h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, BBC obviously...

But in this modern age of false news and alternative facts, where is one to turn for a legitimate and trusted news source?

Assuming I find something ludicrous that I want to verify/disprove, who do I trust?

Reuters.

A earlier last week the editor of Reuters published this statement regarding how they would be covering Trump. Basically they said they would cover his administration fairly, but in a similar manner as they cover dictatorial regimes around the world. They will not rely on access, they will rely on sources. They will not compromise their journalism to retain a friendly relationship with the Trump administration.

They earned a lot of respect from people unilaterally.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rpb-adlertrump-idUSKBN15F276

I'd recommend 'The Conversation', though it's a comment site rather than a news site. It's written by academic experts for non-specialists with the support of experienced journalists/sub-editors.

Probably of little use to prove/disprove anything in the news, but a good source of information.

https://theconversation.com/uk

Many do not regard the BBC as 'reputable'

Glad to see it still has some fans somewhere.

I find the BBC News to be vastly superior to the major US news outlets.

Even our NPR is lacking in comparison. When I hear a BBC reporter asking serious, tough questions of politicians and then CONTINUE to press the issue and make them back up their statements, I realize how often American reporters basically just give politicians a platform to make partisan statements. Fox News and conservatives have pressed this idea of "liberal media bias" so much that they've neutered most reporters here as they try so hard to appear unbiased.

NPR is still much better than the networks though. What most people overlook is corporate bias. It's not always how a story is covered, but whether it is covered at all. The major networks do not cover stories that make their advertisers and owners look bad.

"I find the BBC News to be vastly superior to the major US news outlets" [Baron Grim]

I don't often listen to the BBC, but that comparison sounds reasonable. It's a relative thing, not an absolute one.

I'm probably out of date. It used to be said that the most reputable newspapers were The Manchester Guardian and the [Boston] Christian Science Monitor. I like the Monitor, but here again I've heard people complain that it's a bit slanted.

The New York Times seems pretty good.

Really, is any source perfect these days? Probably not, so you need to have an idea of a source's weaknesses so you can make adjustments.

The best thing to do is to check several news sources and mentally aggregate them. I discount news sources on the ends of the spectrum. If I first see a story in RawStory, HuffPo &c I discount it until I see it in more reputable outlet. (I'm consciously aware of my bubble and I don't even open links to Fox News, Daily Mail, Conservative(whatever), and definitely not InfoWars.)

I find Sickipedia to be a pretty good way of keeping up with world events.

I guess the "nasty Enquirer" is out?

>t used to be said that the most reputable newspapers were The Manchester Guardian and the [Boston] Christian Science Monitor.<

Well it's never been called "The Manchester Guardian" in my lifetime that I'm aware of

So guess that 'used to' must have been a good while back

Just the Guardian to many these days, The Grauniad (it has a long standing reputation for spleling errors also ) to others

Quite left wing the Guardian. I get annoyed with my iPhones 'News' app because I looked at Guardian articles a couple of times it is now flooded with Guardian stories. I'm quite left wing (centre-left I consider myself) - but *really?* News app - perhaps a little more balance would be good.

(yes I am aware that did used to be called the Manchester Guardian - but that was before the 70s when I first became aware of it - so no need to point that out)

" I am aware that did used to be called the Manchester Guardian - but that was before the 70s" [Orcus]

I'm a member in good standing of the grumpy geezer thread. But they let me sit down sometimes too.

Changed its name in 1959 apparently

I was 11 years old then. I go back a long way..................

Any opinions on The Independent, The Washington Post, or The New Yorker?

The New Yorker is a magazine. It carries quality short stories, articles, film and play reviews, cartoons, and schedules for Broadway shows. I don't think of it as a source for news, though.

The Washington Post is well-regarded, especially if you are interested in news about what's happening in the U.S. government.

In that case Paulh - your call on the name I'd say

(Harumph, it's Marathon, not Snickers )

But ever since the Jennifer Flowers episode, when she sold her story to the national Enquirer, and the "legitimate" news media jumped on the wagon, I think journalistic standards have gone down. Not that they weren't headed that way even before then.

Hence the need for this thread.

This is American but I can't find the one that included UK outlets - https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eVpp15SC5a4/WFKRr5MfXuI/AAAAAAAALSE/ZueYjBlDI-AAyX2vdiC6UiSzT55tIs4RgCLcB/s1600/news%2Binfographic.jpg

sigh

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eVpp15SC5a4/WFKRr5MfXuI/AAAAAAAALSE/ZueYjBlDI-AAyX2vdiC6UiSzT55tIs4RgCLcB/s1600/news%2Binfographic.jpg