/lit/ - Literature

>>8953203
WSJ master race reporting in

>>8953203
slate and cnn

>>8953203
I used to read The Economist and Foreign Affairs but I just had to take a break from all news. So much of it is just trivial fluff used to appeal to the ethos. There is no intellectual honesty or integrity anymore and hardly anyone is doing any true investigative journalism.

The only reason The Economist hasn't gone to complete shit is because they typically only print the publishers name to keep the publisher in check. The problem with all these news sites outlets is that the publishers have no integrity or backbone and they'll print anything if it'll sell. Journalistic integrity or objective truth be damned.

>>8953209
WSJ is a former shell of what it once was. It's no better than NYT anymore.

>>8953214
CNN is garbage, but Slate's podcast is okay.

The Economist for a reputable take on geopolitical affairs

Matt Taibbi's column for incisive and generally agreeable commentary on American politics

Nick Land's blogs for material a little more on the fringe side

occasionally will prowl through Longform.org to look for articles of interest

>>8953279
The economist is fucking garbage, fag. Enjoy your conspicuous global shilling.

>>8953481
Found the breitbart/the hill reader

>>8953489

>just because he shits on the economist he must be aligned with camps that you resent

protip: u r a meme

>>8953489
>implying

I ended my economist subscription back when I was kid still in college. When I decided to grow up, I subscribed with the WSJ.

>>>/Kys/

Not /pol/

(winking tongue emoji)

>>8953214
>>8953229
Reminder that Slate publishes the voting habits of its staff, and that the number of non-Democrat voters has been declining, from ~20% a couple cycles ago, to exactly 0 non-Democrat voters in 2016. It doesn't seem like a very healthy atmosphere.

Xenosystems
Reuters
RealClearPolitics
Arts & Letters Daily
C-SPAN
And then I follow a couple journalists and outlets on Twitter

>>8953511
what

>>8953503
>replaces The Economist with WSJ
Why on earth would you do that? WSJ has been shit for years now.

>>8953520
>implying

The economist is Rothschild owned and it's chief editor is some SWJ cunt. Enjoy your reporting on transgender stories. The economist is liberal garbage.

Although I don't agree with the WSJ's stance on politics, the other reporting of far better than the economist. It's not even comparable.

>>8953203
I've read a blog written by a guy named Michael Phillips for about a year now. He's a Jewish pro-commerce guy who claims to have had a hand in all sorts of stuff like the first credit cards and banking methods but I'm not entirely convinced he's telling the truth all the time. I don't know if I like him very much but I read him anyways. Anyone heard of him?

>people posting WSJ and the Economist

kill thyselves

>>8953536
Ahhhh yeah, because being owned by Rupert Murdoch is so great

>>8953571
Stick to your Washington post, champ.

>>8953536
>The Economist doesn't like Trump
>They must be liberal!

Bruh, they were practically begging for any republican but Ted Cruz or Donald Trump

>>8953481
i don't really align with them ideologically, but i trust the publication to report on significant geopolitical events. you shouldn't be so afraid to read things you disagree with, friend.

>>8953586
The WSJ doesn't like Emperor Trump neither, casual.

Infowars, The Blaze, FOX, Breitbart

>>8953600
Again, you completely missed my point... The Economist is not a liberal rag. They had been begging for any level headed republican to take the party's nomination.

Wikipedia.

>>8953604
By the time I canceled my subscription with TE, I was a loyal subscriber of 3 years. Once the new chief editor took the helm, it was clearly evident that quality of writing diminished. They started reporting more and more on social issues than financial and economics ones. It was about two years ago when i did so. I wonder how bad it's gotten now. The WSJ's political reporting was pretty horrendous during the last election cycle. But they still do the best reporting of financial markets and the economy. That's not even debatable.

>>8953203
msn.com when i'm checking my hotmail

Economist
NPR
BBC
New Yorker
Mother Jones

CNN when shit is going down because they're the quickest, terrible for anything in-depth though.

nykysuomi
mvlehti

News (in order of preference): The Atlantic, New York Times, Washington Post, Economist, WSJ

Other: The New Yorker, Harper's, New York Review of Books, London Review of Books

kotaku.com

>>8953489
Are you really equating those two?

I just go to google news and look around a few times a day, how shit am I?

>>8953203
i don't read or watch any news
if something is really important, my family or friends will eventually tell me

>>8955118
this

I feel disgusted and disappointed every time I see blatant political bias in news articles. Nowadays I just stick to literature for reading. Super important news always finds its way to me somehow.

the same stuff warren buffet and bill gates read

>>8953579
I don't think Murdoch has much editorial clout over his main publications. I've been subscribed to The Times for quite a while (UK), and they seem to have pretty good editorial independence.

>>8953489
The Economist is openly liberal. They aren't even centre-left.

They got their shit fucked up just as much as the rest of the Hillary outlets.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21712128-liberals-lost-most-arguments-year-they-should-not-feel-defeated-so-much

This was in the latest edition.

Sure is fun having to read tons of different news sources just so you can try to form a small nugget of something that isn't completely biased one way or another. Journalism is garbage.

>>8955190
>Hillary outlet
>Economist
>Is British company

k

/pol/

Not because I think it's reliable or unbiased but because there's no such thing as even superficially reliable or unbiased sounding reporting anymore so going straight to the bottom of the barrel makes sense now that everything's heading there.

>>8953511
Reminder that if you voted for Donald Trump the chance you are not an ideolouge aproaches 0%

>>8953603
>these people actually exist

>>8953203
Deutsche Welle

>>8955273
There was no non-ideologue option in this election. Go back and watch the debate where Hillary tried to convince everyone that there totally needs to be a no fly zone over Syria because "think of the children" if you don't believe me.

>>8953701
>Washington Post

Wew

>>8955127
Agreed. I feel this is the most healthy way to approach news and current events. So much of it is just entertainment. Just look at how people cling to and spend so much time reading and watching news that doesn't impact their daily lives in the least bit.

And the way they use it to fight with one another. It's just all so damn depressing.

>>8953571
What do you recommend anon?

>>8953660
Similar to this. I have the CNN app on my phone so I get notifications on breaking news stories, but half of them end up being irrelevant and I don't read CNN beyond that. What I have bookmarked to go through daily at work:
NPR
BBC
The Atlantic
The Economist
WSJ
Reuters
Various sources compiled through Google News
Also the Paris Review, NYRB and dailynous for lit/philosophy news

>>8955273
it's actually the exact opposite, my retarded friend

>>8955262
Fyodor Karamazovism

Bloomberg/ cnbc >>> the economist

I don't even know who the current president is. I'm going to die some day, and I'd rather not spend it on "news."

>>8959277
this. "news" is the same as following sports or celebrities. complete trash.

Following the news is pathetic and vain. You don't matter and so it doesn't matter if your informed.