On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 00:28:10 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 00:03:20 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:04:05 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote: >>>>>
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 22:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 21:15:09 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 19:40:24 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jan 2, 2026 at 12:04:57?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jan 2, 2026 at 10:29:55?AM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
How I navigate information overload and a landscape of untruths. And
what I will be reading and listening to in 2026. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julius Strauss
Jan 2
We?re being hit from all sides.
We have an American president who says he executed ?a powerful and
deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scum? in Nigeria on Christmas
Day. In fact the US missiles landed in a field in the wrong part of
the country and killed no-one.
Then there is a Russian president who says he is liberating a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbour from a neo-Nazi regime. In reality he is pulverising a
country with a Jewish leader whose only fault is that he wants to join
the democratic West.
And we have the likes of Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, Tik-Tok and X.
Each have set their algorithms to promote febrile and antagonistic
content while scaling back on fact-checkers.
Each outlet competes for our attention by pumping out ever more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye-catching content - mostly short-form video - and then monetising
the time we spend ogling their offerings.
How on earth are we humans supposed to reach the safe terrain of truth
when we are constantly slogging through a minefield of fakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsehoods and misleading narratives, an increasing proportion of
which are produced by machines?
The first challenge we have is dealing with the sheer volume of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information targeting us.
In my lifetime we have gone from spending days curled up in a corner
with a book to living in a chronic state of overstimulation - drinking
from an information firehose.
Perhaps our thumbs are becoming more horizontally dexterous and our
neck muscles better at supporting a slight downwards tilt of the head.
But our beleaguered brains, engineered for an age when we saw as many
images in our whole lives as we now see on any given morning, are
struggling.
My response to this unwanted development is that I jealously guard the
pathways to my attention and set up as many roadblocks as I can. I
never scroll Instagram, Facebook, X or Tik-Tok.
My social media interaction is limited to posting occasional updates
on Wild Bear Lodge, my bear-viewing operation in Canada, or flagging
up posts like this one.
As for my phone I treat it as I would a violent cell-mate with whom I
am doomed to cohabit but regard with the utmost suspicion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never take my phone into the bedroom - an old-fashioned alarm clock
serves time-keeping duties - and I don?t look at it before my morning
coffee. I endeavour to keep it face down. Sound notifications, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needless to say, are off.
Lastly I spend four clear months a year deep in the Canadian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wilderness. At such times my phone is neglected for hours, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occasionally days, at a time, as I happily pad along wilderness paths.
But when I do engage - and, after all, one of my jobs is writing about
things going on in the world - how to separate truth, from spin, from
outright falsehood?
First off I tend to give greater credence to those who have actually
spent time on the ground.
In my time I have known dozens of foreign correspondents who have
worked in the Middle East. Not one of them thinks that what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israelis are doing in Gaza, for example, is anything other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> egregious.
The digital world may be chock full of Israel apologists and those who
would have us believe that the only problem is Islam, but vanishingly
few reporters who have been to the Palestinian territories share that
view.
As a former Moscow correspondent I - and my ilk - have spent years in
Russia. While there may be differences in the nuances of our opinions,
not one of us thinks Putin?s attack on Kyiv was in any way justified.
And yet the bromide that ?Netanyahu is only doing what is needed?, or
?Putin has a point? creeps into conversations in pubs the length and
breadth of the UK. In Hungary, where I spend a deal of time, both are
the dominant narrative.
Why?
The answer, of course, is that misinformation, disinformation and
propaganda have become so good, so believable, so available and so
insidious, that they offer a nourishing culture for those inclined to
see the world in terms of conspiracy.
I cringe every time I hear someone say ?I do my own research?. What
they really mean is that they allow Google, Facebook, Apple, Instagram
or some other search engine or aggregator to select what they see for
them.
And each of these platforms will serve up just exactly what makes
their billionaire owners the most money.
Those among us who say they entirely distrust the mainstream media -
and there are plenty of good reasons to be critical - have, in effect,
handed the keys to their beliefs to a bevy of tech companies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So how can we then put together a daily menu grounded in fact, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informed by experts, and sifted for falsehoods? The first is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognise that - at some level - we have to trust others to curate our
inputs for us.
It is fine to browse the shelves of a bookshop and pick something odd
that takes our fancy. But when it comes to keeping up with what is
happening in the world we have to trust others to do some of the heavy
lifting for us.
What other option do we have? When I teach journalism classes (which I
have for the last five years) I tell my students never to get their
news from Google, Facebook or Apple.
Instead they should turn to trusted mainstream news sources. They are
far from perfect, but they are professional, and are held to certain
standards.
I would even rather they watched Fox News than used Google. At least
they are then watching a product that says what it is on the packet
even if it is laden with falsehoods.
Anyway. This is not really what prompted me to write this post in the
first place.
What I really wanted to do was to share some of the sources of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information - news outlets, podcasts and the like - that I do allow
into the closely-guarded ante-room of my attention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In return, I would like to know what you are reading and listening to.
General news newspapers, magazines & websites I subscribe to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Financial Times. My first port of call in the morning. It is
expensive but it is a clever and high-quality product that I don?t
feel I can do without it.
The New York Times. Still among the best news outlets in the world and
relatively cheap for what you get. If you want comprehensive and
high-quality foreign policy and US coverage and are on a budget this
is the one to go for.
The Washington Post. I look through it most days. A subscription is
cheap. It is not in the same league as the first two, but has some
interesting takes.
Foreign Affairs. I don?t read this as much as I should. It is often
written by academics and politicians, not journalists, and can be dry
and wordy. Nevertheless it delves deeply into foreign policy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reuters. I use this for breaking and straight-up news. An inexpensive
subscription.
Newspapers or magazines I am either thinking about signing up for - or
have recently cancelled my subscription to
The Spectator. I used to both subscribe to and write for The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spectator. But it has become too ideological for me. It?s pro-Israeli
stance and its sometimes-silly-sometimes-sloppy anti-Ukrainian bias
means that it is too often the preferred platform of those who would
be controversial rather than honest.
Unherd. I fear this is more of the same. It nails its flag to the mast
of going against the grain, which is always suspicious. (What if the
mainstream media is right on many issues?) Nevertheless there are
those whose opinion I respect who read it. I am also aware that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without The Spectator the views of the right are under-represented in
my daily news diet. I might add a subscription this year. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The New Yorker. Brilliantly written, clever and relentlessly liberal.
