Saturday, May 26, 2007

current news websites (links)

last edited: 6/3 10:00AM est

some interesting sites to read the news:

http://www.informationliberation.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.dailykos.com/
http://thinkprogress.org/
http://onlinejournal.com/ (great articles, no comments)
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://antiwar.com/
http://www.populistamerica.com/ (no comments by readers)
http://www.counterpunch.org/ (no comments by readers)
http://democracynow.org/ (transcript of tv news, no comments)
http://informationclearinghouse.info/
(check out http://www.ichblog.eu/ for the comments on articles from the above site)

(edit to add some more that I haven't actually checked out yet, but intend to when I get some time to do so and will post my thoughts about them, or move them to the above list.)

http://prisonplanet.com (too many flashing pictures, sensationalist, smells like FearSpeak)
http://rense.com (too many flashing pictures, blech)
http://whatreallyhappened.com
http://nw0.info
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/
http://www.newstarget.com/
http://conspiracyarchive.com
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/
http://www.justiceplus.org/ (blech, don't even bother with this one)
http://www.apfn.org/
oh, never mind about them. they all seem about the same (no I have not visited them all). Same format, flashing images, message is "be afraid, be very, very afraid" ...but I know that fear is the real enemy of the people.

send me more!! I'm starting a collection... will probably put a link list in the sidebar over there to the right side of this page. Blogs would be especially welcome. I prefer sites that invite discussion and debate on the articles they provide.
No, I do not always agree, and that's a good thing. But it is always lots of fun to read the comments by others. It's also most interesting to compare stories between those sites and the others we all know (pick one of any of the major media websites, they're all the same). I do read usatoday.com and bbc.co.uk pretty regularly to balance it all out.

And the top headline front page of today's local newspaper this morning was about dog poop!! No kidding! Heaven forbid the natives have their long weekend ruined by thinking about the horrible state the world is in right now....

4 comments:

emma said...

heh. I wouldn't bother with the BBC. You know there's a busy blog called "Biased BBC" devoted entirely to pointing out the BBC's loony leftie agenda?

I like the London Times and the Daily Telegraph, particularly some of the opinion writers in both places.

stacy said...

BBC, leftist??!! they're way farther to the right than I care to ever go... Kinda like how Common Dreams (just one of many) calls itself progressive, but isn't *really*... I just gotta read the "other side" you know? The stuff being force fed to the masses. How can I logically debate the issues (okay, in my mind anyway, nobody wants to engage in debate with me *sob*) if I don't know the other side(s) of every story?

emma said...

No, really, Stacy, the BBC are pro-Big Government, anti-personal responsibility, pro-taxation, and very very anti-Israel. Pro-multiculturalism, to the extent that Muslim terrorists are called just about anything rather than admit that they are terrorists. Their coverage of 9/11 and 7/7 would have been music to the ears of Al Jazeera (it's also interesting to note how many BBC employees go on to work for Al Jazeera...)

But the real problem with the BBC is the relationship between the way they are funded and their politics. They are supposed to be impartial commentators on the news, but there is definitely an agenda. Now, Fox news are well within their rights to have an agenda - and if you like it you watch 'em and if you don't, you probably don't. But the BBC has an agenda and EVERY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD which receives live TV in the UK has to pay for their coverage, whether they ever watch the BBC channels or not, and whether they agree with the agenda or not. The TV licence fee is compulsory even if you only watch cable channels, but what it pays for is the BBC. So every household, apart from about 1% of people like me who either don't want to receive live TV or are not prepared to pay for the BBC and therefore do not receive live TV, is paying for the promulgation of the BBC agenda.

You need to describe your politics now... I have a feeling that "left" and "right" might mean different things to each of us...

stacy said...

yeh, I'm getting that feeling, too. IMO (from the viewpoint of a "middle class" woman living in the SouthEastern US) "right" means pro-establishment. In that context, "left" means anti-establishment or pro-humanity, since throughout history "the establishment" has existed only to exploit the majority of the people for the benefit of a few. Likewise, "conservative" means a reluctance to accept change, while "progressive" or liberal means looking forward to something new. In this way, none of the current politicians (or any carreer politicians for that matter) are "left" or "liberal" or "progressive" because they don't really want anything to change, no matter what they call themselves. There have been no fundamental changes since Plato wrote his Republic, which laid out plans for those in power to oppress the masses in order to retain their governance of the people (which, btw, emphasizes a government-run public education system). The media's misuse of these terms is only a tool to keep the people from getting along and realizing that it is our own fear which is the real enemy.