Hey guys, I was wondering which websites do you visit to see the news?

Zizek Update's Twitter. They usually have new Zizek articles when they appear.

I look at headlines from Wikinews and VOA's RSS feeds. They are relatively non-opinionated.

>which websites do you visit to see the news

Jow Forums for breaking news

news.ycombinator.com for trendy tech stuff, even though the audience is all brainwashed bugmen they are still quite insightful if the article involves something purely technological with no human involvement required

unironically www.reddit.com/r/europe/ to know what are the latest mainstream globalist trends in europe

Jacobite mag for fun analysis of the current world

Jacobin mag for checking how the old left is haging on and trying to spin how they are still relevant

quillette.com/ for checking all the Plan Bs the establishment is trying to produce in case the progressive coalition implodes at some point

twitter.com/SurvivetheJive for trendy Indoeuropean DNA updates

twitter.com/outsideness to check what are the latest alt-right memes without having to come into direct contact with any actual filthy alt-righter

Attached: eba.png (548x437, 281K)

>Jow Forums
the absolute state

it's unironically great for headlines if you ignore the obvious spin and memeing

I feel sorry for you if you are being sincere.

where else would i find crucial headlines like this one?
cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/man-says-his-pit-bull-shot-him-while-they-were-playing

>In United States of Murica, dog shoot you

Attached: 1519562220402.jpg (340x314, 78K)

>hey guys, I was wondering which websites do you visit to see the news?
wiki current events
Jow Forums for a muttshooting or terror attack for fun threads (hardly any of these though compared to last year)
/lit/ and /tv/ for the latest feminist encroachment on media I might or might not consume
check mail online once every year or so
been like this for 3 years

Stop reading or watching news. Whether it's BBC or Alex Jones or whoever the hell, all these fags are just bombarding you with information that you can't verify in order to manipulate you for their interests and make you scared and miserable.

I haven't been following news and politics for half a year and I'm feeling much happier and more productive. I honestly don't feel the need to read an extensive description of what retarded Trump did today or who hates who.

>you can't verify

It's easy to verify. Because they have no sources or evidence or haven't been verified. Which verifies it to be bull.

Reuters and RIA Novosti

AFP, REUTERS, BLOOMBERG. The issue is that their info service can't be subscribed by individuals. You have to be a business or gov agency.

Jow Forums is typically not reliable but will break the news very early. It's good for warning you then you check actual news outlets for details and accuracy.

Unironically Jow Forums. I hear breaking news there a day or two before normies start talking about it

Mainstream media is fine for news in the sense of just observing general stuff that's going on. It's any kind of analysis that's the joke.

Attached: Aljazeera-logo-English-1024x768.png (1024x768, 66K)

absolutely. i only use social media to talk to family members and look at yardsales. it's more of a convenience than anything.

i don't know how people can browse social media for more than 1-2 minutes. that shit turns my brain to gravy. not even trying to be a fedoralord or anything it's just stunning how much it treats you like an ADHD moron.

Jow Forums is social media

It's not. Why the fuck are people who read Pol and RT as their main news source even on this board.

>mudslime propaganda

Associated Press and/or Reuters. Except for newswire services almost all the other outlets such as major broadsheets/tabloids are unreliable.

English speaking African nations and India. Seriously. The Russians lie, the West lies, China lies. What is there else ?

I just check mainstream news sites to make sure there's no active shooter in my area.

>BBC
Sometimes I go to the BBC site and it literally reads like it's written for children. Short sentences, very limited vocabulary, fuck all analysis or complexity of any kind. What's up with that? Obviously they're primarily an audiovisual thing but surely they can write text above a primary school level. Is it deliberate, like the way tabloid papers seem to assume their readers left school at 10?

That's what you want from news, unless you're a politician or commentator you don't want to spend hours reading convoluted stories, just to know the state of the world around you.

The WSJ and The Economist

rss feed with all the majority of big newspaper

I don't consume news. If something is important it will effect my life and if it effects my life I don't need the news to tell me about it.

I'd rather read the Guardian than the BBC. At least the Guardian doesn't pretend to be unbiased.

>bating this hard

What if it will affect you live only in t1 and you can know about it in t0 and thus plan for the event?

The Intercept by (if I recall) First Look Media. Most Western media is owned by the same corporations set on propaganda to create clashes and conflict with the East. Did you know, for an example, that Omar Mateen (the Orlando shooter) didn't know the Pulse nightclub was a gay club? His attack was presented as a Muslim anti-gay thing, when in reality his motivation was anger at the US for it's actions in the Muslim world. But mainstream media didn't look into that, and was content just assuming he hated gays or something.
The Intercept and Glenn Greenwald are occasionally a shining light in a dark information age.

People don't want complexity. Just look at the 'most read' on the bbc or basically any other news site if they show it. Unless something big has just happened it will always be inane shit

I'm always prepared