Real News

[Chad]

This article is an interesting commentary on how news is currently presented.

https://stratechery.com/2016/the-real-p ... -the-news/

[Dragline]

This article is an interesting commentary on how news is currently presented.

https://stratechery.com/2016/the-real-p ... -the-news/

"The fact of the matter is that, on the part of Facebook people actually see — the News Feed, not Trending News — conservatives see conservative stories, and liberals see liberal ones; the middle of the road is as hard to find as a viable business model for journalism (these things are not disconnected)."

I thought that stuff on the right (Trending News) was always just gossip and TMZ-type stuff. At least "Kardashian" and "Jenner" seem to be the two most common names that appear for me. Right now the three leads are about "Gwenyth Paltrow", "Ronan Farrow" and "Maya Civilization".

The stuff in the middle I see (News Feed) is often from "The Onion", so I guess they are aware of my ideological preference for the theater of the absurd.

But the stuff in the middle is correctly oriented for a media company that wants to keep somebody's eyeballs and brain happy with their chosen narrative and thereby keep attracting the same eyeballs and make money.

[Ego]

Idea.

News aggregator that presents you the news from the opposite perspective. Conservatives get liberal news and vise-versa.

Anti News
Tagline: The Antidote to the Echo Chamber

Antinews.today and antinews.info are available

https://domains.google.com/registrar?s=antinews

[jacob]

This is why "neutral news", e.g. Bloomberg or Reuters, command a premium. As with all things internet, if you're not paying, you're the product. It makes sense for companies to use the "news" (or whatever it takes) that get people to hang around on their site the most.

The ghetto way to avoid paying a ton of money for those services is to find foreign source of news. To rephrase, a sources that's sufficiently foreign so as not to care about US red/blue taints (so not UK/AU/CA). For TV, I recommend this: http://www.mhznetworks.org/

[Solvent]

The ghetto way to avoid paying a ton of money for those services is to find foreign source of news. To rephrase, a sources that's sufficiently foreign so as not to care about US red/blue taints (so not UK/AU/CA). For TV, I recommend this: http://www.mhznetworks.org/

This is actually the solution I've been trying. But it hasn't adequately satisfied me. Recently I've been trying The Statesman, but I think I can probably find something better.

[Dragline]

This is why "neutral news", e.g. Bloomberg or Reuters, command a premium. As with all things internet, if you're not paying, you're the product. It makes sense for companies to use the "news" (or whatever it takes) that get people to hang around on their site the most.

Yes, I follow those on Twitter. I think they use their internet sites as a loss-leader hoping to attract customers to their pay services. They are not bad for what they are.

Reuters seems to make a point to get the story out there quickly (old-fashioned scooping stories) and then correct it within hours if its wrong. Pretty bare-bones and no "analysis."

Bloomberg has more esoteric stuff about technology and business and more opinion pieces, but those are generally clearly labelled as such. I think its aimed at people who could afford to pay for a Bloomberg terminal.

[henrik]

The ghetto way to avoid paying a ton of money for those services is to find foreign source of news. To rephrase, a sources that's sufficiently foreign so as not to care about US red/blue taints (so not UK/AU/CA).

Whenever there's an election coming up or a "big scandal" happening at home, I try to switch to a foreign news diet for a while (most often a combination of Deutsche Welle and BBC World). The big picture stuff is still there, and if something actually important were to happen close to me, I'd still find out. I should make this permanent...

[leeholsen]

This is outstanding: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... molehills/

Proving that we are all dead of ebola according to the media. Aren't we?

if you like this, you should check out visualcapitalist.com

it's mostly financial visuals, but they do others and put out a new one about every 3 days.

[Dragline]

Thanks, those look cool.

[leeholsen]

Thanks, those look cool.

and i stumbled onto this infographic site today from barry ritzholz:

this one shows the development of earth over time:
http://www.ritholtz.com/wp-content/uplo ... nnamed.jpg

these next two are inforgraphics by this company mostly for other compnies like an infographic showing the history of visa as a business.

http://visual.ly/product/infographic-design

https://visual.ly/m/design-portfolio/

[cmonkey]

If anyone wants a good app for consolidating RSS feeds, try feedly.

Adding a specific RSS feed is as simple as searching for the xml - http://feeds.reuters.com/reuters/environment?format=xml

[tylerrr]

I am interested in identifying sources that do not just present raw narratives like most, but present robust data to back up whatever they are saying, and not cherry-picked crap. Note, this excludes all of MSM and the most popular alternatives. I have only identified a couple so far.

One is http://www.fivethirtyeight.com -- Nate Silver's site. This is about as authentic as it gets these days, because his whole premise is to provide confidence intervals about the probability of being accurate, and to aggregate as much data as possible.

The other, which is always most interesting (and so god-damn Gen-X in presentation), is L2 on YouTube. See this for the latest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTqfGxEajks

Let me know if you find others, but basically money (intention with numbers) talks and bullshit (politics and drama without numbers or a couple cherry-picked numbers) walks. I want stuff you would bet a lot of money on.

For instance, in my world the news starts at 2:20 of the L2 video. Because this guy never says anything positive if it isn't.

Dramatic swing in Trump's favor on 538. Amazing the guy could actually win the Presidency.

[Dragline]

Yup. Whomever loses this one will really be kicking themselves for nominating such an unpalatable candidate. But a Trump win would herald both the official end of the Clinton era on the Democratic side and the Bush era on the GOP side. Some of you were just barely born when this all started . . .

[The Old Man]

http://www.economist.com/

Personally, I like the Economist. UK-based, so it is USA news from an outsider perspective. The focus is global.

[The Old Man]

But a Trump win would herald both the official end of the Clinton era on the Democratic side and the Bush era on the GOP side.

Isn't the Bush era just a continuation of the Reagan era? Bush Sr was VP under Reagan.

I agree, the GOP would be fundamentally changed.

[Dragline]

Isn't the Bush era just a continuation of the Reagan era? Bush Sr was VP under Reagan.

Yes and no. The Bushes never really believed in limited government, just government that was active in some ways more than others. Looking back you can see the seeds of W's medicare expansion in the the 1990 ADA and the seeds of the second Iraq war in the first, along with the same cast of characters (Cheney in particular).

Reagan talked tough a lot, but did not authorize a lot of non-covert military operations. Consider the reaction to the 1983 terrorist Beirut bombing that killed over 200 US marines. Th US just up-and-left for the most part. Bush/Cheney probably would have invaded Iran and Cheney expressed regrets later. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01782.html

[Dragline]

Now here's a polling "framing effect" for you:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... ce=twitter

". . . the pollsters examined what made the Reuters/Ipsos poll different. Their conclusion: By giving respondents the option of "Neither/Other," the survey appears to have captured greater numbers of ambivalent voters unwilling to commit to either candidate than other major polls, which only offer the choice of “Other.”

During the period analyzed, the historically high antipathy for both major candidates, paired with the option of selecting “Neither/Other,” meant the Reuters/Ipsos poll probably underreported Trump’s support before the Republican convention, perhaps by 3 to 5 percentage points.

More recently, the “Neither/Other” option appeared to lead to an underreporting of Clinton’s support in the run-up to the Democratic convention, said Cliff Young, pollster and president of Ipsos Public Affairs, which partners with Reuters on the poll. The pollsters estimated the Clinton shortfall at 2 to 4 percentage points."