The Gaming Den

I'm curious as to what I should be reading.

BBC, The Guardian, NPR, PBS. Smatterings of other sources... And I almost always click source links to verify where the story is actually coming from.

Washington Post, NY Times, NPR, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Vox.

And I like Charles Pierce's column from Esquire.

For media I check regularly, that's basically only the New York Times, and I do so wholly expecting them to occasionally frequently say misleading centrist bullshit. But I have to go somewhere to learn what the fuck's actually happening in the world, and I just sort of trust myself to see bullshit when it's in front of me because I am smarter, better informed, and also totally way more handsome than the average NYT writer. Part of consuming media is simply learning to be adversarial about it. Identify an article's substance, but do not let the author tell you what it 'really means.' Think about that yourself, and if you aren't sure you have the requisite knowledge to safely do that, then read more.

Beyond what I check regularly, there are outlets I am willing to 'trust' when I stumble across them while researching a specific topic or when I see them linked somewhere or whatever; The Guardian and NPR, for example. But it's not really a fixed list, more of a judgment call based on the site and the topic.

I usually just check several german tech news pages . .
heise.de, golem.de, computerbase.de, winfutre.de, drwindows.de . .

I read everything.

I routinely go by the Guardian for minor local news, but on any story of particular note, or that wiffs even slightly suspiciously (and plenty do) it is very important to look for other alternative sources.

I make absolute sure in particular to read "outside the bubble" and read, and watch, news from various sources of differing levels and sides of the political extremes. Yes even Murdoch rags.

Even aside from partisan and political bubbles its often important to sometimes seek out international sources on local issues, or when reading international news, seek out local sources to get alternative or better detailed information or just to find out if the world even noticed or cared. If I read nothing but the "international" news stories offered to the average US citizen on US news sources, well. Then I'd be as dum fuck ignorant as most of them are wouldn't I? And if I only read the international stories offered on Australian news sources, even on the Australian home page of the Guardian, I still wouldn't be much better off.

Propaganda and partisan fakery is rife in the media from multiple factions, you need to see obvious propaganda you disagree with or you will never, be able to recognize obvious propaganda that you want to fall for.

But even aside from that the other bubbles DO sometimes promote stories that your own bubble WILL ignore, misrepresent or suppress and that you will never even see if you don't go and look. I mean sure fact check that shit, dig up the one suppressed story from your own bubble, whatever, but you wouldn't even know to look if you didn't step outside your bubble.

And even aside from THAT watching the news and especially the opinions and comments in OTHER media bubbles gives you an insight into what "the other side" is thinking and doing that you will never get inside your own bubble.

Most of all though remember basically ALL media is captive to at least one faction or "bubble". Whatever fucking bullshit fantasy about reliability you have NO media source is "respectable" all of them at the very least some of the time without fucking exception promote some sort of fake news and propaganda absolutely routinely.

Worse some sources (like most major US news papers) have an utterly abysmal record but inexplicably enjoy a great deal of respect for entirely bullshit reasons. While some of the greatest journalists and commentators in the world with some of the greatest accuracy, insight and proven predictive ability have among other things been just short of banished from even appearing on US TV or other "mainstream" US (and increasingly other Western) sources since 9/11, with the Obama years being no exception, because apparently fuck you Naom Chomsky the US needs to spend more time listening to fucking David Brooks instead.

Anyway point is. Get about, read some things, watch some things, oggle at the bug fuck crazy, discover what the mildly agreeable but slightly off course actually think, never read only one article on anything important, sometimes look at an active comments section, understand what actual primary sources and actual evidence actually mean and learn to actually recognize them (or the lack of them) in ALL media sources. Get the fuck out of your bubble from time to time. Cause if you don't then bitch, one of these days, your bubble is gonna pop.

NPR mostly. My wife has been daily checking this WTF Happened sure that gives a day-by-day explanation of what Trump and the administration did tgat day, with sources. I tend to know 80+% of the stories from listening to NPR on my commute.

I read what I can when I have the time. I trust most of the news sources that Maj mentioned but I get more articles directly to my mail from the likes of Yahoo which more often than not get their news from NYT, WP, and other news sources. Since I'm only interested in what happened and not what it means I don't form a strong opinion on most things that an author has to say about something. I 'like' to get news from clearly liberal 'not real news' liberal TV shows like The Daily Show, John Oliver, Full Frontal, Seth Mayer, The Late Show etc. I listen to some YouTbers as well like Vox (though I don't trust their actual opinion on anything), GQ's Keith Oberman spots, Sanders' channel (been subscribed to it for more than 2 years but I don't look at everything he posts), and various others. I also specifically listen to YouTubers I don't agree with so I can get some idea about what people who aren't me think.

I "get" most of my news from twitter, for some definitions of get. I follow mostly a series of journalists who's credibility and competence I mostly respect, and I usually see things on twitter before any specific news source. Most of them then link to their own articles/editorials, and I read those, or, knowing what I am looking for because of a variety of tweets, I search for stories. I read a lot of Washington Post, despite it's many problems, as my go to "average/center" source. Finding right wing news that is still news and not baseless lies has been getting harder and harder recently. At this point Fox News is the only actually still news thing on the right end of the spectrum, as everything else has drifted into total delusion. Fox news can swim in the delusion waters too, but usually the facts they cite are correct even if they omit critical information. Left wing news is weird, because there is no monolithic left wing news media that is any good, so you have to have specific sources for news about specific subjects, and have one for everything you care about.

Honestly? The news threads. Here, I mean.

I get the Globe, but I only read the comics. I am not a very informed person when it comes to real world matters.

Ooh. I'm also following Dan Rather's new Facebook page, News and Guts.

http://www.independent.co.uk

https://fivethirtyeight.com/

and, although it's probably not interesting unless you live in Detroit:
http://www.freep.com/

I read The Intercept, NY Times, Washington Post (when the stench of neoliberalism isn't overwhelming), Fortune, WSJ, Jacobin...Sometimes alternet, but there are a lot wingbats and reposts from other sites on there. Otherwise, the London Review of Books and the New York Review of Books as well - brilliant pieces there. And Matt Taibbi's column on Rolling Stone. Lots of other stuff too, but those are the main ones.