Gyroscopic Investing

I'm tired of most of the sensationalist mainstream news sites out there.  I respect the opinions and thoughtful discussions on this forum and am curious to know where everyone goes to get their news.  Any suggestions?

I look at http://thebrowser.com/ every day.

It posts long form journalism and just generally interesting stuff that isn't upsetting.

You're already looking at it! 

I get the daily digest from The Daily Capitalist.  I guess it's probably not a "news source", but has a lot of posts and commentary on various topics from an Austrian perspective.

Hoost, I just went to that page and added it to my favorites.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Was named the most balanced news source not to long ago.  I got a kick out of that because it means that the news media is so biased to the left that it makes this site looks far right.

Reub, I'm glad you find it worth book marking; I hope you enjoy it.

Bean, I've heard of Drudge Report many times, but never bothered to check it out until now.  Thanks for the recommendation.

Bean wrote: http://www.drudgereport.com/

Was named the most balanced news source not to long ago.  I got a kick out of that because it means that the news media is so biased to the left that it makes this site looks far right.

Its not balanced, its right-wing.  Try BBC UK or Al Jezeera for balanced.  Theres too much media censorship in the US.

MachineGhost wrote: Its not balanced, its right-wing.  Try BBC UK or Al Jezeera for balanced.  Theres too much media censorship in the US.

Funnily enough, the right wing press in the UK constantly moan about the perceived left wing bias within the BBC!

MachineGhost wrote:

Bean wrote: http://www.drudgereport.com/

Was named the most balanced news source not to long ago.  I got a kick out of that because it means that the news media is so biased to the left that it makes this site looks far right.

Its not balanced, its right-wing.  Try BBC UK or Al Jezeera for balanced.  Theres too much media censorship in the US.

I think drudge focuses on "news" as best they can.  Especially since the lines between news and opinion are so heavily blurred these days.  It seems more up to the person consuming the information to ensure they have all the facts before agreeing with news commentator.

Bean wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Bean wrote: http://www.drudgereport.com/

Was named the most balanced news source not to long ago.  I got a kick out of that because it means that the news media is so biased to the left that it makes this site looks far right.

Its not balanced, its right-wing.  Try BBC UK or Al Jezeera for balanced.  Theres too much media censorship in the US.

I think drudge focuses on "news" as best they can.  Especially since the lines between news and opinion are so heavily blurred these days.  It seems more up to the person consuming the information to ensure they have all the facts before agreeing with news commentator.

What you get with the Drudge Report is a mix of interesting and off the wall stories, combined with a Fox News-type filter for the mainstream news stories.

I like it, but I know what I'm getting when I go there.

Drudge also has entertaining running "Drudge grudges" against certain people and organizations, including Janet Napolitano and the TSA.  Napolitano is always simply referred to as "Big Sis."

Occasionally, you will find a convergence of all of Drudge's favorite topics in a single news story, such as the recent Homeland Security scandal in which "Big Sis's" female cronies and minions were accused of sexually harassing male colleagues in a series of pretty lowbrow activities.

dualstow wrote: http://www.redditedit.com/

There's an interesting story on that page right now:
Drug Dealers in Brazil ban sale of crack, claim it destabilizes communities
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/brazil-d ... -crack-rio

MediumTex wrote: I look at http://thebrowser.com/ every day.

Thank you for this pointer!  Never heard of this before, but it's a terrific site.  Very thoughtful stories and a refreshing absence of sensationalism.  And, I'm really enjoying the article on the borders of ancient Rome.

I'd previously stuck with international news such as UK newspapers and the Economist, but there's nothing I'd point to as an excellent source.  As far U.S. mainstream news sources, I don't think they're biased particularly to the left or the right, except for Fox News where the bias is painfully obvious.  I just think they're lazy and half-a**ed.  They just pass along news releases and whatever the soundbite du jour may be, with no intervening thought process or any kind of considered analysis.  Their main function, as I see it, is mass entertainment and providing fodder for the Daily Show.

