# Any Old Style Online News Websites?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [March 4, 2015, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181 "2015-03-04T06:21:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GreenElf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@GreenElf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenElf)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/1 "2015-03-04T06:21:40Z")

</div>

Up until recently, I was content to read my news online, saving the expense of paying for a hard copy. However, now (in the past couple years or so) I’ve noticed that virtually all of the online news sites have adopted a video format consisting mostly of videos to click on and view kind of like YouTube. I hate this because I hate scrolling forever to wade through all of the news stories and I hate watching videos to get my news. I used to like reading the USA Today online site for national news, but it no longer resembles their paper copy of the news. Even the BBC and the Economist online seems to have drastically changed. The closest I could find today to the traditional online style was the Washington Post website, Pravda, and Yahoo to some extent. A local news website that also covers national news would be acceptable. Any recommendations?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cabin_fever_1/32/2908_2.png) [@Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabin_Fever_1)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/2 "2015-03-04T11:42:29Z")

</div>

I feel your pain.  
I want to READ the news and loathe all the video content, such a waste of bandwidth.  
My go-to is Reuters.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/3 "2015-03-04T11:49:12Z")

</div>

Count me as another who hates and loathes the new video formats.

It’s not just that it’s video - it’s the _format_ of the video. If it was an old-style newreader just giving me the facts I’d put up with it, but the nattering talking head make me want to smash things.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e79b87/32.png) [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Joker_and_the_Thief)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/4 "2015-03-04T11:56:52Z")

</div>

It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but the Drudge Report has been basically unchanged for the last 15 years.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/5 "2015-03-04T12:00:05Z")

</div>

I actually pay to read the Daily Telegraph.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/6 "2015-03-04T12:02:58Z")

</div>

You could try the Guardian. They do have some video, but it’s still mostly text and photo.  
(The BBC would inevitably be video-heavy: the clue is in the institution’s name).

[http://www.theguardian.com](http://www.theguardian.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mascaroni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dc4da7/32.png) [@mascaroni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mascaroni)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/7 "2015-03-04T12:39:32Z")

</div>

Another vote for _The Guardian_. Some of the columnists are dyed in the wool liberal-lefties, but their news coverage is pretty even handed.

Also, it was someone on this board that put me on to _The Christian Science Monitor_. Well worth looking at.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jezzaOZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/8 "2015-03-04T12:49:19Z")

</div>

> [@mascaroni](#):
>
> Also, it was someone on this board that put me on to _The Christian Science Monitor_. Well worth looking at.

They have their value but they also have a political view. You have to pick and choose.

For pure news rather than opinion/spin I’d avoid the BBC, Guardian, Washington Post. Maybe the LA Times is better than most. It at least employs journalists who can write (and I’m an Aussie!)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cabin_fever_1/32/2908_2.png) [@Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabin_Fever_1)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/9 "2015-03-04T12:52:18Z")

</div>

> [@mascaroni](#):
>
> Another vote for _The Guardian_. Some of the columnists are dyed in the wool liberal-lefties, but their news coverage is pretty even handed.
> 
> Also, it was someone on this board that put me on to _The Christian Science Monitor_. Well worth looking at.

Love the CSM although I read the dead-paper version. Say what you will, I do find their reporting to be fair and balanced (to cop a phrase from another entity).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hellasketchy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@hellasketchy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellasketchy)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/10 "2015-03-04T12:56:01Z")

</div>

BBC RSS feed

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cabin_fever_1/32/2908_2.png) [@Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabin_Fever_1)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/11 "2015-03-04T12:57:23Z")

</div>

> [@jezzaOZ](#):
>
> They have their value but they also have a political view. You have to pick and choose.
> 
> For pure news rather than opinion/spin I’d avoid the BBC, Guardian, Washington Post. Maybe the LA Times is better than most. It at least employs journalists who can write (and I’m an Aussie!)

Perhaps a relevant question here is TRUE JOURNALISM dead? Enquiring minds want to know!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/12 "2015-03-04T13:10:40Z")

</div>

> [@bob\_2](#):
>
> I actually pay to read the Daily Telegraph.

