"Alternative" media sites - your views

[90sWereBetter]

The last few years have seen the growth of "alternative" news sites in opposition to the "biased MSM" (mainstream media), such as Breitbart and The Canary to name a couple. I was wondering what other members on here think of them.

I have to say, having read some of the things on The Canary, that it's made me appreciate how good the BBC and the New Statesman are. The Canary's just full of far left conspiracy theories regarding the Tories, with a side dish of hatred and bile for the BBC and people who aren't on board with Corbyn's Labour. Their campaign against Laura Kuenssberg is pretty disgraceful. I also tried "Another Angry Voice", but it was more of the same really. I bet the bloke who writes said blog is a joy at parties.

Breitbart is obviously a far right hate site, but I see a lot of what I would deem respectable people sharing Canary articles, which saddens me.

 

[fowler9]

The last few years have seen the growth of "alternative" news sites in opposition to the "biased MSM" (mainstream media), such as Breitbart and The Canary to name a couple. I was wondering what other members on here think of them.

I have to say, having read some of the things on The Canary, that it's made me appreciate how good the BBC and the New Statesman are. The Canary's just full of far left conspiracy theories regarding the Tories, with a side dish of hatred and bile for the BBC and people who aren't on board with Corbyn's Labour. Their campaign against Laura Kuenssberg is pretty disgraceful. I also tried "Another Angry Voice", but it was more of the same really. I bet the bloke who writes said blog is a joy at parties.

Breitbart is obviously a far right hate site, but I see a lot of what I would deem respectable people sharing Canary articles, which saddens me.

I do find Breitbart to be a far right hate site that actively encourages people that just don't like people of a certain race or religion. Canary and Another Angry Voice also wind people up but it is generally against people who don't like ethnic minorities or various religions. Put it another way, without the likes of Breitbart then Another Angry Voice just wouldn't exist. The same doesn't work the other way.

 

[takno]

I do find Breitbart to be a far right hate site that actively encourages people that just don't like people of a certain race or religion. Canary and Another Angry Voice also wind people up but it is generally against people who don't like ethnic minorities or various religions. Put it another way, without the likes of Breitbart then Another Angry Voice just wouldn't exist. The same doesn't work the other way.

I don't really understand the logic. AnotherAngryVoice isn't quite as bad, but the Canary is more or less no better than Breitbart in any significant way. Both are founded on the principle that the MSM is "lying to us" because they feel there is a systematic bias in what is printed not just in the scandal rags but also in the more respectable ends of the media, rather than in opposition to each other.

In principle they could provide an interesting counterpoint to that, but instead they seem to pursue unjustified tabloid-style vendettas, effortlessly spin half-truths into outright lies with no sense of shame, put little or no effort into fact-checking anything before they put it live, and don't employ journalists or anybody genuinely capable of assessing the newsworthiness of information. Worse than that, they are often the only source of information on a topic that most of their readers bother to consume.

 

[jon0844]

I agree, the far left sites like The Canary are every bit as bad as the far right sites. Personally I think people with such extreme views are incredibly alike when it comes to the tactics used to keep other down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Canary is a load of sensationalist rubbish. I have no time for it at all.

I'd be happy to see an alternative media site that reported facts and facts alone, but sadly that's too boring to sell papers as it were.

 

[Barn]

I am partial to a bit of Guido Fawkes for political intrigue. It is conservative but not Conservative, in that it is quite willing to stick it to the Conservative Party.

I tend to get quite a lot of my political fix from podcasts these days, particularly:

• The Spectator / Coffee House
• Institute for Economic Affairs
• Times Red Box
• Chopper's Brexit Podcast (from the Telegraph)
• Owen Jones's "Agitpod" and Ed Miliband's "Reasons to be Cheerful" (the above are all centre-right, so these are for balance!)
• BBC: Pinaar's Politics, Political Thinking with Nick Robinson, Week in Westminster, Westminster Hour

 

[fowler9]

Here is my view on the massive difference between Breitbart and The Canary. Breitbart is a hard right site that really don't like brown people and people of certain religions. The Canary doesn't like people who are like that. Now unless you can justify bigotry then The Canary is a natural reaction to it.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I don't think there ever will be a truly independent news report. It doesn't matter anyway because most people read what they want to hear. For example, people who watch InfoWars think that it's the only news source that tells the truth and is independent with it's content. However, they only really think that because it's what they WANT to believe. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar and working for the mainstream media or is being kept in line by the Illuminati or some other tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

Same applies to some who read news such as Breitbart. The people reading are usually people who want to hear positive things about Donald Trump and praise his immigration bans from countries linked to terrorism, even though these bans have been questionable and have conveniently missed out Saudi Arabia who have funded many extremists groups throughout the middle east. As long as it's what they want to hear, it'll be the truth to them. Corbynistas don't like hearing about possible antisemitism in Labour because they want to believe he's some sort of messiah who will bring about the socialist utopia, and that anybody against him is a Tory shill.