I have had a paid subscription for about 15 years out of the last
three decades. Ultimately, however, I rarely read it. (Though I made
an exception for a wonderful and lengthy recent article on the polar
bear hunters of eastern Greenland.) It is also sometimes irritatingly
elitist.
The Times. The Telegraph. The Globe & Mail. I have subscribed to them
all at one time or another (perhaps because I still have friends who
write for them and are excellent journalists) but I don?t have a
current subscription to any of them.
General news podcasts I regularly listen to
Podcasts for me don?t quite count as reading and don?t quite count as
daydreaming. Perfect if you are driving or having your breakfast.
Sometimes they chew up time I feel would be better spent thinking.
Nevertheless here are some of my regulars:
Fareed Zakaria?s GPS. Fareed is liberal, learned, fairly balanced, and
clever. I often find, annoyingly, he is two steps ahead of me. He is,
however, a died-in-the-wool neo-liberal with all the good and bad that
entails.
BBC Newshour. An hour-long daily news update. Not as authoritative as
it once was, but still very good. The shorter less meaty version is
Global News Podcast.
The Rachman Review. Gideon Rachman is a foreign policy columnist for
the FT. Again smart, learned, leaning Liberal but fair, and usually on
the money.
New York Times podcasts. Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat can both be
interesting.
The Daily Beast: Inside Trump?s head. Salacious, gossipy and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repetitive. I nevertheless think Michael Wolff is ahead of the game on
most things Trump. Not my usual fare, but I check in with it regularly
because Trump?s psychology seems to often be a better predictor of
what he will do than his stated goals and policies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Fourcast. The UK Channel 4?s podcast. Often good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Story. By The Times. Very good general interest podcast. I don?t
listen to every episode but find much that interests me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Russia-Ukraine
Battleground Ukraine. A show on Ukraine hosted by my dear friend
Patrick Bishop and Saul David to which I contribute fairly regularly.
In Moscow?s Shadows. Probably still a must for Russia-watchers, I am
nevertheless finding Mark Galeotti increasingly ideological, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predictable and repetitive. He is also in the school of ?if only we
give Putin a win he can sell at home he will end the war? for which I
find little solid evidence.
Ukraine: The Latest. By The Telegraph. What it says on the box, in
some detail. Also available in Ukrainian and Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Podcasts I listen to in Russian
I speak fluent Hungarian but my Russian is no better than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediate.
Nevertheless:
- Russian with Max. I love this podcast. It is mostly designed for
people wanting to improve their Russian language skills but I just
like Max and agree with (most of) his views on the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
- Shto Eto Bylo. By BBC Russian. Shto sluchilos by Meduza. I find
these sometimes hard to follow as they are both in rapid-fire Russian
but listen to them often for a (non-Kremlin) Russian view of what is
happening in Russia.
Substacks I have a paid subscription to
- Comment is Freed. A very good father-son team writing on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ukraine-Russia, Trump, Europe, the Middle East, and British politics.
- Futura Doctrina. On military matters, often relating to Ukraine.
I'm not sure if Strauss is a Canadian citizen (he emigrated from the UK) or
not, but he's been living and working in Canada for 20 years. The only
publications he reads or podcasts he listens to are British or American. He
says that he used to read the Globe & Mail (Canadian) but has long since
cancelled his subscription.
A former war correspondent, he came to Canada to heal from PTSD, worked for
the Globe & Mail for a short time, quit and now owns a Wilderness Lodge in
British Columbia.
That sounds good for a guy who wants to heal. He refuses to work for
any of the big news sources, but thinks it is important to report on
what is going on in eu, so he goes there himself and tells us what he
sees. Good for him. In other words, he risks his healing because he
thinks there is an important story that needs some truthy telling.
Whadda guy.
https://www.redsavannah.com/north-america/canada/hotels/wild-bear-lodge#:~:text=Nestled%20between%20Vancouver%20and%20Calgary%2C,living%20off%2Dgrid%20in%20bear%20country.
Lives and heals in Canada but not interested in Canadian news. Eh
I'd say he makes the reasons for his choices clear.
what and where?
"The Times. The Telegraph. The Globe & Mail. I have subscribed to them
all at one time or another (perhaps because I still have friends who
write for them and are excellent journalists) but I don?t have a >>>>>>>>>>> current subscription to any of them."
What he says, then, is that they don't meet the journalistic standards
he describes of those he does subscribe to.
His opinion maybe. I disagree!
He is a journalist with many years of experience, and a teacher of >>>>>>>>> journalism at university. You can disagree, but with trepidation. You
can even disagree with a prof on an exam, but be prepared to go >>>>>>>>> toetotoe with him, and present a very good argument.
Don?t tell me what I can agree or disagree with let alone how I do it!
You pompous ass.
Hmm, so that is what you are going to tell the prof?
Just for you.
You are the one who said that Canadian journalism doesn?t meet his >>>>>> standards. I?ve read all and I think that they do.
Suffice it to say then that he no longer subscribes to G&M .
Defend the position (as you imply) that Canadian journalism doesn?t meet >>>>>> the standards of those in the U S or the UK.
I read canadian journalism.
If so, it?s minimal and you skim.
If the article is not interesting. Otherwise, I read what is not
behind a paywall. I do bump into G&M paywall at least weekly, but
often enough they let me read. CBC has no paywall. Still, when I
quote canadian news here, it is usually G&M.
He does not. Neither position has
implications for people in the us or uk. But I do think that julius' >>>>> assessment deserves some respect.
Respect away.
I hadn?t heard of him before you started posting his words. You read
sub-stack?
No. But I read him.
If indeed your idea is true, I don?t agree with the premise
that Canadian journalism is inferior.
Fine. I simply think his opinion deserves careful consideration.
I usually like what he says. That has nothing to do with what we-Are
talking about.
We are talking about how you disagree with his opinion. I say, his
opinion deserves careful consideration. That does not mean you are
required to agree with him.
Why can?t you accept that? Why is he your hero?
Why is he a hero? Because his voice sounds genuine amidst the
cacophony of fakers.
Would you put a right wing
journalist on the same pedestal? Of course not!
His article makes it clear that his leaning is towards conservativism.
Has even written for the spectator in the past. I like him anyway.
Clear to you maybe but,
As he says, He-As not right or left.
Fair enough. He
also says that some of his most respected fellow journalist friends
still work for G&M. He tells both sides.
You can't tell both sides if you only know one side
He has very little to say about canadian politics, which we can assume
means that we are mostly ok here. No great upheavals or wars, which
is mostly what he wants to talk about.
?We??
Oh please ?
