What places do you visit for credible news?
I stopped watching CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, et al because of the outright misinterpretation of facts (e.g., the fake news controversy). I usually shut off the TV if these channels start talking about subjects other than market info or feel-good stories.
This doesn't mean I choose to remain ignorant of currents, though.
I receive my news through Twitter and Youtube. I always question my sources and do my own research to see if the facts are indeed credible (they usually are). I notice there's much less drama and I enjoy hearing reports from smaller, independent journalists (think Bill Still).
Where do you guys get your news?
Reuters and WSJ are good. RT is supposed to be, but careful of the Russian propagandist outfit.
I think I've heard on WSO that one of the members knows a reporter who works for RT and states that the Russian government don't influence RT. Take it with a grain of salt but I think it would be better then Western main stream media (CNN, FOX) in terms of government propaganda
I get that.. I'm just saying that I've read articles where their journalists praised Russian airstrikes as "something Americans can learn from" because they weren't killing civilians, which is completely false and eats away at American sentiment (i.e. propaganda). And CNN and Fox are the worst when it comes to being apolitical so I wouldn't use those to compare in no measure, except the ends of the spectrum maybe.
I think you might be talking about me. I met a guy who works at RT. He said take anything Russian-related with a grain of salt. Other than that, they have intellectual freedom.
The German outlet of RT is oughtright propagandist - to the point of front-paging articles which cite obviously wrong translations etc. I assume the anglophone division is smarter than that, but I would not assume that their mandate is that much different.
If you think that CNN and FOX are pushing an agenda and don't trust them because of that then I couldn't possibly imagine why you would trust an outlet that is literally sponsored by Putin's administration.
RT is great, just realize it is Russian news and will have some slant depending on subject. Al Jazeera is good. ZeroHedge is good, but always negative. I'll occasionally read Bloomberg, but anything political or even market with a political aspect is left leaning. CNBC is fine for reporting general facts.
I love long form articles. National Affairs is really good for this.
>ZeroHedge is good
Based on what? Getting it wrong for the past 5 years in a row?
A different opinion? If we are going to determine an information sources worthwhileness by the accuracy in predicting the market, then I might as well start reading the farmers almanac or something.
And while the overall theme of the site might be incorrect, the individual articles raise some good questions.
The Onion. Switched over from the FT, after they raised subscription prices again.
southpark
Member when news networks weren't heavily biased? I member...
member berries are the best
WSJ is my main source. I balance it out with Bloomberg's website, but they're not too much better than the one's you stated.
Problem: "I stopped watching CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, et al because of the outright misinterpretation of facts " Solution???: "I receive my news through Twitter and Youtube."
bro
I love the outcry over fake news by the MSM when all they do is create fake news.
MSM is yellow journalism and have the greatest blame for the mayhem going on in this country. I saw one of the heads of CNN speak a short while back and was physically ill being in the same room with him. Had to leave.
For market-related news, I really like Seeking Alpha's Wall Street Breakfast. They publish a new one every weekday morning. I am also a fan of the highlights bar on the front of the WSJ. I usually pick one or two interesting articles and read them.
For world news, I stick to European news channels. American news channels are quite poor.
Dude I saw earlier in the year you had mentioned market snacks. I read it every morning on the subway now. Super good, often times humorous, news source. And it's less goofy than Dealbreaker
Awesome! Thanks for the feedback.
lets be honest, the only news we care about is what comes out of Stephen Colbert's mouth
Economist, FT, BBC holy trinity. (I'm American)
Silver bananed and seconded
Watching the BBC over something like CNN makes me feel slightly more smug than it should.
Err, my bb terminal just gets it?, or the rather good anywhere app.
LOL. Seconded.
BB terminal and sellside emails will pretty much cover any market-relevant news
BBC, Bloomberg, Drudge, Zero Hedge, Dealbreaker, CNBC, Yahoo Finance (not really news, just market updates). I also check out Mother Jones and The Nation sometimes. It's important to me to get a mix of different views, especially on the same subject if you're interested.