There’s this thing on some browsers called Incognito mode. Just saying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mascaroni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dc4da7/32.png) [@mascaroni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mascaroni)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/13 "2015-03-04T13:36:53Z")

</div>

> [@jezzaOZ](#):
>
> They have their value but they also have a political view. You have to pick and choose.
> 
> For pure news rather than opinion/spin I’d avoid the BBC, Guardian, Washington Post. Maybe the LA Times is better than most. It at least employs journalists who can write (and I’m an Aussie!)

As I’ve said, I’m not keen on some of the ridiculously knee-jerk lefty-liberals that write for _The Guardian_ (Yes, you, Polly), but their news reporting is pretty good.

Google News is also a good source for seeing how events are portrayed in other countries.

I’ll have to have a look at the _LA Times_. U.S. papers tend to be good at in depth ‘long stories’.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/14 "2015-03-04T14:04:50Z")

</div>

> [@mascaroni](#):
>
> As I’ve said, I’m not keen on some of the ridiculously knee-jerk lefty-liberals that write for _The Guardian_ (Yes, you, Polly), but their news reporting is pretty good.

It’s interesting that the Guardian website gets, I understand, far more traffic than those of the other UK broadsheets, despite always having had far lower paper sales. In part due to their no-paywall policy, no doubt. Foreigners who look to serious UK newspaper sites for their news must have a skewed idea of the political centre of gravity in the UK. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great website and not only for news, as long as you ignore all the crazy. Of course at the other end of the market the Daily Mail is way out in the lead, so that skews things in another direction.  
(The Mail’s online popularity annoys me, not just for the obvious reasons, but because I remember they totally ignored this new-fangled “web” thing for years. Their website was pathetically half-hearted. Now they take it seriously and it seems like half the world reads their drivel. Gah.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mascaroni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dc4da7/32.png) [@mascaroni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mascaroni)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/15 "2015-03-04T14:15:15Z")

</div>

> [@Ximenean](#):
>
> It’s interesting that the Guardian website gets, I understand, far more traffic than those of the other UK broadsheets, despite always having had far lower paper sales. Foreigners who look to serious UK newspaper sites for their news must have a skewed idea of the political centre of gravity in the UK. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great website and not only for news, as long as you ignore all the crazy. Of course at the other end of the market the Daily Mail is way out in the lead, so that skews things in another direction.  
> (The Mail’s online popularity annoys me, not just for the obvious reasons, but because I remember they totally ignored this new-fangled “web” thing for years. Their website was pathetically half-hearted. Now they take it seriously and it seems like half the world reads their drivel. Gah.)

The Mail does have Martin Samuels, regarded (rightly in my book) by a lot of people as the best British sportswriter. They also have interesting well written historical articles occasionally.

As for the rest of it, ‘drivel’ is a charitable word…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/16 "2015-03-04T14:25:24Z")

</div>

How about the [Voice of America](http://www.voanews.com/)? It’s geared toward a foreign audience, there are some videos, but absolutely no ads.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/17 "2015-03-04T15:12:26Z")

</div>

[The Times](http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/) (of London) is also behind a paywall, but is pretty much the print newspaper, with additional multimedia. You also get access to the iPad version if you subscribe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/18 "2015-03-04T15:53:18Z")

</div>

I also hate video news (or video anything else, unless I’m looking for entertainment). They are too slow! I don’t read very fast, but I read much faster than a talking head can talk.

My go-to news apps (on a tablet; don’t know about their website versions) are Fox News and local ABC7Chicago. Both quick to navigate and lots of coverage.

Chicago Tribune on line sucks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/19 "2015-03-04T16:58:58Z")

</div>

Here’s the New York Daily News:

> **[New York City breaking news, politics, sports, entertainment - New York Daily...](https://www.nydailynews.com/)**
>
> New York Daily News

And the New York Post:

> **[New York Post](https://nypost.com/)**
>
> Your source for breaking news, news about New York, sports, business, entertainment, opinion, real estate, culture, fashion, and more.

They both do a good job of offering national stories with their local stories. They’re tabloids, but any discerning reader can still get good info from the stories. Plus, sometimes a little sensationalism is fun.

ETA: I’m in Michigan and read these daily on my phone.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GreenElf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@GreenElf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenElf)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181/20 "2015-03-04T17:04:39Z")

</div>

> [@hellasketchy](#):
>
> BBC RSS feed

That’s probably the closest to what I’m wanting for online news, only their daily coverage of US news stories is somewhat limited. I’ll explore RSS feeds available for US news.

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-old-style-online-news-websites/714181.md?page=2)
