RSS feeds from PBS and NPR
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
28 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
45347 readers
607 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Both of them have truly neutral coverage, as in they report based on fact and reality and don't limit what they write in order to maintain some false sense of neutrality. Many news sites nowadays play down objective fact in order to maintain "neutrality" between one side of the political spectrum that believes in evidence and statistical fact and one that expressly does not.
This of course means that they're seen as being "anti-Trump" or "anti-Republican" but in actuality it's reality itself that is anti-Trump and they just report reality.
I would caution against putting so much faith in them both so strongly. They both favor American establishment liberal politics, which is transparent to many due to the fact that a lot of Americans agree with those politics, and that they appear very reasonable in comparison to whatever tf Republicans are up to on a given day.
It's not a bad thing that they tend to have a very dry and straightforward tone, but all outlets are biased, and it's important to remain critical at all times if you want to have an accurate picture of a current event.
If you want as close as possible to true "neutrality" -- which is to mean verifiable fact-only reporting without commentary, you're going to need to go to the wire services directly -- the AP and Reuters are the largest.
As someone that's never used RSS, how does it work?
Maybe not directly an answer to your question but I donβt believe Reddit was a trustworthy and unbiased news source. Hell it wasnβt even that varied imo with news mainly being about whatβs happening in the US with a focus on politics. Tbh I really donβt know what a good news source would be that thicks all your boxes.
Yeah but the truth of the matter usually came out in the comments
Sure I agree with that. The problem is that the comments also often include statements without sources, plain out wrong information, etc. Much of which can also be highly upvoted. So even with the context of the comments finding unbiased good news requires you to be very sceptic and isnβt always straightforward. Additionally each subreddit has its own target audience which will also inherently result in some bias in both the news that is posted as the comments on said news. But tbh a perfectly unbiased news source probably does not exist as we are all human.
You're right you gotta bring your bucket of salt for all them pinches, but it was often the case that if someone posted a bullshit answer there'd be a repudiation to it; if that one was bollocks? Someone else chimed in. Eventually you have enough to aggregate some semblance of the truth.
The pitfall is relying on votes to do the vetting for you, and reluctance to research under your own power in lieu of citations. Cumbersome work, but if you really want the real picture it's never 100% painless.
I found it difficult to describe how exactly the comments were informing, sometimes even moreso than the article itself, but this is exactly it.
I agree that there was generally a consensus in the comments, but that doesn't mean the consensus was correct. Often, different subreddits would come to different conclusions. I think there is a big risk of falling in to the "conformation bias" trap when relying on community consensus.
In not sure if there's a better way to determine the truth, though.
I use an app called Artifact that aggregates news from many sources into a FYP and categories. Thereβs even comments for each article.
I'm going to try it
@Radicalized I saw some articles on artifact bearing the sign 'rewritten using an AI' and backed out of using the app to avoid that
That looks pretty cool, thanks!
no source is truly unbiased, but I am also curious about where to find news/worldnews - there's a few non-beehaw options but they're not updated that often.
for tech stuff I always default to arstech, cnet, and slashdot, but I honestly dont feel like navigating between all of the various disparate news websites on a daily basis - or even a weekly basis to be honest.
I honestly dont feel like navigating between all of the various disparate news websites on a daily basis - or even a weekly basis to be honest.
This is a perfect use case for a feed reader.
any suggestions on a good feed reader?
I like FeedMe (Android). Syncs to my Feedly account so I can also look at the web on my desktop
For years I've heard feed readers were better than reddit, I suppose now is the time to test!
To be honest, I've tried a couple of times, but I miss reading comments. Some sites of course have comments but it's not the same.
Honestly they are quite different, there are pros and cons. A feed reader shows purely what you are subscribed to, and there is no algorithm that rates which links you should see first. You have to curate your own feeds.
go to ground.news, they have news from both sides of the spectrum and label them as such and it's kind of like a reddit for news?? world news specifically tho
While i like the idea on principle, I think they have a lot of bothsideism on their site. Dividing everything into "left" or "right" is not a really valid approach.
Aljazeera is fantastic, I've been reading them for years and years. Their middle eastern news tends to be biased, but everything else is good. Of course, never trust a single news source on anything
Check out ground news. It is a news aggregator, but with a twist: it aggregates all articles on the same event from various sites so you can see how the event is portrayed by different sites.
ground.news is great.
There's also allsides.com, which has a similar idea.
I was just going to link that! Two articles on the topic:
https://www.thefactual.com/blog/what-are-the-best-nonpartisan-news-sources/
https://www.makeuseof.com/top-unbiased-news-sources/
I tried my hand at creating a magazine https://kbin.social/m/neutralnews
Haven't done a lot with it, though. But it was in response to the same dilemma as OP
Damn thats a good call. What a great site.
Just subscribe to RSS feeds from your new sites.
I use InnoReader, which I prefer to Feedly. Syncs Free plan allows you up to 150 feeds and shows ads (which you can easily get around).
I'm currently using Feedly. I subscribe to news outlets that I trust, and just read what I'm interested in there
Thanks for suggestion Inoreader! I've just had a look and it looks great, in particular with their pre-made collections.
I think it's best to never read the news, you'll find about stuff that actually affects you naturally anyway.
Focus on communities for your hobbies and career instead.
Iβd argue that one should not stop reading the news forever because youβll just become increasingly disconnected from what happens around you. As with all things, reading news in moderation and not doomscrolling is the way I think.
Yeah agreed. I think limiting it - great, yes, 100% do that. I tend to look through important news things on Sundays (usually via scrolling through a few sites - SBS, BBC, Al Jazeera, and then doing a bit more research about topics that interest me), and then not really engaging outside of then.
I'm not into ignoring the news and figuring that important things will naturally come through to me, both because there are important things that happen which won't necessarily come up in regular conversation, and also because people - no matter how much I trust them - are going to give their own spin on things. So you both risk missing out on important news, and gaining important news through a skewed lens.
(I don't mean to imply that the media doesn't skew the lens of news, which is why I visit a few different sites.)
Absolutely agree with your approach. Also not being aware about news at all might make those in power get away with passing nocive legislation without much resistance from the population.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I like to keep up to date enough on the things my government chooses to do so that I can make an informed choice the next time I vote.
Very interested in others folks answers. Honestly, I follow a lot of people on Mastodon who share news. I also follow hashtags for my local area (and here on threadiverse, subscribed to communities focused on my local area). This seems to work okay but isn't quite the firehouse I'm used to.
The context I got from reddit comment threads was invaluable. I hope to find something similar in the federated wilderness.
I've started using newsminimalist.com It's one of the most useful LLM based services I've seen. It's an aggregator that uses ChatGPT to identify the significance of stories and group the articles on different sites about that story together and then summarise them.
I don't want to spend hours every day reading news, but I do want to keep up to date with major events and it's been good for that.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I like brutalist.report.
It shows the headlines of many news sites in a clean way: just text links. It also has filters for tech, science, politics, etc.
Edit:typo
view more: next βΊ