Sorry, do you have a war or great upheaval? Tariffs and 51st state >>>>>>>>> don't compare with upheavals and wars in eu and gaza right now. >>>>>>>>>
A city reduced to rubble is a great upheaval.
Time to go the fuck home!
Whadda guy.
As for me, I read canadian news, but I don't spend a huge amount of my
time paying close attention to what goes on in eu. I couldn't keep up
with all of what he says he reads. He must read fast.
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 17:09:22 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2026 2:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 13:34:31 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It looks like he maybe left out the reasons for the US strikes and the
On 1/2/2026 11:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:11:20 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>We are US citizens.
On 1/2/2026 7:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Who is this "we" you speak of?
How I navigate information overload and a landscape of untruths. And >>>>>>> what I will be reading and listening to in 2026.
Julius Strauss
Jan 2
WerCOre being hit from all sides.
Not you obviously.
But some of us are hitting and some others of us are being hit.
You are part of the hitting.The US did not abduct 300 Christian children in Nigeria.
The message is don't kidnap and murder Christian children or the US will >>>> hit you really hard. Good work!The strikes were not intended to kill innocent children and families, >>>>>> but to send a message to the terrorists, ISIS and Boko Haram.We have an American president who says he executed rCya powerful and >>>>>>> deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scumrCO in Nigeria on Christmas >>>>>>> Day. In fact the US missiles landed in a field in the wrong part of >>>>>>> the country and killed no-one.
And the message was, we are terrible shots.
Just tell the whole story next time, Pal!Since 2009 when Boko Haram surfaced in Nigeria, the country has been >>>>>> battling terrorism within and around its borders.
Not sure where Strauss gets his insider information, but according the >>>>>> Guardian and Nigerian information minister, "the explosion rocked Kwara, >>>>>> there were five wounded, and four buildings were damaged."
He has listed the sources he reads. I don't expect you to like any of >>>>> them.
He did, but you do not accept that, based on your choice of news
sources.
whereabouts of the missing 300 Christian children in Nigeria.
Obviously, a news junkie like that might get confused. But, you, you're
supposed to be the informant with the information. Don't you research
anything before you post it?.
You know what? I'm not going to let you get away with calling him a
news junkie or that it should be my job to keep him honest. As far as
I'm concerned, Julius is the standard of honesty, and you are the one
I am hopelessly failing to keep honest.
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:57:04 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2026 2:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 13:29:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It looks like you're not concerned about the 300 abducted children in
On 1/2/2026 11:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:14:19 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>So, it looks like you've really thought this through, so:
On 1/2/2026 8:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2026 10:29:55 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:As an obvious dedicated information junkie, you would probably know all >>>>>> about the children that were abducted from Catholic school in Nigeria. >>>>>> But, you failed to mention this. Why?
The lesson? Truth is often expensive. He says the NY times is low >>>>>>> cost. I find $90 a year quite expensive. But I agree it is worth it. >>>>>>>
How I navigate information overload and a landscape of untruths. And >>>>>>>> what I will be reading and listening to in 2026.
Julius Strauss
Jan 2
WerCOre being hit from all sides.
We have an American president who says he executed rCya powerful and >>>>>>>> deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scumrCO in Nigeria on Christmas >>>>>>>> Day. In fact the US missiles landed in a field in the wrong part of >>>>>>>> the country and killed no-one.
Then there is a Russian president who says he is liberating a
neighbour from a neo-Nazi regime. In reality he is pulverising a >>>>>>>> country with a Jewish leader whose only fault is that he wants to join >>>>>>>> the democratic West.
And we have the likes of Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, Tik-Tok and X. >>>>>>>> Each have set their algorithms to promote febrile and antagonistic >>>>>>>> content while scaling back on fact-checkers.
Each outlet competes for our attention by pumping out ever more >>>>>>>> eye-catching content - mostly short-form video - and then monetising >>>>>>>> the time we spend ogling their offerings.
How on earth are we humans supposed to reach the safe terrain of truth >>>>>>>> when we are constantly slogging through a minefield of fakes,
falsehoods and misleading narratives, an increasing proportion of >>>>>>>> which are produced by machines?
The first challenge we have is dealing with the sheer volume of >>>>>>>> information targeting us.
In my lifetime we have gone from spending days curled up in a corner >>>>>>>> with a book to living in a chronic state of overstimulation - drinking >>>>>>> >from an information firehose.
Perhaps our thumbs are becoming more horizontally dexterous and our >>>>>>>> neck muscles better at supporting a slight downwards tilt of the head. >>>>>>>>
But our beleaguered brains, engineered for an age when we saw as many >>>>>>>> images in our whole lives as we now see on any given morning, are >>>>>>>> struggling.
My response to this unwanted development is that I jealously guard the >>>>>>>> pathways to my attention and set up as many roadblocks as I can. I >>>>>>>> never scroll Instagram, Facebook, X or Tik-Tok.
My social media interaction is limited to posting occasional updates >>>>>>>> on Wild Bear Lodge, my bear-viewing operation in Canada, or flagging >>>>>>>> up posts like this one.
As for my phone I treat it as I would a violent cell-mate with whom I >>>>>>>> am doomed to cohabit but regard with the utmost suspicion.
I never take my phone into the bedroom - an old-fashioned alarm clock >>>>>>>> serves time-keeping duties - and I donrCOt look at it before my morning
coffee. I endeavour to keep it face down. Sound notifications, >>>>>>>> needless to say, are off.
Lastly I spend four clear months a year deep in the Canadian
wilderness. At such times my phone is neglected for hours,
occasionally days, at a time, as I happily pad along wilderness paths. >>>>>>>>
But when I do engage - and, after all, one of my jobs is writing about >>>>>>>> things going on in the world - how to separate truth, from spin, from >>>>>>>> outright falsehood?
First off I tend to give greater credence to those who have actually >>>>>>>> spent time on the ground.
In my time I have known dozens of foreign correspondents who have >>>>>>>> worked in the Middle East. Not one of them thinks that what the >>>>>>>> Israelis are doing in Gaza, for example, is anything other than >>>>>>>> egregious.
The digital world may be chock full of Israel apologists and those who >>>>>>>> would have us believe that the only problem is Islam, but vanishingly >>>>>>>> few reporters who have been to the Palestinian territories share that >>>>>>>> view.
As a former Moscow correspondent I - and my ilk - have spent years in >>>>>>>> Russia. While there may be differences in the nuances of our opinions, >>>>>>>> not one of us thinks PutinrCOs attack on Kyiv was in any way justified.