Washington Post / Bloomberg / BBC / The Economist, I am not even British, but the last two organizations are very good at giving news without too much opinion. And The Economist opinions are based on facts/logic/rational thinking not emotion. Whatever you do, no BREITBART!! ...they make FoxNews look rational.
BBC is a good go-to for general world news
Huff po....
psyche WSJ
The Young Turks
WSJ, Economist, MarketAxxess Daily (bond newsletter), Seeking Alpha, local news site. I find many Bloomberg articles to be poorly written / edited.
NPR and BBC both do a good job of avoiding hyperbole, sticking to facts and stating clearly if something is a quote or opinion from someone while giving insight to both sides. That being said, it's kind of impossible to completely avoid any spin or bias across the board, so I usually follow a handful at the same time while keeping in mind any inherent bias (NYT, FoxNews, CNN, NPR). If only one is reporting something, might be fake. If they all report it, probably true. If Fox News says trump did something bad, he really f'd up. If CNN says Clinton did something bad, she really f'd up.
Yea I find the website much better in that sense
Agree with Synergy_or_Syzygy on Economist, BBC, FT. Problem with FT is that its pretty expensive and I refuse to pay for more than 1 of FT and WSJ (especially since I get all market relevant news spoon-fed to me via work).
WSJ is good if you avoid all politics/ opinion articles, which are Fox new level biased since Murdoch took over. Don't really watch televised news (why?) but if you have to I CNN is least trash (downside = no real analysis either)
I say this as a fairly well connected Washingtonian--virtually everyone who matters on Capitol Hill reads the WSJ opinion page. It's one of the most influential papers on the face of the Earth.
FT, Economist, Spiegal
WSJ, NYTimes, Washington Post, BBC, Bloomberg, Reuters, various blogs (through feedly)
Facebook and Reddit - because : echo chamber
I feel like you need to look at the source that best represents all sides and draw your own conclusions. My go tos are WSJ (good mainstream source with a conservative tilt) NPR for the best liberal news, and National Review for the best conservative opinion.
Full disclosure; I'm a conservative and did a write in at the top of my ballot.
[deleted for being a little mean]
Gotta ask, who did you write in?
I wrote in Evan McMullin.
The Economist, Seeking Alpha and WSJ.
I also browse MarketWatch when I'm bored. And I look at Dealbreaker sometimes but mainly for the pictures.
Literally everything. I respect the Wall Street Journal more than any other source in the U.S. or abroad; however, I read and watch everything. My favorite podcasts are John Batchelor (center-right, highly erudite guy with focus on foreign policy; has highly intelligent, non-bomb throwing guests); Larry Kudlow (conservative with focus on economics; has highly intelligent, non-bomb throwing guests); Ben Shapiro (right-wing and insightful but one of the few conservatives who still savages Trump for his idiocy). Usually listen to podcasts during gym time.
There are two TV shows I try to catch ever day on Fox News--The Five and Megyn Kelly. I like watching Morning Joe in the morning on MSNBC. If I'm in the car, I may catch 10-20 minutes of Andrew Wilkow on the radio. I can't stand to read Drudge Report anymore since Matt Drudge the last 12-18 months has turned into a pro-Trump propaganda arm and purveyor of "questionable narratives." I can't watch CNN anymore because it's turned into an anti-Trump propaganda arm.
huffington post, vox, and salon for all financial market related news
NYT, WSJ, and occasionally Barron's for newspapers.
TV: Bloomberg & Fox haha.
I just read WSO forums. @Virginia Tech 4ever" gives a very strong conservative view (although not very far right), while BobTheBaker does a give an excellent impression of a Hillary-supporting PC center-leftist. So, I get to hear both sides of the conversation. And, at least, the WSO members do some level of fact checking.
Honestly this sounds like you are joking but is pretty much spot on for me too. Thank you WSO posters.
This is great
BBC, The Atlantic, Politico, TechCrunch, Pitchbook, The Economist and Wired. There are a few others I'll read occasionally like RBN Energy.
Hate to burst your bubble but, the economist is a rag of a publication these days.
If only I had known Heister disapproved sooner....
Pff... this one is easy, Zero Hedge.
Liveleak.
4chan, worldstar, and youtube.
