Alternative news sites (with one exception) are no better than mainstream media

Many in my network believe that the answer to a badly broken mainstream media model is to follow alternative news sources.

Some of those fiery upstarts are pushing back hard against the establishment, publishing news and opinions that contradict the ubiquitous garbage we have been seeing from large news organizations in recent years.

Have these alternative voices brought truth and integrity back to the news industry?

Nope. Not even close.

Same crap. Different piles.

In the last four years, I have reviewed countless news sites, and I have yet to see one other news organization that is producing accurate, responsible news coverage.

They all operate with bias, and they all pander to whomever is providing the cash, be they advertisers, sponsors, or government bodies.

In North America, for example, once a news group realizes that advertising or subscription revenue rises when the news focuses on a particular person (e.g., Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Justin Trudeau) or party, you can forget about ever seeing balanced coverage.

They choose the side that brings in the most eyeballs and cash, and they attack. And attack. And attack.

Reading negative content about the person or party that you have grown to dislike generally makes you feel good, but it does little or nothing for your brain, and even less for society.

Every upstart news site that I have viewed (other than BIG-Media.ca) employs the two deadly sins of news journalism: sensationalism and expert testimony.

Those two practices are inversely correlated with accuracy and integrity.

By now, most of you understand how sensationalism works; the reporter selects whatever morsel of truth is most shocking, and then blows the heck out of it, conveniently avoiding critical context that would help educate the consumer in a practical manner.

Expert testimony, meanwhile, goes hand in hand with sensationalism.

Reporters typically do not seek out the most intelligent or sensible authority; they pick the one who will say something amazing, or at least one who will support that news company’s biases.

Even if the journalist is quoting a top authority, the quotes offered are usually going to be more about that expert’s agenda than something as silly as the common good. I call it “press release journalism”, and it’s great for disseminating propaganda and for fuelling societal division.

Al Gore and Greta Thunberg do not have the scientific background to help educate us properly about climate change, but the only thing more compelling than having a former politician be consistently wrong with his tales of doom seems to be a teenager screaming at us.

The traditional news industry is badly broken, and the alternative players that use sensationalism and allow experts to dictate the story narrative are not helping.

There is a better way to conduct journalism, and my business partner Laurie Weston helped me come up with an effective way to deliver accurate, trustworthy news.

Our business model at BIG Media involves having brilliant professionals (mostly scientists and engineers) do their own research, focusing on good data and logical interpretation as they document facts regarding the biggest issues. They cite every shred of data, so readers can do their own fact checking.

This very pure and reliable form of journalism empowers consumers and makes it easier to get along with our neighbours. We encourage scrutiny and participation through constructive feedback and story ideas.

In order to preserve editorial objectivity, BIG Media does not accept advertising, sponsorship, or government funding. We serve only our readers, who pay a modest subscription fee to be part of our growing community of critical thinkers.