And yet the bromide that rCyNetanyahu is only doing what is neededrCO, or
rCyPutin has a pointrCO creeps into conversations in pubs the length and
breadth of the UK. In Hungary, where I spend a deal of time, both are >>>>>>>> the dominant narrative.
Why?
The answer, of course, is that misinformation, disinformation and >>>>>>>> propaganda have become so good, so believable, so available and so >>>>>>>> insidious, that they offer a nourishing culture for those inclined to >>>>>>>> see the world in terms of conspiracy.
I cringe every time I hear someone say rCyI do my own researchrCO. What
they really mean is that they allow Google, Facebook, Apple, Instagram >>>>>>>> or some other search engine or aggregator to select what they see for >>>>>>>> them.
And each of these platforms will serve up just exactly what makes >>>>>>>> their billionaire owners the most money.
Those among us who say they entirely distrust the mainstream media - >>>>>>>> and there are plenty of good reasons to be critical - have, in effect, >>>>>>>> handed the keys to their beliefs to a bevy of tech companies.
So how can we then put together a daily menu grounded in fact, >>>>>>>> informed by experts, and sifted for falsehoods? The first is to >>>>>>>> recognise that - at some level - we have to trust others to curate our >>>>>>>> inputs for us.
It is fine to browse the shelves of a bookshop and pick something odd >>>>>>>> that takes our fancy. But when it comes to keeping up with what is >>>>>>>> happening in the world we have to trust others to do some of the heavy >>>>>>>> lifting for us.
What other option do we have? When I teach journalism classes (which I >>>>>>>> have for the last five years) I tell my students never to get their >>>>>>>> news from Google, Facebook or Apple.
Instead they should turn to trusted mainstream news sources. They are >>>>>>>> far from perfect, but they are professional, and are held to certain >>>>>>>> standards.
I would even rather they watched Fox News than used Google. At least >>>>>>>> they are then watching a product that says what it is on the packet >>>>>>>> even if it is laden with falsehoods.
Anyway. This is not really what prompted me to write this post in the >>>>>>>> first place.
What I really wanted to do was to share some of the sources of >>>>>>>> information - news outlets, podcasts and the like - that I do allow >>>>>>>> into the closely-guarded ante-room of my attention.
In return, I would like to know what you are reading and listening to. >>>>>>>>
General news newspapers, magazines & websites I subscribe to
The Financial Times. My first port of call in the morning. It is >>>>>>>> expensive but it is a clever and high-quality product that I donrCOt >>>>>>>> feel I can do without it.
The New York Times. Still among the best news outlets in the world and >>>>>>>> relatively cheap for what you get. If you want comprehensive and >>>>>>>> high-quality foreign policy and US coverage and are on a budget this >>>>>>>> is the one to go for.
The Washington Post. I look through it most days. A subscription is >>>>>>>> cheap. It is not in the same league as the first two, but has some >>>>>>>> interesting takes.
Foreign Affairs. I donrCOt read this as much as I should. It is often >>>>>>>> written by academics and politicians, not journalists, and can be dry >>>>>>>> and wordy. Nevertheless it delves deeply into foreign policy.
Reuters. I use this for breaking and straight-up news. An inexpensive >>>>>>>> subscription.
Newspapers or magazines I am either thinking about signing up for - or >>>>>>>> have recently cancelled my subscription to
The Spectator. I used to both subscribe to and write for The
Spectator. But it has become too ideological for me. ItrCOs pro-Israeli
stance and its sometimes-silly-sometimes-sloppy anti-Ukrainian bias >>>>>>>> means that it is too often the preferred platform of those who would >>>>>>>> be controversial rather than honest.
Unherd. I fear this is more of the same. It nails its flag to the mast >>>>>>>> of going against the grain, which is always suspicious. (What if the >>>>>>>> mainstream media is right on many issues?) Nevertheless there are >>>>>>>> those whose opinion I respect who read it. I am also aware that >>>>>>>> without The Spectator the views of the right are under-represented in >>>>>>>> my daily news diet. I might add a subscription this year.
The New Yorker. Brilliantly written, clever and relentlessly liberal. >>>>>>>> I have had a paid subscription for about 15 years out of the last >>>>>>>> three decades. Ultimately, however, I rarely read it. (Though I made >>>>>>>> an exception for a wonderful and lengthy recent article on the polar >>>>>>>> bear hunters of eastern Greenland.) It is also sometimes irritatingly >>>>>>>> elitist.
The Times. The Telegraph. The Globe & Mail. I have subscribed to them >>>>>>>> all at one time or another (perhaps because I still have friends who >>>>>>>> write for them and are excellent journalists) but I donrCOt have a >>>>>>>> current subscription to any of them.
General news podcasts I regularly listen to
Podcasts for me donrCOt quite count as reading and donrCOt quite count as
daydreaming. Perfect if you are driving or having your breakfast. >>>>>>>> Sometimes they chew up time I feel would be better spent thinking. >>>>>>>>
Nevertheless here are some of my regulars:
Fareed ZakariarCOs GPS. Fareed is liberal, learned, fairly balanced, and
clever. I often find, annoyingly, he is two steps ahead of me. He is, >>>>>>>> however, a died-in-the-wool neo-liberal with all the good and bad that >>>>>>>> entails.
BBC Newshour. An hour-long daily news update. Not as authoritative as >>>>>>>> it once was, but still very good. The shorter less meaty version is >>>>>>>> Global News Podcast.
The Rachman Review. Gideon Rachman is a foreign policy columnist for >>>>>>>> the FT. Again smart, learned, leaning Liberal but fair, and usually on >>>>>>>> the money.
New York Times podcasts. Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat can both be >>>>>>>> interesting.
The Daily Beast: Inside TrumprCOs head. Salacious, gossipy and >>>>>>>> repetitive. I nevertheless think Michael Wolff is ahead of the game on >>>>>>>> most things Trump. Not my usual fare, but I check in with it regularly >>>>>>>> because TrumprCOs psychology seems to often be a better predictor of >>>>>>>> what he will do than his stated goals and policies.
The Fourcast. The UK Channel 4rCOs podcast. Often good.
The Story. By The Times. Very good general interest podcast. I donrCOt >>>>>>>> listen to every episode but find much that interests me.
On Russia-Ukraine
Battleground Ukraine. A show on Ukraine hosted by my dear friend >>>>>>>> Patrick Bishop and Saul David to which I contribute fairly regularly. >>>>>>>>
In MoscowrCOs Shadows. Probably still a must for Russia-watchers, I am >>>>>>>> nevertheless finding Mark Galeotti increasingly ideological,
predictable and repetitive. He is also in the school of rCyif only we >>>>>>>> give Putin a win he can sell at home he will end the warrCO for which I
find little solid evidence.