WSHH keeps me in the loop on who got beat up and who, for some reason, didn't. Important stuff
i go with politicized sources from both ends of the spectrum and attempt to filter out the facts before said politicization gives me a brain aneurysm. keeps the day interesting. zerohedge, mother jones, breitbart, daily kos, drudge report, heat street, huffpost, among others
I usually just go on Twitter and see what @RealDonaldTrump is talking about. Usually accurate. Other than that I pretty much only read Drudge, Infowars, and Breitbart. Milo Yiannopolous has some pretty tame views as well. Paul Joseph Watson is highly recommended. Alex Jones is totally sane and accurate most of the time.
LOL'ed
Even Wall Street Journal is starting to get very politically biased. It is annoying.
big difference between credible news and unbiased news. one of the best pieces of advice I ever got was to follow news from intelligent sources that you vehemently disagree with. for me, this could be NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, etc., because me reading Fox News and nothing else does nothing to make me more up to date on current events.
some of the best news I get is from my firm and other banks' economics teams. they have their inherent biases, but when you look at things through the lens of investing & economics, it tames some of that bias. the downside is this stuff comes out not by the minute like mainstream media, but weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.
all news is biased, even a centrist reporter may choose to omit facts in the sake of brevity, but the facts eliminated may be seen as bias.
on an economic issue, a right leaning paper may point to Trump's infrastructure plan as a great idea, because we score poorly on infrastructure, it has approval across party lines, and would be a job creator domestically, potentially adding to GDP. left leaning papers may talk about the same issue, but instead focus on the flaws with dynamic scoring, how it's going to be paid for, the efficacy of infrastructure, and the fact that some house Reps don't see it as a priority. same story, different slant. read both sides, make your own judgments.
on a social issue, paper A may mention that today the Charlotte cop who shot keith scott was acquitted, the family disagrees with the decision, no further charges will be pressed, he had a mental issue which could've lead to him disobeying commands, and there is no credible video evidence that he had a gun. paper B may say the same things, but mention that his gun dealer apologized on facebook for selling him the firearm, the police chief and officer who shot him were both black, and that the police have on scene evidence that he was holding a loaded weapon at his side and ignored police commands repeatedly. again, same story, different slant. read both sides, make your own judgments.
once you realize bias is everywhere and start to read news from parties you disagree with, you'll be able to think and act more intelligently on various matters (social, political, economic, or otherwise). this belief was solidified for me when I read the transcripts of the debates, complete with fact checking. even the fact checking was biased...
tldr: all of this is to say I think there is plenty of credible (meaning factually accurate) news out there, but there is no such thing as unbiased news, so it's up to you, the reader, to have a diverse menu of sources to read, and to form your own opinions once you've heard both sides.
Brofessor's advice also applies when reading investment research. Try to read research from someone with a differing thesis from yourself. If you are bullish, read the research from a guy who is bearish. It helps to see the risks to your own thesis, or learn about any opposing catalysts you may have missed.
Though Seeking Alpha gets a lot of slack, it can be a great source to get contrasting viewpoints, especially for those without access to sell-side research.
This, though I have upgraded to having 1-2 for each side of the spectrum.
Guardian/Independent for left leaning, Reuters for the least biased, Telegraph for center right leaning, ZH for libertarian.
WSJ/Financial Times/Economist for the big finance perspective.
I also like Voltaire Network for Middle East geopolitics, Gefira for EU.
WSJ for plain news (especially market news), hands-down
InfoWars, PJW, ZH
WSJ, Economist, BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, and Project Syndicate (commentary).
CNN... lol!!
The Economist
I see a lot of people here who probably bet on a Clinton blowout....
Been fortunate enough to meet several AMs and they all watch Fox News (CNN went down the shitter years ago). It's the most accurate in cable news if you want to know what us going on outside the world of business and markets. CNBC--they're not that smart but they have a lot of smart people come on. Bloomberg news feed is great, I use the app. WSJ greets to my doorstep daily.
And if you disagree with me on Fox and get your news from NYT, Huff post, or WP.. I pitty you and I sure as hell wouldn't give you my money
So I'm guessing you wouldn't give Jim Simons your money? Or George Soros?
