The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Their coffee in the U.S. is the worst too IMO, aside from the occasional awful gas station coffee and I wouldn’t be shocked if they were buying Starbucks roast since they also sell it in bags in supermarkets. But, of course, it’s like McDonald’s- no matter where you go, you know what it will taste like. So people rely on it.
I avoid it as much as I possibly can (it doesn’t help that I used to work on a show in L.A. that was partially sponsored by Starbucks and it was that or our other sponsor, Red Bull, if I wanted caffeine while working). The only times I go when I’m not traveling and have to make a caffeine pit stop and there are no other options is when all the other local coffee places are already closed since they all close earlier than Starbucks and I want to sit somewhere not at home to do something.
Other than that, I always go local. And here, a lot of the local places have drive-throughs, so even that convenience Starbucks offers is unnecessary. They’re usually cheaper than Starbucks too. And, of course, better coffee.
That’s what I hear, but I’d rather go to a local place. I always try to support local businesses over chains when possible. Even if it’s just a place I’m visiting, I’d rather support their local coffee chain than put more money in McDonald’s or Starbucks coffee. And I’ve discovered a lot of really nice places to hang out that way.
I wholly agree, but if you're not in a headspace where you're able to "deal with" searching out a local shop in a new area, and just need something good and predictable wherever you are, McD's coffee definitely fulfills that need.
That does make sense. Especially when traveling on an interstate and you just need a pit stop. I might do that instead of Starbucks in those situations from now on. Thanks!
As someone who also only drinks black coffee I agree. Their signature taste is literally burnt because of the way they roast their beans. It’s terrible.
Same thing goes for tea. Lipton is super bitter. Imported teas from london don’t get bitter regardless of how long they are steeped. They actually taste and smell galaxies different than that “generic bitter tea smell” that much of the world is conditioned to.
Yes, true of most any national/international chain.
It’s because they value large volume, year round availability, and high consistency from their beans and roasts, so that no matter what location you go to it tastes exactly the same.
To do that, they select and blend several bland varieties of coffee bean, put them through an aggressive industrial cleaning and drying (which reduces the natural fruity and funky flavors but minimizes costs) then roast them in huge batches to several steps past where a normal roaster would stop for a given roast (a darker roast gets rid of more of the unique flavors of the coffee cherry and brings out more uniform roast flavors instead).
Again, not something exclusive to Starbucks at all, and plenty of small coffee shops don’t bother with the hassle and just buy cheap bulk coffee pre-roasted by large scale operations and will have similar results.
But man, when you get coffee made in small batches, with natural processing or even fermentation and gently roasted… It’s an entirely different experience.
It’s just weird that any chain would opt for consistently awful instead of just settling for slight variations. It’s also weird that people still buy it despite the fact it is objectively and consistently bad.
I don’t mean any offense but it sounds like that’s what you’re missing. People don’t seem to value taste as their number 1 concern. Probably convenience of some kind (or the fact that they are everywhere). Sounds like SB is having trouble at the moment, but they’ve had the same shitty coffee for forever and they’ve done alright previously.
People tend to value consistency of flavors a lot more than you seem to realize. Having something taste exactly how you expect it to is very comforting even if the taste isn’t that good. That’s basically the whole reason McDonald’s stays in business.
People who are going to Starbucks often aren’t drinking black coffee. They get some sugar, cream, and flavor combo such that the coffee is barely noticeable. It is coffee for people who don’t like coffee.
Any time you blend beans from different places together, you get a bland coffee. I don’t think any mega size coffee shop can ever beat locals just because scale demands won’t allow non-blended beans in the supply chain.
In the US, it is mediocre. I wouldn’t say it is terrible and if I am in a different city that lacks local shops, I’ll get it. But it is definitely not my first or even 10th choice. And no, the light and medium blends do taste burnt like everyone and their mother thinks it is cool to say. Those people are almost certainly getting dark roast.
Luckily I live in Seattle and have no issue finding good roasters and cafés that are not anti union.
I’ve enjoyed many a cup of Starbucks coffee in the past, but I’ve also tasted Starbucks side-by-side with fancy coffees, and it doesn’t even taste like coffee in that context, more like water that has had charred wood steeped in it. I think it must have gotten worse over time.
The lighter roasts may be better by the standards of lighter roasts, but I much prefer darker roasts, so I want them done right. Fortunately I also live in Seattle.
BBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for BBC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
ABC News Australia - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for ABC News Australia:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Australia
> Wikipedia about this source
Also some important lines from the article about the Biden administration lying that it’s not standard practice:
The Americans are furious, though Vedant Patel, a State Department spokesman, has said that the Israel Defense Forces is investigating the incidents and that the evidence in the videos does not reflect the IDF’s values and violates rules and regulations. “When I saw the report from Al Jazeera, I said: ‘Ah, yes, it’s true,’” a combat soldier in a conscript IDF brigade who took part in the use of Gazans as human shields told Haaretz. “And then I saw the IDF’s response, which totally doesn’t reflect reality. It’s done with the knowledge of the brigade commander, at the least.”
About five months ago, two Palestinians were brought to us. One was 20 and the other was 16. We were told: 'Use them, they’re Gazans, use them as human shields.
The soldier said that in the IDF, “they know that it’s not a one-time incident of a young and stupid company commander who decides on his own to take somebody.”
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.