One topic I've noticed that regularly crops up in political discussions is bad sources of news.
To people who are strongly right-wing, most news media in the country is "fake news" except of course for right-wing sources. Wikipedia? Made up. Snopes? Liars. Alex Jones? A straight-shooter who's on to something that the deep state doesn't want you to hear. And needless to say, people who are firmly on the left bemoan these people's right-wing sources. There's an endless debate about which sources are reliable and trustworthy and which aren't, about what constitutes a reliable, credible source and which sources are unreliable.
Also, I've noticed that the views that people's views and the perceived viewpoints of their sources tend to be very similar. Someone who loves Fox News is likely on the right, someone who loves MSNBC is likely on the left, someone who loves Reason.com is likely a libertarian, etc. Naturally, I wonder which came first - do people select news media that reinforces their current beliefs or were they gradually persuaded?
These questions are pretty daunting and the answers may never be completely known, so I'd rather start this thread off with a much easier question:
Which news sources do you trust and why?
(http://cdn.makeuseof.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/media-site-political-bias-chart.png?1108ef)
Personally, I place news sources in four basic categories:
Green - high degree of trust; you can generally take what they say at face value.
Yellow - small amount of distrust; scandals, perceived bias, a high degree of editorializing, etc. I take what they say with a grain of salt and seek out more trustworthy sources to corroborate their claims.
Orange - moderate amount of distrust; perceived compromised in some way and more prone to push an agenda and score political points than to inform. Not everything they say is wrong, but it requires a heaping helping of salt.
Red - massive amount of distrust; unrepentant lying, huge factual errors, etc. If they told me the sky was blue, I'd look out the window. If you cite these sources, I instantly think less of you.
Green: Reuters/AP, relevant agencies (NASA with astronomy, Department of Energy with CO2 emissions, AAAS, etc), New York Times, Washington Post, Gallup/Pew polls, Council on Foreign Relations
Yellow: Cable news (CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS), Politico, Newsweek, Real Clear Politics, British news (BBC, The Guardian, The Independent), local news, Wikipedia
Orange: WSJ, Reason.org, MSNBC, MotherJones, CommonDreams, Buzzfeed, Jezebel, Salon, RationalWiki
Red: Fox News, The Blaze, Breitbart, Infowars, WND, NaturalNews (conspiracy-mongering), RT, Daily Mail (sensationalist tabloid), The Washington Times (owned by Unification Church), Conservapedia, GlobalResearch.ca
I'm not sure "trust" would be the word I'd use for any news site. I take it all with a big grain of salt, but there are some I find less likely to lead me astray than others. PBS, CNN, and MSNBC are the ones I often listen to, along with such places as Ring of Fire, The Young Turks, etc. that I find interesting and informative.
Oh, I forgot TNN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kexEBxPSEDI
I have lots of special interest news sites in my feed that I won't list (tech, comics, etc.) but I'll list my main sources of news. My strategy is to draw from a variety of sources and hopefully get an idea of what is going on, so many of these sources have been selected because of their bias. I don't think any of these sources are usually factually untrue, they don't fabricate events, but they select and edit stories to appeal to their readership (Reason.com is never going to write an article where the solution is more taxes). I don't believe in truly unbiased news and just because I've listed a source as highly biased doesn't mean I don't learn something.
Less bias: AP, Reuters, NPR, Gallup, Pew Research
Some bias: Washington Post, Newsweek, USA Today, Business Insider, The Economist, The Atlantic, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, FiveThirtyEight, Aeon, BBC
Highly biased: Huffington Post, Fox News, National Review, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, Salon, David Pakman Show, Rubin Report, Reason.com, Secular Talk
I typically go to BBC News and CBC news for national and international news, mainly because they don't SCREAM HEADLINES AT ME TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THE STORY!!! and locally, the TV news websites because by and large the local paper is a house organ for the state GOP.
I question whether the BBC should be where they are, considering the shellacking they've been giving Jeremy Corbin from the day he took the party leadership. They're not on the right, but they are more to the center (or centre) than where they've been put on that graphic.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 09, 2018, 04:38:32 PMHighly biased: Huffington Post, Fox News, National Review, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, Salon, David Pakman Show, Rubin Report, Reason.com, Secular Talk
About Secular Talk, I think it's one of the better political commentary shows out there. This might seem like high praise, but it's actually a backhanded compliment considering that I typically view those types of shows very poorly. While I don't always agree with his conclusions, one thing that I really appreciate is that he shows sources, which is a rarity in that field.
While I'm on the subject, I don't like political commentary precisely because I worry that I might find some argument compelling that has no basis in fact whatsoever and I just liked the way the argument was presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) or liked the conclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). I see stuff like "Stephen Crowder just owned you libtards!" and cringe precisely because that could be me, just championing some other commentator and "owning" a different ideological group.
This isn't to say that there's no place for political commentary or that political commentators can't be correct, just that the format can be very seductive and give false impressions very easily.
Pew Poll on Media habits (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/): (granted, it's from 4 years ago, so some things may have changed since then)
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2014/10/PJ_14.09.22_mediaPolar_PromoWithTitle_report640x320REV.png)
QuoteOverall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:
Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.