This is the sort of dumb thinking that makes people terrible at financial decisions.
I think Carl Icahn's political views are awful, but if he offered to manage my money for free I'd snap that offer up.
Well considering Medallion works off signals intelligence and wavelet transformation.. It really doesn't matter how the news is covered, only how that filters into the market quantitatively... So yes I would give Jim Simons my money.
And if you think that George Soros is really taking what the press says seriously.. Yeah fuckin right.. The guy is a contrarian for chrisssake. And considering his WWII background he understands the power of the press on the public's thought.
I'm going to be laughing to the bank today about this reply--"terrible at financial decisions"--numbers don't lie bud
I wouldn't give my money to Soro's, the dude is a first rate market manipulator and likely could be criminally charged for some of things he has done in the past to absolutely decimate eastern European economies.
Who has time to watch cable news anyhow?
WSJ, NYT, Economist, Bloomberg, and CNN.com
Also, the "fake news controversy" is in no way related to Fox's conservative spin or MSNBC's liberal spin. The fake news controversy is literally fake news from garbage websites that is demonstrably false almost to the point of absurdity that your drunk uncle shares on facebook.
Yes and no,the MSM puts out just as much fake news as some of those sites that produce nothing but fake news. Example? Brain Williams is now the poster boy for the fight against fake news. Let that sink in.
FT, The (London) Times, Bloomberg, BBC for TV and Radio. Sometimes the Guardian and Spectator, also the Term Sheet email for Tech/PE/VC news.
It's impossible to get unbiased information anywhere. The statistics are so manipulated for political reasons that it's nauseating.
An example:
I heard a claim recently that white Americans are more likely to perform and to carry out terrorist attacks than are Muslim foreigners or Muslim Americans. When I looked into it, I found dozens of 'studies' substantiating the claim and dozens of 'studies' refuting it. One study from the University of Florida said that Muslims are 64 times more likely to engage in terrorism. A study by the "New American Foundation" claimed that white people are 2 times more likely.
This is the age of misinformation, mass distortion and propaganda without consequences.
They're probably all correct, but you can manipulate statistics to support almost any narrative. There are 100 million white males in the U.S. and about 3.3 million Muslims. It's hard to imagine that those 100 million white males are individually more likely to commit acts of terrorism than those 3.3 million Muslims.
Exactly we are bombarded by statistical stuff from a bunch of dumbass "journalists" who probably couldn't even tell what 68/95/99.7 means... The lack of statistical knowledge and understanding in our society is rampant
Best to avoid the cable and broadcast networks if you are looking for credible, factual reporting with quality analysis. Twitter and YouTube are platforms, not content creators, so they are no better or worse than the sources that post to them.
Stick with the business press (FT, WSJ, The Economist). Their readership is less ideological, and demands more accurate reporting and analysis. Business leaders need predictability and quality information in order to make good decisions. Making the wrong decision, or making the "right" decision based on bad information, can affect the bottom line. Your average cable news consumer is more interested in validation of his or her worldview than getting facts.
I'm not saying that those publications have no editorial bias/perspective. Just that they are more likely to report "the truth" based on their target market.
Other quality sources are given below, but each has its own pros/cons based on its ownership structure and target audience: -Foreign Affairs -PBS -Reuters -BBC -Al Jazeera -RT
The best daily news aggregator/blog that I follow is The Big Picture, by Barry Ritholtz.
***duplicate post
Despite what everyone says, I think Zero Hedge is a phenomenal source. The technical detail that they go into with respect to the markets is awesome. Have learned so much about market microstructure that I wouldn't have gotten from my actual work.
Geo politically I think their spin is interesting. They're obviously biased (who isn't?) but it's interesting to see a different narrative than the Anti-Russia one which we are pushed on a daily basis.
Not to mention I see them break news before Bloomberg sometimes.
Did you see the Bloomberg article on zero hedge a while back?
I did - ZH put an excellent rebuttal piece out (not sure if you saw that as well).
I'm not familiar with Zero Hedge. Why does it receive a bad rep?
