Double Down News Avis 

Excellent alternative views and positions to mainstream Biilionaire owned CNN, Fox BBC Sky etc....always get more sides to the story as the truth is usually hidden and or manipulated.

Informative, well referenced and clear, common sense presentation of what is really going on....good exposures of political hypocrisy and lies

I subscribed to DDN for a bit more than a year, until I asked them for their plan to expand their channel out of genuine interest. I had also noticed a turn out rate of 4-5 videos a month which seemed to be low considering the income they were getting from their 9000+ paid subscribers (potentially £30k a month). I asked and searched for account, plans etc and got no response and only found some info on company house. This is a bit ironic from a company that criticises the opacity of the mainstream media. I fund other independent media but all are opened about their finances and development plans. At the time I left (2021) DDN had enough subscribers to potentially employ a small team staff yet only had one producing mainly opinion pieces from single individuals, thus requiring little investment compared to more investigative journalism. Since then little has changed. Great interesting content but not enough openness with its subscribers and audience.

Nice to get the real picture. I enjoy the genuity of Roger Waters.

Passionate delivery, and heart is in the right place, but short on in-depth analysis, particularly on matters of international relations.
I don't trust mainstream media, so alternative journalism sources should be be making three times the effort if they are going to present reliable, well-documented reports and make them stick.

Excellent and informed coverage. Highly recommended!

I'm simply for listening to the news from as many resources as possible. Thumps up for DDN for providing alternative views!

I've followed DD News on Facebook for a while and have always been interested in alternative positions to those taken by mainstream media. I sometimes sympathise and sometimes not, but am interested to hear what others say.
Unfortunately I have found it to be a group with it's downsides. It is not a debating chamber, abuse goes unchallenged, and although I would consider myself leftist, any criticism of Jeremy Corbyn is taboo. It seems you either accept a certain narrative or you will be labelled scum. It happens all the time so I have left the group.

I have been looking out for some impartial news offerings and came across DDNews scrolling down from a Facebook (which i despise and don't really use) notification. I went through a number of films and articles and like some previous reviewers became more disenchanted by the headlines. On google, DDNEWs is noted as left wing (not my usual political position) but I thought let's give it a go. Interested in the people offering their journalism and the films and their content but cannot help feeling that with the headlines along with the 'reasonableness' of the filming (that doesn't match the headlies (accidently typed, deliberately left in).
I am an arch cynic and have not been reading the mainstream press and listening media and I feel this is just the other side of the fence and I'm being spun.

Someone please provide us with some real independent journalism! Proven sources and bone fide accreditation, please.

I'm not entirely sure about this site as a valid source for information and opinion.

I think I may have a problem with standards in general. I appreciate that each of the journalists seems free to use their own style of presentation, but some of the tactics employed in delivery has me questioning the validity of content... as does some of the choices made with the headlining.

The headline stating "Jeremy Corbyn Demolishes The Establishment" is a typical example. Anyone who has been on Youtube for five minutes will understand the use of terms like 'Demolishes, Terrifying, Destroys' are all inflammatory terms used to stir up emotion, exaggerate and entice people into viewing the topic, ie clickbate. That the site employs the use such terms in their headlines, on their own website is a touch unsettling. That is, aside from the fact that Jeremy Corbyn comes with his own set of questionable behaviour, and seeming to be 'Lorded' here as some sort of intellectual guru on the behaviour of the establishment raised some considerable alarm bells of their own.

I think Articles like "Former British Soldier EXPOSES the monarchy" which really made me think, are undone with such headlines. It taints them with a sense of parody and undermines the power of the message they carry by labelling them as some sort of revenue seeking information provider.

The "God Help Us" article on Liz Truss was a kaleidoscope of exaggerated laughing, odd mannerisms, video inserts and strange undermining tactics that do little to add credence to it. It is a detrimental way to present serious issues IMO.
Adding to the hoard of already illegitimate sources of information that present in this questionable manner is... odd, and I can't see why anyone intent on serious information dissemination would do so, at least to this level of extremity. I think If the substance of an article is sufficiently compelling, (and actually, in this case I think it is) then requirement for such overstated delivery is superfluous. I'm not saying that news delivery has to mimic the stoicism of the BBC, but I do think this 'over the top' presentation style does the channel a disservice.

Well, that is my two cents. I've been honest (as I try to be) with my impressions, which I hope will help you come to conclusions of your own without having to invest as much time as I do in drawing a accurate conclusion. I'll keep visiting the site for a bit and see how things develop, but I already have my reservations.

Edit: I've been visiting the sight for a few weeks now and have come to the conclusion its not a legitimate news site at all. There have certainly been no updates for the past week, maybe longer. The leading article is at least two weeks old. There's not even any coverage on the Liz Truss' resignation and that was four days ago, so that about says it all.

True, honest reporting by decent Journalists and Reporters on DDN ...versus... the biased mainstream media channels owned by personal agenda driven billionaires or corrupted political agenda Western Governments.

Without publications like Double Down the best we´d have would be the smug middle class, right wing Guardian.

one of the few places you can feel the breath of free speech and the power of sincerity.

Just what I've been needing. I've given up on the once much-loved BBC which has fallen about as low as it can - little more than a mouthpiece now for Conservative Central Office and the Johnson Government and purveying as "entertainment" mostly mindless quiz shows and celebrity rubbish; also given up on the other mainstream TV channels in the UK and most certainly the extremely biased British press, owned by right-wing billionaires such as Murdoch and Dacre. So Double Down News is a welcome and refreshing change for independent news and investigative journalism. I paid for the annual subscription plan on Patreon and money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

I for one and completely in tune with its so-called left-wing bias, as I am one of the millions of UK voters who feel disenfranchised by the current political Establishment of corrupt Tories and wannabe Tories like Starmer. And yes, I am a Corbyn supporter and proud to be one.

To find news that is not the narrative of the rich elite is a great thing. A little left for me but 100 times better than bulls++t.

Excellent. Its the bitter truth.

Double Down News Is Underrated News Platform and Much Potential to grow in the future and to learn.

Remember:

1. Spit Facts, Always.
2. Stay On The Truth
3. Stay Professional

Then it will grow and grow larger each time

Heavy left-wing bias. Not a trusted independent source.

I admire their politics, and in particular George Monbiot, so I'm just earnestly wondering: what is the deal with all the cash they are making (about 36K per a month, according to their own Patreon account).

It seems all their output is just people talking on camera, offering their personal (and typically informed and interesting) opinions. There has been about 10 such videos made over the last month.

So, they're averaging about 3,500 US$ budget per each video, none of which looks like it would have any real cost associated with it (there's no fancy graphics and they're just hosted on Youtube).

Thus, I'm just wondering: what is all the cash being spent on? George Monbiot (admirably) lists his income on his website, but I see nothing listed in his most recent updates about DoubleDown at all. So, again, I am wondering: where is the money being spent? It's a pity the DD website is not more transparent about this issue.

If they were merely a total start up, I wouldn't have any qualms (just yet), but they've been on the block long enough to at least begin to address these sorts of issues, which are absolutely key, in my opinion.