What news source do you trust the most?

[_priapism]

Okay, got the poll option figured out.  These are the top 15 online news sites, based on daily traffic as of August 1, 2020.  Which of these do you prefer? Please comment below on your favorites, and why...

[ChirpingGirl]

None of the above.

[watcher1]

PBS

Couldn't find any newsource that you had listed that was similar.

[Athos_131]

OANN.

#BlackLivesMatter

#BanTheNaziFromKB

[Shiela_M]

What, no social media choices?   

[Indian Babe]

Guardian and Reuters for international news and a couple of Indian outfits for local,  NDTV and Hindu mainly.

[Indian Babe]

OANN.

Hahaha

[Gonfalon]

Guardian and Reuters for international news and a couple of Indian outfits for local,  NDTV and Hindu mainly.

Ah, another Guardian reader. I used to subscribe to the online edition, then cancelled my subscription after reading a poorly researched article full of factual errors. One year later I was back, and these days I count to ten (or twenty) before unsubscribing from news sources.

[Athos_131]

Usually it's a conglomerate.  If it's a big story, mutiple credible outlets are going to independently fact check it and report on it.

#BlackLivesMatter

#BanTheNaziFromKB

[ObiDongKenobi]

I'm curious to know how the Daily Mail got onto a predominantly USA list and not The Times (and surprised at the popularity of the Grauniad, admittedly in a very small sample).

[MissBarbara]

I'm curious to know how the Daily Mail got onto a predominantly USA list and not The Times (and surprised at the popularity of the Grauniad, admittedly in a very small sample).

I'm a big fan of the Guardian as well -- especially their coverage of U.S. News. They bring a cool insight into U.S. news that many American papers miss.

I also read the print edition of the New York Times every day. I recognize that at times it can be less than completely objective, but I'm a critical enough reader to see through that. It's still the most comprehensive American newspaper.

I think most Americans don't read The Times because it's hidden behind a paywall, and we don't want to pony up to read its content.

[ChirpingGirl]

I did not start this topic, by the way. Toe did.

[Shiela_M]

We get the times along with other materials at my work. I read them during break or when it's slow.  After I get done with Highlights of course 

[_priapism]

I did not start this topic, by the way. Toe did.

Awkward timeline.  I created a poll.  Several members commented.  I decided to change the poll, but I had to create a new one rather than modify an existing poll.  So I did, split topics, merged old thread into new poll thread.  Deleted the old poll.

So you were the first to comment on the first poll CJ, so your post appears first here.

I decided to research what the most popular online news sources are, rather than just the ones I am familiar with.  That took my bias out of play in the poll.

With the US election gearing up, thought it would be interesting to see where we are looking for our news.

[Athos_131]

I cancelled my subscription to the Times when I finally got sick of the Haberman Access Journalism Festival.

Also, Op-Eds by senators saying the military needed to be used in country leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

#BlackLivesMatter

#BanTheNaziFromKB

[MissBarbara]

Also, Op-Eds by senators saying the military needed to be used in country leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I typically skip the Op/Ed page. It's chiefly either preaching to the choir, or a token view from the right, and I'm interested in neither.

[watcher1]

Guardian and Reuters for international news and a couple of Indian outfits for local,  NDTV and Hindu mainly.

Ah, another Guardian reader. I used to subscribe to the online edition, then cancelled my subscription after reading a poorly researched article full of factual errors. One year later I was back, and these days I count to ten (or twenty) before unsubscribing from news sources.

The Economist isn't bad either.

[ObiDongKenobi]

I'm curious to know how the Daily Mail got onto a predominantly USA list and not The Times (and surprised at the popularity of the Grauniad, admittedly in a very small sample).

I'm a big fan of the Guardian as well -- especially their coverage of U.S. News. They bring a cool insight into U.S. news that many American papers miss.

I also read the print edition of the New York Times every day. I recognize that at times it can be less than completely objective, but I'm a critical enough reader to see through that. It's still the most comprehensive American newspaper.

I think most Americans don't read The Times because it's hidden behind a paywall, and we don't want to pony up to read its content.

Ah, showing my age here.  I automatically think of printed media and forget the on-line versions. The on-line Daily Telegraph, the political and social counterpoint to the Guardian, is also behind a paywall.

I read the Guardian for about 40 years until they changed to a tabloid format (technically it's called Berliner format and slightly different to tabloid) so they could distinguish it from the gutter tabloids. It's not a proper newspaper unless it's a broadsheet. 

[MissBarbara]

I'm curious to know how the Daily Mail got onto a predominantly USA list and not The Times (and surprised at the popularity of the Grauniad, admittedly in a very small sample).

I'm a big fan of the Guardian as well -- especially their coverage of U.S. News. They bring a cool insight into U.S. news that many American papers miss.

I also read the print edition of the New York Times every day. I recognize that at times it can be less than completely objective, but I'm a critical enough reader to see through that. It's still the most comprehensive American newspaper.

I think most Americans don't read The Times because it's hidden behind a paywall, and we don't want to pony up to read its content.

Ah, showing my age here.  I automatically think of printed media and forget the on-line versions. The on-line Daily Telegraph, the political and social counterpoint to the Guardian, is also behind a paywall.

I read the Guardian for about 40 years until they changed to a tabloid format (technically it's called Berliner format and slightly different to tabloid) so they could distinguish it from the gutter tabloids. It's not a proper newspaper unless it's a broadsheet. 

Though I know that the terms "left" and "right," or "liberal" and "conservative," mean something quite different in the U.K. than in the U.S., I find the Guardian to be left-leaning yet objective and, to use the dreaded term, "balanced." Their coverage of the Catholic Church, for example, is both nuanced, intelligent, and balanced.

Meanwhile, it's funny that you used the term "Berliner." I've never heard that term until only a couple of months ago, and I read it in reference to The New York Times, which most Americans would refer to as a broadsheet. It's not. It measures 22" x 12" which is only slightly smaller than the current Guardian format, but larger than a typical American tabloid like the New York Post. The London "Times," by comparison, measures 24" x 15."

Okay, I'm having a really wacky day today. In the past hour or so, I've posted about air fryers, clitoral stimulators, comparative newspaper sizes, and gay rape fantasies.

That's why I [heart] KB!

[ObiDongKenobi]

Maybe going off topic here - but what the hell......

The reason the Guardian gave for going Berliner was that it was losing sales because readers struggled to handle a broadsheet on crowded public transport. It doesn't take an origami expert to fold a broadsheet correctly and read it without elbowing your neighbours eyes out!

Even more off topic - in Germany a Berliner is a delicious doughnut (without a hole, but with a u and a g and an h ). Much lighter than the stodgy UK ones.