I believe that almost all of the U.S. news sites are biased way left. Fox is the only one that is fair.

The "Jesse cafe amercain" website has a bunch of links every day to current news etc. The collection of links constantly has a very eclectic global mix. I suppose it is a bit like having a news DJ.

WiseOne wrote: As far U.S. mainstream news sources, I don't think they're biased particularly to the left or the right, except for Fox News where the bias is painfully obvious.  I just think they're lazy and half-a**ed.  They just pass along news releases and whatever the soundbite du jour may be, with no intervening thought process or any kind of considered analysis.  Their main function, as I see it, is mass entertainment and providing fodder for the Daily Show.

Reub wrote:I believe that almost all of the U.S. news sites are biased way left. Fox is the only one that is fair.

Biased or not, Rachel Maddow stated that she would rather read an American newspaper than a UK one any day of the week, finding them of much higher quality. (And yes, Maddow is American, so obviously she doesn't have the final word on the topic by any means. Still, she seems like the kind of person who would admit that UK sources were better if she felt that way).
As for me, I love my 'Economist' and I also love my 'New York Times'.

dualstow wrote: As for me, I love my 'Economist' and I also love my 'New York Times'.

Careful about the NY Times.  It has a few very quirky biases, such as being fanatically supportive of Israel.  (Sorry, should have listed this paper along with Fox as among the most biased news outlets.)  Also I haven't particularly appreciated their out and out war on doctors in the opinion pages.  Try the Los Angeles Times instead - it's equal in quality and more even handed.

I like the Economist too - note that it is from the UK!

WiseOne, I agree. I'm supportive* of Israel and even I think the NYT goes too far. I balance with other papers, including some which are accused of having a conservative bias. No source is perfect. Can't always learn about Qatari or Bahrain protests from Al Jazeera, lol.

Yes, the 'E' is from the UK- my point was that I appreciate both UK and US sources.  :)

*and critical.

WiseOne wrote:

dualstow wrote: As for me, I love my 'Economist' and I also love my 'New York Times'.

Careful about the NY Times.  It has a few very quirky biases, such as being fanatically supportive of Israel.  (Sorry, should have listed this paper along with Fox as among the most biased news outlets.)  Also I haven't particularly appreciated their out and out war on doctors in the opinion pages.  Try the Los Angeles Times instead - it's equal in quality and more even handed.

I like the Economist too - note that it is from the UK!

dualstow wrote: Yes, the 'E' is from the UK- my point was that I appreciate both UK and US sources. 

Sorry dualstow....misread that.

I'm probably a bit more sensitive to pro-Israel biases than most, so I may have overreacted a bit.  My mother's family is Palestinian, originally from Bethlehem.  The family experiences do not match well with official history & viewpoints, which makes the bias even more obvious to me.

WiseOne wrote: I'm probably a bit more sensitive to pro-Israel biases than most, so I may have overreacted a bit.  My mother's family is Palestinian, originally from Bethlehem.  The family experiences do not match well with official history & viewpoints, which makes the bias even more obvious to me.

You know what's strange? I bought both a New York Times and a WSJ from a chatty checkout woman at my local grocery -- was taking a break from the Internet for the weekend -- and she complained that the NYT, among other things, was "too critical" of Israel. She is Arab-American. I guess there are opinion pieces on both sides, but I was pretty surprised to hear her viewpoint.

Not that I read it, but http://www.DEBKA.com is the Israeli equivalent to Fox and WorldDailyNews, i.e. right wing, NeoCon.  You'll likely read a story there first before it hits mainstream media outlets.

I wonder about the phrase "fanatical support of Israel".

Funny, I've never heard the phrase "fanatical support of Great Britain". Or "fanatical support of Australia".
Or France. Or South Korea. Or Poland. Or Japan. Or Haiti.

Reub, the USA very wisely did not leap in to aid the UK during the Falklands war. I guess any US media that had suggested that the US should would quite rightly have been accused of fanatical support for the UK

kottke.org and boingboing.net are great for the new and strange.
Very interesting content every day.