giants that run most news organizations.
I get what you’re saying here friend, but no.
I agree about regular news, but a niche subset of this are blogs by academics, which straddle the line between academic writing work and news. I’m thinking of stuff like https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/ , a blog with multiple authors, but I am most familiar with Andrew German. They have a blogroll with many other examples.
A specific example of what I mean is that a while back, there was a big hub-bub about the shocking discovery of potentially arsenic based life. Turns out that this revelation was based on shoddy science and a dash of non-academic press picking up the exciting headline. A pretty thorough debunking was done on Rosie Redfield’s blog, where the quality of the scientific analysis is good, but is more opinionated than you’d typically find in a published paper(which can be good in some scenarios). This led to a bizarre situation where later news retrospectives of the hype did actually rely on Redfield’s blog as a reference.
Of course, this is still incredibly niche, and I think this subsection of blogs only end up like this because of the informal peer review networks that you get when a bunch of scientists make blogs, but I find it cool and interesting nonetheless.
six? wow it’s more diverse than I thought!
oh wait they all have the same values.
As George Carlin said, they don’t need to have a conspiracy to know what’s in their best interest.
Okay but have you had a refreshing Coca Cola today?
mmmm Coca Cola
That reminds me of that new game show with Shaq… they stop the fucking show and thank a sponsor for a freebie answer. Like, you can see the light leave the host’s eyes as she says “thanks, Pepsi…” when the show stops for the sponsor event.
(youtube link)
Always intended, I’m guessing. As soon as Ben Franklin realized the power to sway public opinion he must have known.
He wasn’t a stupid person.
