Which old guard news organizations have the best internet policy?
February 12, 2007 11:25 AM Subscribe
Which old guard news organizations have the best internet policy?
Ideally I will follow one or two RSS feeds for news so I know whats going on but don't get burned out on so much news that I just mark it all read. I've been subscribed to New York Times but they pretty much fail at Internet.
I'd like recommendations for a newpaper or two that offer reasonably neutral coverage, and have RSS feeds that are not truncated and lead to full text, registration-not-required articles from the same organization. Places that get how the web works, and aren't trying too hard to monetize or nag at me, and maybe even refreshing or clever in their Internet presence.
I'm not interested in agregation type services, or AP/Reuters summary/snippet wire feeds, but more in something that would replicate reading the dead tree news somewhat.
Ideally I will follow one or two RSS feeds for news so I know whats going on but don't get burned out on so much news that I just mark it all read. I've been subscribed to New York Times but they pretty much fail at Internet.
I'd like recommendations for a newpaper or two that offer reasonably neutral coverage, and have RSS feeds that are not truncated and lead to full text, registration-not-required articles from the same organization. Places that get how the web works, and aren't trying too hard to monetize or nag at me, and maybe even refreshing or clever in their Internet presence.
I'm not interested in agregation type services, or AP/Reuters summary/snippet wire feeds, but more in something that would replicate reading the dead tree news somewhat.
You aren't likely to find many good news sites that give you non-truncated RSS feeds; BBC News doesn't offer them either, precisely because they want you to visit their site. Ditto for registration - those stats are very valuable, and newspapers have to make money somehow. Apart from their irritating archive policy, NY Times is one of the best online newspapers. The Guardian is pretty good as well, but I wouldn't call them neutral.
There are probably some illegal sites out there that'll scrape news sites and put the content into RSS feeds.
posted by adrianhon at 12:29 PM on February 12, 2007
There are probably some illegal sites out there that'll scrape news sites and put the content into RSS feeds.
posted by adrianhon at 12:29 PM on February 12, 2007
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by The Times failing at the Internet. They have plenty of separate rss feeds, podcasts, blogs, videos, etc... I've always considered them one of the best.
Their coolest feature is probably New York Times reader (still in beta), their own internally developed rss reader thing that lets you see articles as they appear in the newspaper.
Check it out.
posted by jourman2 at 12:55 PM on February 12, 2007
Their coolest feature is probably New York Times reader (still in beta), their own internally developed rss reader thing that lets you see articles as they appear in the newspaper.
Check it out.
posted by jourman2 at 12:55 PM on February 12, 2007
You aren't likely to find many good news sites that give you non-truncated RSS feeds; BBC News doesn't offer them either, precisely because they want you to visit their site.
He phrased the point in a subtle way, but he actually wasn't asking for this. See:
and have RSS feeds that are not truncated and lead to full text, registration-not-required articles
BBC News's feeds do lead to pages with the full text, no registration is required, and there's no advertising.
posted by wackybrit at 1:05 PM on February 12, 2007
He phrased the point in a subtle way, but he actually wasn't asking for this. See:
and have RSS feeds that are not truncated and lead to full text, registration-not-required articles
BBC News's feeds do lead to pages with the full text, no registration is required, and there's no advertising.
posted by wackybrit at 1:05 PM on February 12, 2007
Response by poster: Yeah, I could have phrased that better. The NYT feeds (and BBC as well) display basically a single sentence in the feed, as opposed to at least a decent paragraph, and that turns out to make a big difference.
If I need to click through every headline to see if I'm going to read it, I've begun to realize that I don't actually click through any of them. And oddly enough, if I get a good chunk of article, I'm almost guaranteed to click through to their valuable, money making, actual site on the ones I'm interested in.
That's kind of what I mean by 'getting it'.
posted by [@I][:+:][@I] at 1:46 PM on February 12, 2007
If I need to click through every headline to see if I'm going to read it, I've begun to realize that I don't actually click through any of them. And oddly enough, if I get a good chunk of article, I'm almost guaranteed to click through to their valuable, money making, actual site on the ones I'm interested in.
That's kind of what I mean by 'getting it'.
posted by [@I][:+:][@I] at 1:46 PM on February 12, 2007
Plus, their RSS feed comes preinstalled as a live bookmark on the bookmarks toolbar in every new installation of Firefox. How easy is that?
posted by flabdablet at 2:38 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by flabdablet at 2:38 PM on February 12, 2007
I've been happy with the BBC and AP feeds. The AP feed leads to full length articles.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 6:10 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by DieHipsterDie at 6:10 PM on February 12, 2007
You're right, I didn't see that in the OP. And I hear you on having more info in the RSS item, but like you say, the BBC isn't any better at that than the NY Times. And frankly, I think the NY Times has better articles.
posted by adrianhon at 3:59 PM on February 14, 2007
posted by adrianhon at 3:59 PM on February 14, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by wackybrit at 12:05 PM on February 12, 2007