Ukraine: The Latest. By The Telegraph. What it says on the box, in >>>>>>>> some detail. Also available in Ukrainian and Russian.
Podcasts I listen to in Russian
I speak fluent Hungarian but my Russian is no better than
intermediate.
Nevertheless:
- Russian with Max. I love this podcast. It is mostly designed for >>>>>>>> people wanting to improve their Russian language skills but I just >>>>>>>> like Max and agree with (most of) his views on the world.
- Shto Eto Bylo. By BBC Russian. Shto sluchilos by Meduza. I find >>>>>>>> these sometimes hard to follow as they are both in rapid-fire Russian >>>>>>>> but listen to them often for a (non-Kremlin) Russian view of what is >>>>>>>> happening in Russia.
Substacks I have a paid subscription to
- Comment is Freed. A very good father-son team writing on
Ukraine-Russia, Trump, Europe, the Middle East, and British politics. >>>>>>>>
- Futura Doctrina. On military matters, often relating to Ukraine. >>>>>>>
But reuters is also good and free to my inbox.
It's been reported that armed terrorists in Nigeria abducted 300+
students and teachers from a Catholic school. The state governor ordered >>>>>> a blanket closure of all schools in the state.
The question is, does the attack strengthen NigeriarCOs counter-terrorism
mechanisms. Or will it weaken them, and threaten national security and >>>>>> sovereignty?
The report was:
We have an American president who says he executed rCya powerful and >>>>>>>> deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scumrCO in Nigeria on Christmas >>>>>>>> Day. In fact the US missiles landed in a field in the wrong part of >>>>>>>> the country and killed no-one.
Why don't you want to talk about any of that?
The question is, why did the US do that, hit or miss?
No, the question is, why did himbo lie about the result of the attack?
Nigeria or helping any Nigerians with their security.
That's what you get from my wish that himbo will be more honest?
Your focus is
instead on Trump, whom you hate, and thus discrediting the US. In your
zeal it makes you look hypocritical. Why doesn't your country help the
Christians children in Nigeria?
Why doesn't france, why doesn't uk? At least they are not pretending
to do what they are not.
The idea was not to kill a bunch of Nigerians, but to send a message to
the terrorists, they are on notice.
Then he should have said so.
So, here's what the President said:
He described the strikes as "powerful and deadly," claiming they
"decimated" militant camps, and warned of further action if the killing
of Christians continued.
Decimated militant camps. This appears to be utterly not true.
So, what?
Did the strike strengthen NigeriarCOs counter-terrorism, or not?
What happened to the 300 Christian children who were abducted?
On 1/2/2026 5:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:57:04 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It all depends on what is, is. You know that.
On 1/2/2026 2:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 13:29:08 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It looks like you're not concerned about the 300 abducted children in
On 1/2/2026 11:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:14:19 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>So, it looks like you've really thought this through, so:
On 1/2/2026 8:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2026 10:29:55 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:As an obvious dedicated information junkie, you would probably know all >>>>>>> about the children that were abducted from Catholic school in Nigeria. >>>>>>> But, you failed to mention this. Why?
The lesson? Truth is often expensive. He says the NY times is low >>>>>>>> cost. I find $90 a year quite expensive. But I agree it is worth it. >>>>>>>>
How I navigate information overload and a landscape of untruths. And >>>>>>>>> what I will be reading and listening to in 2026.
Julius Strauss
Jan 2
WeAre being hit from all sides.
We have an American president who says he executed aa powerful and >>>>>>>>> deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scumA in Nigeria on Christmas >>>>>>>>> Day. In fact the US missiles landed in a field in the wrong part of >>>>>>>>> the country and killed no-one.
Then there is a Russian president who says he is liberating a >>>>>>>>> neighbour from a neo-Nazi regime. In reality he is pulverising a >>>>>>>>> country with a Jewish leader whose only fault is that he wants to join
the democratic West.
And we have the likes of Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, Tik-Tok and X. >>>>>>>>> Each have set their algorithms to promote febrile and antagonistic >>>>>>>>> content while scaling back on fact-checkers.
Each outlet competes for our attention by pumping out ever more >>>>>>>>> eye-catching content - mostly short-form video - and then monetising >>>>>>>>> the time we spend ogling their offerings.
How on earth are we humans supposed to reach the safe terrain of truth
when we are constantly slogging through a minefield of fakes, >>>>>>>>> falsehoods and misleading narratives, an increasing proportion of >>>>>>>>> which are produced by machines?
The first challenge we have is dealing with the sheer volume of >>>>>>>>> information targeting us.
In my lifetime we have gone from spending days curled up in a corner >>>>>>>>> with a book to living in a chronic state of overstimulation - drinking
from an information firehose.
Perhaps our thumbs are becoming more horizontally dexterous and our >>>>>>>>> neck muscles better at supporting a slight downwards tilt of the head.
But our beleaguered brains, engineered for an age when we saw as many >>>>>>>>> images in our whole lives as we now see on any given morning, are >>>>>>>>> struggling.
My response to this unwanted development is that I jealously guard the
pathways to my attention and set up as many roadblocks as I can. I >>>>>>>>> never scroll Instagram, Facebook, X or Tik-Tok.
My social media interaction is limited to posting occasional updates >>>>>>>>> on Wild Bear Lodge, my bear-viewing operation in Canada, or flagging >>>>>>>>> up posts like this one.
As for my phone I treat it as I would a violent cell-mate with whom I >>>>>>>>> am doomed to cohabit but regard with the utmost suspicion.
I never take my phone into the bedroom - an old-fashioned alarm clock >>>>>>>>> serves time-keeping duties - and I donAt look at it before my morning >>>>>>>>> coffee. I endeavour to keep it face down. Sound notifications, >>>>>>>>> needless to say, are off.
Lastly I spend four clear months a year deep in the Canadian >>>>>>>>> wilderness. At such times my phone is neglected for hours,
occasionally days, at a time, as I happily pad along wilderness paths.
But when I do engage - and, after all, one of my jobs is writing about
things going on in the world - how to separate truth, from spin, from >>>>>>>>> outright falsehood?
First off I tend to give greater credence to those who have actually >>>>>>>>> spent time on the ground.
In my time I have known dozens of foreign correspondents who have >>>>>>>>> worked in the Middle East. Not one of them thinks that what the >>>>>>>>> Israelis are doing in Gaza, for example, is anything other than >>>>>>>>> egregious.
