[HDThoreaun]

There's no money in unbiased news. If news organizations want subscribers they need to present a clear voice that is distinct from what other organizations offer, otherwise people will just click the first link on google or facebook and never pay. Unbiased can also mean undiferentiated, so NYT has leaned into technoskepticism, the journal into Karl Rove conservatism(and now just plain old republican or bust), and on and on. A news organization that hasn't made itself into a destination for its readers is forced to rely on cheap farmed out content that's usually either listicles or just straight ripped from a wire service.

[CamperBob2]

There's no money in unbiased news.

I have to believe that's not true. When Bill Gates or Warren Buffett sit down at their breakfast table, do they get fed the same diet of pablum that I do, as an Apple News subscriber? I doubt it. They presumably pay a ton of money for access to unfiltered, unbiased global intelligence.

But I have no idea how to get the newsfeed that people like that must have access to, regardless of cost.

[HDThoreaun]

I think they are reading the same stuff you have access too. Maybe they have a FT subscription and a Bloomberg one where you don't, but I don't think there's some team of billionaire journalists. Business stuff is different, theyll have employees trying to get insider info, but politics, largely the same.

[thatguy0900]

Would that be something like the Bloomberg terminal?

[CamperBob2]

Bloomberg is indeed the first source that comes to mind when I think "Pay a lot more than most people for a premium newsfeed," but then, on my list of trusted news sources, Bloomberg is ranked somewhere between Russia Today and the Brothers Grimm. Their reporters are literally paid to move the markets [1].

1: https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...

[hef19898]

Because Business Insider is such a great source. And no, I do not believe the ultra rich employ private inteligence serices preparing morning briefings for them.

If you want just the facts so, try Reuters or AP, basically the source of the majority of news stroies we are fed by media (the exception being in-house investigated stories, but those are rarer by the day and flanked by so much filler articles that it is hard to filter the facts out). Also, professional inteligence organizations can be spectatularly wrong as well. Sometimes a lone, local jourbalist on the ground witj working internet for soke background research has it better. Local, because some random person from far away will lack the necessary backgroing and context to deliver more than some isolated, uninformed, highly objective opinion.

[CamperBob2]

Because Business Insider is such a great source.

Whatever. Read the article. It contains direct quotes.

[hef19898]

Accusations of market manipulation are better backed up by strong evidence, because that is actually a fellony.

[MikusR]

Counterpoint. Trump and Musk.

[CamperBob2]

Trump apparently reads at something close to a 6th-grade level, going by what his staff have said about having to simplify his briefings to the level of Saturday morning cartoons. He's not a potential customer for any premium newsfeed services.

Musk is not an apparent functional illiterate like Trump, but he unfortunately has a long history of choosing poor information sources and reacting accordingly. (The "pedo guy" case comes to mind.) He cares less about accurate news than I do, that much is safe to say. So I doubt he takes advantage of whatever higher-quality sources might be available to him. Not when the latest missive from Catturd69 is free.