The point is that no matter how independent the content of a news site may be, there will always be some who want to hear their version of the truth and not somebody else's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here is my view on the massive difference between Breitbart and The Canary. Breitbart is a hard right site that really don't like brown people and people of certain religions. The Canary doesn't like people who are like that. Now unless you can justify bigotry then The Canary is a natural reaction to it.

Yes, I can see that, but the Canary is basically full of moaning that life isn't fair. It's like some of the Grauniad columnists - in particular Polly Toynbee who is completely incapable of being even remotely realistic about anything.

And I say that as someone whose politics are slightly left of centre generally.

 

[fowler9]

Yes, I can see that, but the Canary is basically full of moaning that life isn't fair. It's like some of the Grauniad columnists - in particular Polly Toynbee who is completely incapable of being even remotely realistic about anything.

And I say that as someone whose politics are slightly left of centre generally.

It is very different from stuff like Breitbart. Like you say it is like some Guardian columnists who lets face it are far less offensive than Breibart unless you are a self confessed bigot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is very different from stuff like Breitbart. Like you say it is like some Guardian columnists who lets face it are far less offensive than Breibart unless you are a self confessed bigot.

Agreed, it isn't offensive, it's just whining garbage. The offensive stuff is clearly much worse.

 

[fowler9]

Agreed, it isn't offensive, it's just whining garbage. The offensive stuff is clearly much worse.

There you go then mate, it is whiney, it is in no way the kind of hard left equivalent of some of the other sites people have mentioned which are a ciggy paper away from being white power pamphlets.

 

[sk688]

Not a fan of Guido , which I often find to be sensationalised rubbish , and the same could be said for The Canary , but not quite to the same extent

Stuff like Breitbart is much worse though

 

[Drogba11CFC]

According to Twitter, every time you click on The Canary, a fact dies.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

The main people who say the MSM are bias, are those who have a bias they want to perpetuate and the media's facts get in the way.

I find the BBC to be a very fair media source. Of course there will be some slight bias in the way that time is allocated to different views and they get things wrong (giving too much air time to climate change deniers and Farage for example), but compared to the 'alternative' sites, they are far more reliable.

 

[AlterEgo]

Here is my view on the massive difference between Breitbart and The Canary. Breitbart is a hard right site that really don't like brown people and people of certain religions. The Canary doesn't like people who are like that. Now unless you can justify bigotry then The Canary is a natural reaction to it.

Yes, that and the fact they’re left wing conspiracists who organised a sexist hate campaign against a journalist for the viral clicks. The Canary IS bigotry.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The main people who say the MSM are bias, are those who have a bias they want to perpetuate and the media's facts get in the way.

I find the BBC to be a very fair media source. Of course there will be some slight bias in the way that time is allocated to different views and they get things wrong (giving too much air time to climate change deniers and Farage for example), but compared to the 'alternative' sites, they are far more reliable.

I agree with you on the first point. Some argue the BBC is too left-wing, others argue it's too right-wing. I won't lie, I do think there is a bias in some of the mainstream media, but that bias couldn't be any more obvious than the kind seen with Breitbart and The Canary for example. InfoWars is especially one of those sites which it's viewers think has no bias, but in fact it can be very biased. Anything anti-government almost.

I also agree on the second point, but I do think that's a particular problem with the BBC. It is trying to be so unbiased that it gives airtime to people like climate change deniers. Climate change isn't even a political issue, but some people just won't have that and will call the BBC out for being bias, even though a lot of scientists acknowledge climate change as a fact, not opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. So many people from so many walks of life claim the BBC is biased...so I conclude it is biased equally against everyone

 

[jon0844]

I agree with you on the first point. Some argue the BBC is too left-wing, others argue it's too right-wing. I won't lie, I do think there is a bias in some of the mainstream media, but that bias couldn't be any more obvious than the kind seen with Breitbart and The Canary for example. InfoWars is especially one of those sites which it's viewers think has no bias, but in fact it can be very biased. Anything anti-government almost.

I also agree on the second point, but I do think that's a particular problem with the BBC. It is trying to be so unbiased that it gives airtime to people like climate change deniers. Climate change isn't even a political issue, but some people just won't have that and will call the BBC out for being bias, even though a lot of scientists acknowledge climate change as a fact, not opinion.

It does seem the BBC tries very hard, perhaps too hard, to be impartial and therefore appears biased for the very reasons you give - allowing alternative opinions and right to replies that many other people simply don't bother with.

You see the classic examples when you have a damning story that may be based on 1% fact and 99% assumption, and then the article will say 'we reached out for a comment but they didn't reply'. Who knows how they attempted to get a reply/quote, or even if they did, and the lack of a response in itself further supports their post and makes people jump to the conclusion that there was something to hide or the person/company would have replied.

Then the damage can be done and if a response comes later, or even a threat of legal action, the post can be quietly amended or deleted. It won't matter by then as it's old news.