The digital world may be chock full of Israel apologists and those who
would have us believe that the only problem is Islam, but vanishingly >>>>>>>>> few reporters who have been to the Palestinian territories share that >>>>>>>>> view.
As a former Moscow correspondent I - and my ilk - have spent years in >>>>>>>>> Russia. While there may be differences in the nuances of our opinions,
not one of us thinks PutinAs attack on Kyiv was in any way justified. >>>>>>>>>
And yet the bromide that aNetanyahu is only doing what is neededA, or >>>>>>>>> aPutin has a pointA creeps into conversations in pubs the length and >>>>>>>>> breadth of the UK. In Hungary, where I spend a deal of time, both are >>>>>>>>> the dominant narrative.
Why?
The answer, of course, is that misinformation, disinformation and >>>>>>>>> propaganda have become so good, so believable, so available and so >>>>>>>>> insidious, that they offer a nourishing culture for those inclined to >>>>>>>>> see the world in terms of conspiracy.
I cringe every time I hear someone say aI do my own researchA. What >>>>>>>>> they really mean is that they allow Google, Facebook, Apple, Instagram
or some other search engine or aggregator to select what they see for >>>>>>>>> them.
And each of these platforms will serve up just exactly what makes >>>>>>>>> their billionaire owners the most money.
Those among us who say they entirely distrust the mainstream media - >>>>>>>>> and there are plenty of good reasons to be critical - have, in effect,
handed the keys to their beliefs to a bevy of tech companies. >>>>>>>>>
So how can we then put together a daily menu grounded in fact, >>>>>>>>> informed by experts, and sifted for falsehoods? The first is to >>>>>>>>> recognise that - at some level - we have to trust others to curate our
inputs for us.
It is fine to browse the shelves of a bookshop and pick something odd >>>>>>>>> that takes our fancy. But when it comes to keeping up with what is >>>>>>>>> happening in the world we have to trust others to do some of the heavy
lifting for us.
What other option do we have? When I teach journalism classes (which I
have for the last five years) I tell my students never to get their >>>>>>>>> news from Google, Facebook or Apple.
Instead they should turn to trusted mainstream news sources. They are >>>>>>>>> far from perfect, but they are professional, and are held to certain >>>>>>>>> standards.
I would even rather they watched Fox News than used Google. At least >>>>>>>>> they are then watching a product that says what it is on the packet >>>>>>>>> even if it is laden with falsehoods.
Anyway. This is not really what prompted me to write this post in the >>>>>>>>> first place.
What I really wanted to do was to share some of the sources of >>>>>>>>> information - news outlets, podcasts and the like - that I do allow >>>>>>>>> into the closely-guarded ante-room of my attention.
In return, I would like to know what you are reading and listening to.
General news newspapers, magazines & websites I subscribe to >>>>>>>>>
The Financial Times. My first port of call in the morning. It is >>>>>>>>> expensive but it is a clever and high-quality product that I donAt >>>>>>>>> feel I can do without it.
The New York Times. Still among the best news outlets in the world and
relatively cheap for what you get. If you want comprehensive and >>>>>>>>> high-quality foreign policy and US coverage and are on a budget this >>>>>>>>> is the one to go for.
The Washington Post. I look through it most days. A subscription is >>>>>>>>> cheap. It is not in the same league as the first two, but has some >>>>>>>>> interesting takes.
Foreign Affairs. I donAt read this as much as I should. It is often >>>>>>>>> written by academics and politicians, not journalists, and can be dry >>>>>>>>> and wordy. Nevertheless it delves deeply into foreign policy. >>>>>>>>>
Reuters. I use this for breaking and straight-up news. An inexpensive >>>>>>>>> subscription.
Newspapers or magazines I am either thinking about signing up for - or
have recently cancelled my subscription to
The Spectator. I used to both subscribe to and write for The >>>>>>>>> Spectator. But it has become too ideological for me. ItAs pro-Israeli >>>>>>>>> stance and its sometimes-silly-sometimes-sloppy anti-Ukrainian bias >>>>>>>>> means that it is too often the preferred platform of those who would >>>>>>>>> be controversial rather than honest.
Unherd. I fear this is more of the same. It nails its flag to the mast
of going against the grain, which is always suspicious. (What if the >>>>>>>>> mainstream media is right on many issues?) Nevertheless there are >>>>>>>>> those whose opinion I respect who read it. I am also aware that >>>>>>>>> without The Spectator the views of the right are under-represented in >>>>>>>>> my daily news diet. I might add a subscription this year.
The New Yorker. Brilliantly written, clever and relentlessly liberal. >>>>>>>>> I have had a paid subscription for about 15 years out of the last >>>>>>>>> three decades. Ultimately, however, I rarely read it. (Though I made >>>>>>>>> an exception for a wonderful and lengthy recent article on the polar >>>>>>>>> bear hunters of eastern Greenland.) It is also sometimes irritatingly >>>>>>>>> elitist.
The Times. The Telegraph. The Globe & Mail. I have subscribed to them >>>>>>>>> all at one time or another (perhaps because I still have friends who >>>>>>>>> write for them and are excellent journalists) but I donAt have a >>>>>>>>> current subscription to any of them.
General news podcasts I regularly listen to
Podcasts for me donAt quite count as reading and donAt quite count as >>>>>>>>> daydreaming. Perfect if you are driving or having your breakfast. >>>>>>>>> Sometimes they chew up time I feel would be better spent thinking. >>>>>>>>>
Nevertheless here are some of my regulars:
Fareed ZakariaAs GPS. Fareed is liberal, learned, fairly balanced, and
clever. I often find, annoyingly, he is two steps ahead of me. He is, >>>>>>>>> however, a died-in-the-wool neo-liberal with all the good and bad that
entails.
BBC Newshour. An hour-long daily news update. Not as authoritative as >>>>>>>>> it once was, but still very good. The shorter less meaty version is >>>>>>>>> Global News Podcast.
The Rachman Review. Gideon Rachman is a foreign policy columnist for >>>>>>>>> the FT. Again smart, learned, leaning Liberal but fair, and usually on
the money.
New York Times podcasts. Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat can both be >>>>>>>>> interesting.
The Daily Beast: Inside TrumpAs head. Salacious, gossipy and >>>>>>>>> repetitive. I nevertheless think Michael Wolff is ahead of the game on
most things Trump. Not my usual fare, but I check in with it regularly
because TrumpAs psychology seems to often be a better predictor of >>>>>>>>> what he will do than his stated goals and policies.