It's very much an alternative news source. Insofar that you're familiar with the spin that MSM puts on things, ZH is the total opposite. It's a completely anonymous website that is made up (this is me theorizing) predominantly of trade/PM types in the industry.
If I had to summarize, they challenge the narrative. People like to criticize them by saying that a broken clock is right twice a day, but I totally disagree. ZH isn't telling you to go out and short the S&P; they're telling you that the risk reward is all off. Many of their trading recos actually end up being quite profitable (the most recent that comes to mind is the recent move in Bitcoin and TRL).
Zerohedge, Breitbart, Bloomberg, MarketWatch (WSJ without paying for it essentially), Russia Today
Financial Times and Bloomberg are the best, at least for me. I like also to read The Economist. I know, it's paying. But you pay for quality, in my opinion...
CNN and Social Media Pages like Facebook. I sometimes subscribe to local news channels.
WSJ, Harper's
The Morning Brew is a daily finance newsletter written with college students and young professionals in mind. Execs at Apollo and MS recommend it a learning tool for aspiring professionals and as great source of financial news www.morningbrewdaily .com/?kid=8BM0Z
WSJ, Politico Playbook, Finimize, The Skimm, BBC, occasionally Al Jazeera
It's been said, but The Economist. They are very upfront about their viewpoint and biases in a way that no other major news outlet is. That makes them extremely reliable, because they practically beg their readers to call them out on their bullshit. They also do a great job of publishing letters from readers calling them out.
They are upfront about it, but their biases are completely over the top these days.
R/The_Donald
I read Drudge Report because Matt Drudge's biased generally align with my biases.
How do you sift through the news and find what's relevant? (Originally Posted: 06/03/2015)
I often encounter the problem of opening up Marketwatch/FT/bloomberg and not knowing where to start and end up getting lost.
Do any of you guys have any recommendations of what sites are organized, and how to sift through news pertaining to your interests/work? Personally when I look at how certain finance websites are set-up, I get overwhelmed by how unorganized the front page is(mainly bloomberg business).
For example, do you guys first:
Any advice would be appreicated!
I ask this question before every article.
Is this article going to help me in some way?
Helped me sift through all the crap I read before.
I highly, highly recommend Feedly. I set up mine to get feeds from DealBook, FT & WSJ (you can select the individual sections that are relevant to you on FT & WSJ), ValueWalk and a bunch of other finance sites. Ensures you never miss out on news, content is presented as headline + first line of the article. Great way to scroll headlines and decide if you want to read the full article or not, and far more efficient than browsing the actual websites.
Gonna try this out, SB+1
Personally, check out the macro trends on WSJ, NYT, and Bloomberg. Also, I like growth/tech, so I subscribe to newsletters from TechCrunch, PEHub, and Crunchbase.
My $0.02, read as many articles as you can bear and be able to apply the information to what is relevant. Helps with interviews or talking to bankers. Ex. When oil was first dropping, you should have guessed that restructuring firms were getting a lot of work.
News overload (Originally Posted: 07/14/2010)
Hi guys,
I'm a recent graduate preparing for interview season in London (hope to be hired as an investment banking analyst). I read the front and back pages of both main sections of the Financial Times, I read the Economist weekly, and I read the Financial News (paper version) weekly, but I am still paranoid that I need more. In another thread on here someone mentioned google reader, and I've recently set mine up with several great sources and now I am facing news overload.
The problem is that I have 15+ books on valuation, accounting, investment banking,etc. that I would like to read/study before my interviews but right now all of my time is consumed with the news.
What are the essential must read sources and how many hours per day average do you all spend reading the news?
I would love to incorporate dealbook somehow, but they publish around 200 new articles per week. Any ideas on how to find the top stories?
The daily deal also sounds excellent, but is expensive.
Thanks
Don't read everything under the sun. I read the relevant articles on Bloomberg, Dealbook and the FT. I also read the Bloomberg Market magazine monthly, along with the Economist. But I only read the things I find interesting. It's more than enough :).
Thanks for that.
Do you look at Bloomberg online for free? What section? What sections of Dealbook?