 

[DarloRich]

The last few years have seen the growth of "alternative" news sites in opposition to the "biased MSM" (mainstream media), such as Breitbart and The Canary to name a couple. I was wondering what other members on here think of them.

I have to say, having read some of the things on The Canary, that it's made me appreciate how good the BBC and the New Statesman are. The Canary's just full of far left conspiracy theories regarding the Tories, with a side dish of hatred and bile for the BBC and people who aren't on board with Corbyn's Labour. Their campaign against Laura Kuenssberg is pretty disgraceful. I also tried "Another Angry Voice", but it was more of the same really. I bet the bloke who writes said blog is a joy at parties.

Breitbart is obviously a far right hate site, but I see a lot of what I would deem respectable people sharing Canary articles, which saddens me.

Clowns the lot of them. I will stick to Private Eye, the Spectator, New Statesman and the BBC thanks.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Here is my view on the massive difference between Breitbart and The Canary. Breitbart is a hard right site that really don't like brown people and people of certain religions. The Canary doesn't like people who are like that. Now unless you can justify bigotry then The Canary is a natural reaction to it.

Quite right. As I don't do social media (unless this forum counts) I'm not aware of The Canary, though AAV is something I'm familiar with from before my self-imposed exile.

The "Horseshoe Theory" is a fallacy unless you go to the very extreme left such as Stalinism. In the present day, the far right hate people who are different whereas the far left dislike people who think a different (generally more selfish) way.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

The whole left and right thing is a muddle anyway, because right and left wing economics is often very different to right and left wing immigration policy, for example.

Trump is extremely right wing on his immigration stance, but left wing on his desires to tear up free trade agreements. He is right wing in his desire to limit government control and regulations, but wants to bring in strict 'moral' exemptions to people's freedom.

 

[jon0844]

Brexit demonstrated how both the far right and a lot of the left each had a near equal hatred of the foreigners here, and the need to regulate immigration.

 

[SS4]

The whole left and right thing is a muddle anyway, because right and left wing economics is often very different to right and left wing immigration policy, for example.

Trump is extremely right wing on his immigration stance, but left wing on his desires to tear up free trade agreements. He is right wing in his desire to limit government control and regulations, but wants to bring in strict 'moral' exemptions to people's freedom.

That is why I prefer the two dimensional plane - the y axis is economic and the x axis is social and people are aligned accordingly.


I've no time for either far right or far left publications but being better than Breitbart or Canary is not the standard we should be holding the MSM to - it, as a whole, needs to act more responsibly and to have a diversity in ownership - regulated by law rather than by the market. If you want a fairly benign example of how the MSM mislead look at the weather report and see when they use opinion words (eg good instead of warm or 8C)

The BBC is the best place for me to get my news but I must warn of the golden mean fallacy - because left and right both complain it does not make it centre (although certainly better than the others).

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Lets put it this way and from a centrist point of view - all media is biased in one way or another.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Lets put it this way and from a centrist point of view - all media is biased in one way or another.

I’m inclined to agree. Hence why I use more than one media source to get my news, but then I use it as a means of information rather than fact.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think this might be a good place to bring it up, but which news outlets do you all use to get your information?

I primarily used the Guardian and the Telegraph, because they both lean towards the left and right respectively, but not extremely to the point of things such as the Daily Mail or the Sun (which I will never acknowledge as news because of its history of lies and misinformation).

I also use the BBC. Though arguably biased towards the Remain side of the EU referendum, it could be disputed. Aside from that it seems to be alright, and really it just often tries too hard to be impartial to the point where it sometimes comes across as biased or loses credibility. Why give as much air time to someone who denies climate change as a scientists who may have studied it for years and acknowledges it as fact? It can turn in on itself at times.

I do sometimes use the Independent though, as well as the Times and, whenever in the first class longue at Euston, the Financial Times. If I am forced to use other sources, I will be less inclined to believe the information and will suspect it is blown out of proportion. Don’t get me wrong, there are loony journalists in the ones I’ve sighted (the Guardian sometimes turns out some of the cringiest articles I’ve ever read), but on balance I consider them the least biased of what you can call a bad bunch.

EDIT: having done a bit of research and seeing what people are saying, it seems the Guardian might be more left than I originally thought. Oh dear, maybe I should switch to the Indepdent for a leftist view from now on!

 

[Domh245]

maybe I should switch to the Indepdent for a leftist view from now on!

Perhaps not the best idea. Whilst the Indy is perhaps less leftward leaning than the grauniad, the quality of the reporting is rather hit and miss. They've gone for a sort of reverse buzzfeed approach of starting off as a reputable source and descended into some horrendously clickbaity articles

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Perhaps not the best idea. Whilst the Indy is perhaps less leftward leaning than the grauniad, the quality of the reporting is rather hit and miss. They've gone for a sort of reverse buzzfeed approach of starting off as a reputable source and descended into some horrendously clickbaity articles

This is why I have trust issues