The Fourcast. The UK Channel 4As podcast. Often good.
The Story. By The Times. Very good general interest podcast. I donAt >>>>>>>>> listen to every episode but find much that interests me.
On Russia-Ukraine
Battleground Ukraine. A show on Ukraine hosted by my dear friend >>>>>>>>> Patrick Bishop and Saul David to which I contribute fairly regularly. >>>>>>>>>
In MoscowAs Shadows. Probably still a must for Russia-watchers, I am >>>>>>>>> nevertheless finding Mark Galeotti increasingly ideological, >>>>>>>>> predictable and repetitive. He is also in the school of aif only we >>>>>>>>> give Putin a win he can sell at home he will end the warA for which I >>>>>>>>> find little solid evidence.
Ukraine: The Latest. By The Telegraph. What it says on the box, in >>>>>>>>> some detail. Also available in Ukrainian and Russian.
Podcasts I listen to in Russian
I speak fluent Hungarian but my Russian is no better than
intermediate.
Nevertheless:
- Russian with Max. I love this podcast. It is mostly designed for >>>>>>>>> people wanting to improve their Russian language skills but I just >>>>>>>>> like Max and agree with (most of) his views on the world.
- Shto Eto Bylo. By BBC Russian. Shto sluchilos by Meduza. I find >>>>>>>>> these sometimes hard to follow as they are both in rapid-fire Russian >>>>>>>>> but listen to them often for a (non-Kremlin) Russian view of what is >>>>>>>>> happening in Russia.
Substacks I have a paid subscription to
- Comment is Freed. A very good father-son team writing on
Ukraine-Russia, Trump, Europe, the Middle East, and British politics. >>>>>>>>>
- Futura Doctrina. On military matters, often relating to Ukraine. >>>>>>>>
But reuters is also good and free to my inbox.
It's been reported that armed terrorists in Nigeria abducted 300+ >>>>>>> students and teachers from a Catholic school. The state governor ordered
a blanket closure of all schools in the state.
The question is, does the attack strengthen NigeriaAs counter-terrorism
mechanisms. Or will it weaken them, and threaten national security and >>>>>>> sovereignty?
The report was:
We have an American president who says he executed aa powerful and >>>>>>>>> deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scumA in Nigeria on Christmas >>>>>>>>> Day. In fact the US missiles landed in a field in the wrong part of >>>>>>>>> the country and killed no-one.
Why don't you want to talk about any of that?
The question is, why did the US do that, hit or miss?
No, the question is, why did himbo lie about the result of the attack? >>>>
Nigeria or helping any Nigerians with their security.
That's what you get from my wish that himbo will be more honest?
Why doesn't anyone do anything? Why doesn't someone, anyone, stand up toYour focus is
instead on Trump, whom you hate, and thus discrediting the US. In your
zeal it makes you look hypocritical. Why doesn't your country help the
Christians children in Nigeria?
Why doesn't france, why doesn't uk? At least they are not pretending
to do what they are not.
the terrorists in Nigeria. Why won't your country help the Nigerian >Christians?
What would you do?
You're not "himbo", which in itself a lie.The idea was not to kill a bunch of Nigerians, but to send a message to
the terrorists, they are on notice.
Then he should have said so.
You're not that dumb. You know the US Navy can hit a snail from 1000So, here's what the President said:
He described the strikes as "powerful and deadly," claiming they
"decimated" militant camps, and warned of further action if the killing
of Christians continued.
Decimated militant camps. This appears to be utterly not true.
miles away. The strike was a message and the terrorists moral is
decimated because now, with US assistance, the Nigerians can fight back.
Thanks, Senor!--
So, what?
Did the strike strengthen NigeriaAs counter-terrorism, or not?
What happened to the 300 Christian children who were abducted?
How I navigate information overload and a landscape of untruths. And
what I will be reading and listening to in 2026.
Julius Strauss
Jan 2
WeAre being hit from all sides.
We have an American president who says he executed aa powerful and
deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scumA in Nigeria on Christmas
Day. In fact the US missiles landed in a field in the wrong part of
the country and killed no-one.
Then there is a Russian president who says he is liberating a
neighbour from a neo-Nazi regime. In reality he is pulverising a
country with a Jewish leader whose only fault is that he wants to join
the democratic West.
And we have the likes of Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, Tik-Tok and X.
Each have set their algorithms to promote febrile and antagonistic
content while scaling back on fact-checkers.
Each outlet competes for our attention by pumping out ever more
eye-catching content - mostly short-form video - and then monetising
the time we spend ogling their offerings.
How on earth are we humans supposed to reach the safe terrain of truth
when we are constantly slogging through a minefield of fakes,
falsehoods and misleading narratives, an increasing proportion of
which are produced by machines?
The first challenge we have is dealing with the sheer volume of
information targeting us.
In my lifetime we have gone from spending days curled up in a corner
with a book to living in a chronic state of overstimulation - drinking
from an information firehose.
Perhaps our thumbs are becoming more horizontally dexterous and our
neck muscles better at supporting a slight downwards tilt of the head.
But our beleaguered brains, engineered for an age when we saw as many
images in our whole lives as we now see on any given morning, are
struggling.
My response to this unwanted development is that I jealously guard the >pathways to my attention and set up as many roadblocks as I can. I
never scroll Instagram, Facebook, X or Tik-Tok.
My social media interaction is limited to posting occasional updates
on Wild Bear Lodge, my bear-viewing operation in Canada, or flagging
up posts like this one.
As for my phone I treat it as I would a violent cell-mate with whom I
am doomed to cohabit but regard with the utmost suspicion.
I never take my phone into the bedroom - an old-fashioned alarm clock
serves time-keeping duties - and I donAt look at it before my morning
coffee. I endeavour to keep it face down. Sound notifications,
needless to say, are off.
Lastly I spend four clear months a year deep in the Canadian
wilderness. At such times my phone is neglected for hours,
occasionally days, at a time, as I happily pad along wilderness paths.
But when I do engage - and, after all, one of my jobs is writing about
things going on in the world - how to separate truth, from spin, from >outright falsehood?
First off I tend to give greater credence to those who have actually
spent time on the ground.
In my time I have known dozens of foreign correspondents who have
worked in the Middle East. Not one of them thinks that what the
Israelis are doing in Gaza, for example, is anything other than
egregious.
The digital world may be chock full of Israel apologists and those who
would have us believe that the only problem is Islam, but vanishingly
few reporters who have been to the Palestinian territories share that
view.