I have a hard time deciding what is relevant and end up reading it all.
Dolore porro fugit magnam non porro provident eligendi. Sint rerum quas ut et harum. Accusantium iusto aut voluptatum.
Repudiandae nulla quia quia eius. Eos qui nisi et praesentium nam. Mollitia quisquam quo repudiandae quidem modi officia.
Vero debitis ab numquam ut. Cumque architecto nisi voluptatem voluptate quam sit saepe. Temporibus earum modi neque inventore dicta.
Qui ea molestiae laborum itaque. Nostrum aut quis eos adipisci.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Numquam harum repellendus iusto fugit distinctio sapiente nemo quisquam. Sed cupiditate non et perspiciatis tempore soluta eveniet. Commodi possimus perferendis quo et praesentium ducimus suscipit.
Consequatur laborum accusamus repellendus eius. Iste in deserunt voluptate voluptates. Libero neque eos nostrum atque at fugit.
Non porro omnis dolorum. Debitis ex labore earum nobis voluptatum vero. Sint et minus laboriosam in quo maxime non. Et qui mollitia ut esse minima. Aut aut rerum eos facilis exercitationem quia. Sed molestias eos aut voluptas aut.
Qui quas inventore accusamus libero adipisci harum. Sequi minima maxime ut nisi enim quas. Quas adipisci impedit voluptates sit et vel unde.
Cumque quia quaerat possimus sed qui. Voluptatum velit velit qui neque dolorem. Iusto corrupti commodi tenetur dignissimos iste esse sed enim. Inventore sit ducimus itaque quis ipsum aliquid non.
Tempora perspiciatis quod aut deleniti. Molestias vel pariatur quas culpa. Enim iure accusamus enim ipsam tenetur blanditiis. Qui ea ratione quia cum voluptas autem et. Laboriosam atque enim possimus. Nulla fuga id aperiam ex. Dolorem suscipit quo amet veritatis reprehenderit ea quam.
Consequuntur dolore id autem sapiente ea porro. Aut alias aperiam itaque similique dolores tempore id impedit. A sunt vel hic mollitia qui ut repellendus. Doloremque iste saepe hic.
Aliquam aliquid amet deleniti facilis dicta eum autem. Cupiditate impedit error omnis at alias nulla. Eos enim error adipisci voluptatem error sint.
Corrupti deserunt autem voluptatem ipsum ipsam maxime temporibus. Voluptatem nam vel voluptas perferendis corrupti veniam facilis. Repellat ratione ullam nemo quis. Earum quae in velit provident at.
Architecto id aliquam ratione consequuntur non praesentium magni. Quia accusantium numquam sit eligendi. Tempore sunt et dicta qui sit cumque. Voluptatem autem cupiditate cupiditate architecto qui omnis dolores.
Eaque tenetur accusantium assumenda deserunt reiciendis dolore suscipit iste. Unde provident reiciendis minus corrupti voluptatem. Aut totam voluptate vitae et.
Quas enim qui qui harum quia. Labore dolores distinctio asperiores. Deleniti laborum voluptatibus quia explicabo quia.
Fugiat maxime est est iste ut. Odit possimus provident accusamus consequuntur sunt ipsa. Dolor distinctio ut aut est.
Ab cupiditate vero pariatur facilis quia commodi ducimus facilis. Qui modi maxime itaque ratione impedit rem.
Minima saepe reprehenderit et reprehenderit fuga. Ad voluptate sed sapiente accusantium natus. Omnis culpa voluptatem quos et qui aut et quisquam.
In nobis libero eaque nulla et. Consequatur officia iure commodi itaque ut aut temporibus. Ea saepe tempora est eos et dolorem. Sed blanditiis quaerat fugiat velit nulla aliquid fuga quidem. Amet et placeat consectetur veniam vel voluptatibus ut. Qui atque velit consequatur dolores neque fugit delectus.
Assumenda impedit dolorum est aut quam aliquid consequuntur. Consequatur expedita ut distinctio voluptate distinctio nesciunt vel. Officiis ipsum accusamus delectus. Consequatur nesciunt neque modi perspiciatis corporis.