Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good Sources For World News?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Good Sources For World News?

    I know I'm the high priest of dumb posts, but please bear with me here.

    I was reading this fascinating little article here about media bias in the digital age and it got me thinking. Normally I just read the Wall Street Journal and whatever pops up on The Browser (it's worth a peek), though I'll often find myself reading through all of their updates in one night and still craving more.

    Where do you go for world news, and why?
    Lysistrata: It comes down to this: Only we women can save Greece.
    Kalonike: Only we women? Poor Greece!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Good question to which I don't have a good answer. But here's where things stand from my perspective.

    Despite the quality of the main news section deteriorating badly, The New York Times used to have a very good world news section. However, I think that recent budget cuts may have decimated the world news section.

    BBC News isn't very good, and is tremendously biased, but it does have the widest coverage.

    The Financial Times does pretty well with world news from a business perspective.

    As I understand, the Wall Street Journal is beefing up its international coverage. The paper is extending its lead as the international newspaper of record as Murdoch keeps investing in it during tough times. That said, I have seen a few subject articles that were pretty transparently wrong on the facts -- maybe its editorial discipline is not what it should be.

    Sprinkle in some Straits Times and some Asian newspapers like that to offer some regional perspective.

    Sometimes the Economist has some good world news analysis articles, but lays a lot of turds too.
    Last edited by DanS; July 18, 2010, 13:04.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

    Comment

    • #3
      Thank you for sharing DanS! Despite being a flaming liberal I love to read the WSJ, but I think its one shortfall in years past has been a tendency to get wrapped deeply in only a few select issues. Like, 2-4 years ago they were mostly circle jerking about business prospects in China. It was fun to read, but it seemed like Fed Ex laying its roots there and in India was the only thing going on. I wish they had covered Wal Mart's failures in Germany and Korea in a bit more detail as they were truly entertaining reads.

      I never though about foreign newspapers though. I assumed getting a good translation would be difficult, but this looks like a good avenue. Thanks!
      Lysistrata: It comes down to this: Only we women can save Greece.
      Kalonike: Only we women? Poor Greece!

      Comment

      • #4
        By all means, that's a fair critique of the WSJ. My interpretation is that WSJ lacked direct China coverage, so spent their time looking at China from an area for which they had adequate coverage -- an American multinational's view of China.

        Recently, the WSJ has had a couple of articles on China that were good. On Friday, there was a good article about the question of domestic consumer demand. I thought they did a tolerable job of Foxconn and the Honda strikes and what that means for China's export industries. Sprinkled throughout has been a discussion of China trying to move up the value chain.

        You're right about the translations, but thankfully the use of English is tucked into a lot of areas of the world. You might be able to find a good India paper, but from what I've seen, quality is quite poor in India papers.
        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

        Comment

        • #5
          You can't go wrong with blogs

          What do you guys think of PBS?

          We have a journal in French which takes articles from all over the world and translates them in French.
          Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – Lessing

          Comment

          • #6
            I like how you think the BBC is heavily biased, DanS, but not a word about the WSJ being heavily biased.

            Of course, they both are. It's clear you just lean one way and not the other.
            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

            Comment

            • #7
              That's not the case. The WSJ does not allow journalist editorializing. The BBC lets its journalists get their licks in, so long as it's tucked in at the end.

              Most of the BBC News articles are shallow and not terribly insightful. But since they have such wide coverage, sometimes they are the only thing available.
              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by DanS View Post
                That's not the case. The WSJ does not allow journalist editorializing.
                Yes, those factual errors just slip in there systematically favouring one side of the political spectrum.
                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                Comment

                • #9
                  I don't think that the WSJ is particularly prone to that, but if bipolarbear has identified that as a problem in the WSJ, he should read accordingly.
                  I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    The BBC is noddy news, and little more than a primer for you to find a better article on the subject if you so choose.
                    One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      the Wall Street Journal

                      edit: I was responding to the OP but I see that it's been the topic of conversation...glad to see you agree DanS

                      Asher: yes, those "factual errors" slip into the Washington Post quite a bit too. It's a newspaper. It's run by humans. Sometimes these humans have biases. WSJ is pretty good about it.
                      If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                      ){ :|:& };:

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        There's no newspaper without bias. Some have more than others. But to pretend there is no bias in the WSJ ("journalistic editorializing") is folly. They may not insert blatant opinion into a newspiece, but you can bet they are selective in their focus and give some issues more weight and attention than others. They may selectively report certain stories.
                        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          May I suggest Berlingske Tidende - it's pretty unbiased and have good world wide coverage. Don't trust sites as bbc, wsj, or whatever has been mentioned - they mainly have an american/british view on what happens and that isn't exactly trustworthy.

                          Another plus is that you have to learn a new language to read it.
                          With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                          Steven Weinberg

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            dp
                            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Yeah, BC, I'll just nip out and learn Danish so I can read your favourite newspaper. Just because its bias is invisible to you.

                              As for 'British' view of BBC, given that there is a whole spectrum of views in Britain, which particular brand of 'British' view did you have in mind? Yes, of course it is biased, and shallow, but it doesn't represent the views of a country, just the views of its own editorial policy.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X