As a former Moscow correspondent I - and my ilk - have spent years in
Russia. While there may be differences in the nuances of our opinions,
not one of us thinks PutinAs attack on Kyiv was in any way justified.
And yet the bromide that aNetanyahu is only doing what is neededA, or
aPutin has a pointA creeps into conversations in pubs the length and
breadth of the UK. In Hungary, where I spend a deal of time, both are
the dominant narrative.
Why?
The answer, of course, is that misinformation, disinformation and
propaganda have become so good, so believable, so available and so
insidious, that they offer a nourishing culture for those inclined to
see the world in terms of conspiracy.
I cringe every time I hear someone say aI do my own researchA. What
they really mean is that they allow Google, Facebook, Apple, Instagram
or some other search engine or aggregator to select what they see for
them.
And each of these platforms will serve up just exactly what makes
their billionaire owners the most money.
Those among us who say they entirely distrust the mainstream media -
and there are plenty of good reasons to be critical - have, in effect,
handed the keys to their beliefs to a bevy of tech companies.
So how can we then put together a daily menu grounded in fact,
informed by experts, and sifted for falsehoods? The first is to
recognise that - at some level - we have to trust others to curate our
inputs for us.
It is fine to browse the shelves of a bookshop and pick something odd
that takes our fancy. But when it comes to keeping up with what is
happening in the world we have to trust others to do some of the heavy >lifting for us.
What other option do we have? When I teach journalism classes (which I
have for the last five years) I tell my students never to get their
news from Google, Facebook or Apple.
Instead they should turn to trusted mainstream news sources. They are
far from perfect, but they are professional, and are held to certain >standards.
I would even rather they watched Fox News than used Google. At least
they are then watching a product that says what it is on the packet
even if it is laden with falsehoods.
Anyway. This is not really what prompted me to write this post in the
first place.
What I really wanted to do was to share some of the sources of
information - news outlets, podcasts and the like - that I do allow
into the closely-guarded ante-room of my attention.
In return, I would like to know what you are reading and listening to.
General news newspapers, magazines & websites I subscribe to
The Financial Times. My first port of call in the morning. It is
expensive but it is a clever and high-quality product that I donAt
feel I can do without it.
The New York Times. Still among the best news outlets in the world and >relatively cheap for what you get. If you want comprehensive and
high-quality foreign policy and US coverage and are on a budget this
is the one to go for.
The Washington Post. I look through it most days. A subscription is
cheap. It is not in the same league as the first two, but has some >interesting takes.
Foreign Affairs. I donAt read this as much as I should. It is often
written by academics and politicians, not journalists, and can be dry
and wordy. Nevertheless it delves deeply into foreign policy.
Reuters. I use this for breaking and straight-up news. An inexpensive >subscription.
Newspapers or magazines I am either thinking about signing up for - or
have recently cancelled my subscription to
The Spectator. I used to both subscribe to and write for The
Spectator. But it has become too ideological for me. ItAs pro-Israeli
stance and its sometimes-silly-sometimes-sloppy anti-Ukrainian bias
means that it is too often the preferred platform of those who would
be controversial rather than honest.
Unherd. I fear this is more of the same. It nails its flag to the mast
of going against the grain, which is always suspicious. (What if the >mainstream media is right on many issues?) Nevertheless there are
those whose opinion I respect who read it. I am also aware that
without The Spectator the views of the right are under-represented in
my daily news diet. I might add a subscription this year.
The New Yorker. Brilliantly written, clever and relentlessly liberal.
I have had a paid subscription for about 15 years out of the last
three decades. Ultimately, however, I rarely read it. (Though I made
an exception for a wonderful and lengthy recent article on the polar
bear hunters of eastern Greenland.) It is also sometimes irritatingly >elitist.
The Times. The Telegraph. The Globe & Mail. I have subscribed to them
all at one time or another (perhaps because I still have friends who
write for them and are excellent journalists) but I donAt have a
current subscription to any of them.
General news podcasts I regularly listen to
Podcasts for me donAt quite count as reading and donAt quite count as >daydreaming. Perfect if you are driving or having your breakfast.
Sometimes they chew up time I feel would be better spent thinking.
Nevertheless here are some of my regulars:
Fareed ZakariaAs GPS. Fareed is liberal, learned, fairly balanced, and >clever. I often find, annoyingly, he is two steps ahead of me. He is, >however, a died-in-the-wool neo-liberal with all the good and bad that >entails.
BBC Newshour. An hour-long daily news update. Not as authoritative as
it once was, but still very good. The shorter less meaty version is
Global News Podcast.
The Rachman Review. Gideon Rachman is a foreign policy columnist for
the FT. Again smart, learned, leaning Liberal but fair, and usually on
the money.
New York Times podcasts. Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat can both be
interesting.
The Daily Beast: Inside TrumpAs head. Salacious, gossipy and
repetitive. I nevertheless think Michael Wolff is ahead of the game on
most things Trump. Not my usual fare, but I check in with it regularly >because TrumpAs psychology seems to often be a better predictor of
what he will do than his stated goals and policies.
The Fourcast. The UK Channel 4As podcast. Often good.
The Story. By The Times. Very good general interest podcast. I donAt
listen to every episode but find much that interests me.
On Russia-Ukraine
Battleground Ukraine. A show on Ukraine hosted by my dear friend
Patrick Bishop and Saul David to which I contribute fairly regularly.
In MoscowAs Shadows. Probably still a must for Russia-watchers, I am >nevertheless finding Mark Galeotti increasingly ideological,
predictable and repetitive. He is also in the school of aif only we
give Putin a win he can sell at home he will end the warA for which I
find little solid evidence.
Ukraine: The Latest. By The Telegraph. What it says on the box, in
some detail. Also available in Ukrainian and Russian.
Podcasts I listen to in Russian
I speak fluent Hungarian but my Russian is no better than
intermediate.
Nevertheless:
- Russian with Max. I love this podcast. It is mostly designed for
people wanting to improve their Russian language skills but I just
like Max and agree with (most of) his views on the world.
- Shto Eto Bylo. By BBC Russian. Shto sluchilos by Meduza. I find
these sometimes hard to follow as they are both in rapid-fire Russian
but listen to them often for a (non-Kremlin) Russian view of what is >happening in Russia.
Substacks I have a paid subscription to
- Comment is Freed. A very good father-son team writing on
Ukraine-Russia, Trump, Europe, the Middle East, and British politics.
- Futura Doctrina. On military matters, often relating to Ukraine.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:04:10 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,733 |
| Posted today: | 1 |