By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:
Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some â€" like NPR and the New York Timesâ€" that others use far less.
Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend†someone on a social network â€" as well as to end a personal friendship â€" because of politics.
Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.
There's also a handy chart (http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/table/trust/) that shows what news sources these people trust/distrust.
For consistent conservatives, they trust Fox News (88%), Sean Hannity (62%), Rush Limbaugh (58%), and Glenn Beck (51%).
For consistent liberals, they trust NPR (72%), PBS (71%), BBC (69%), New York Times (62%), CNN (56%), NBC (56%), ABC (52%), MSNBC (52%), CBS (51%)
One immediately notes the stark difference in both the number of sources and the format of the sources.
For me it’s Reuters, AP, and USA Today for reliable and somewhat unbiased news, it seems like the others always lean or heavily lean towards one way or the other and those 3 at least cite sources and have people who try to be neutral or at least present both sides to the argument
The Economist is "neutral" ... in what universe! It is a British MIC source.
Same with the rest of that fake chart. Pseudoscience for the peasant class.
Pew Research is OK, if you can hold your nose long enough ;-)
Quote from: trdsf on August 09, 2018, 05:02:15 PM
I typically go to BBC News and CBC news for national and international news, mainly because they don't SCREAM HEADLINES AT ME TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THE STORY!!! and locally, the TV news websites because by and large the local paper is a house organ for the state GOP.
I question whether the BBC should be where they are, considering the shellacking they've been giving Jeremy Corbin from the day he took the party leadership. They're not on the right, but they are more to the center (or centre) than where they've been put on that graphic.
I use British sources for all American news. And American sources for all British news.
I prefer to check news sources with other sources for the same story to get some validation for it. That said I don't buy or pay for online subscription for newspapers anymore since I realised how much these old time styles of news are going after the more up to day form of independent news and media coverage online.
Quote from: Munch on August 09, 2018, 07:58:14 PM
I prefer to check news sources with other sources for the same story to get some validation for it. That said I don't buy or pay for online subscription for newspapers anymore since I realised how much these old time styles of news are going after the more up to day form of independent news and media coverage online.
Consider radio. We have many radio stations, all owned by the same entity (Comcast). They all broadcast the same program of music. This is like "narrative control" of news, driven from a common source. It is called ... coherence. The news media today is remarkably coherent, all being driven by the same Dark State. They are not true independent sources. Similarly with local legislation, ALEC. So you have to work at getting more than one POV. This is why Al Jazira is significant, and why their reporters were being hunted by American helicopter in Baghdad.
I don't trust any mainstream media. Not for a long time.
They have a biased globalist, leftist [Marxist] agenda.
I get news from independent media, with caution.
Social media (Goole, Facebook, Twitter, etc) I never use.
I read that they are censoring the "right" and shutting them down wholesale.
What are they afraid of?
Controlling the mid-term elections?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmrZCT9uTqM
Moral panic ... virtue signaling by the guilty
Control freaks ... people who can't control themselves
Quote from: pr126 on August 10, 2018, 04:45:05 AM
I don't trust any mainstream media. Not for a long time.
They have a biased globalist, leftist [Marxist] agenda.
I get news from independent media, with caution.
What independent media do you recommend? My concern with some independent media is that they don't do actual reporting themselves but comment on news generated by mainstream media.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 10, 2018, 08:48:59 AM
What independent media do you recommend? My concern with some independent media is that they don't do actual reporting themselves but comment on news generated by mainstream media.
I do not recommend any. Each should find their own sources.
As with the legacy media, it not just what they report but what they leave out.
For example Trump's achievements on the economy, his successful trade deals, etc. none of this is newsworthy.
Russian collusion, Stormy Daniels 24/7 is.
Quote from: pr126 on August 10, 2018, 11:32:07 AM
As with the legacy media, it not just what they report but what they leave out.
I agree, which is why with stories of interest I look at a variety of sources for different perspectives. Often different sources take the same set of facts and interpret them completely differently based on their values.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 09, 2018, 04:38:32 PM
Less bias: AP,
I too thought AP was "less biased," but it may be that AP isn't as trustworthy as I used to think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ3AVheUBY8
Trust only the DNC ;-)
I won't hide the fact that I tend to watch MSNBC. When they make a claim, they show dates, times, sources and full quotes. They don't cherry-pick parts of quotes, they don't make innuendos, and they stick to what is provable (ie what can be shown as original statements in recordings).
There is a problem with trying to show averages of perceptions. If 2 people are stating facts and 8 people inaccurately deny that, the average shouldn't be that the 2 people are at 25% of reality. History is filled with a majority of people being wrong.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 04:41:32 AM
I won't hide the fact that I tend to watch MSNBC. When they make a claim, they show dates, times, sources and full quotes. They don't cherry-pick parts of quotes, they don't make innuendos, and they stick to what is provable (ie what can be shown as original statements in recordings).
There is a problem with trying to show averages of perceptions. If 2 people are stating facts and 8 people inaccurately deny that, the average shouldn't be that the 2 people are at 25% of reality. History is filled with a majority of people being wrong.
Correct. And that is why we are a failed species.
American Pravda (https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Pravda-Fight-Truth-Fake-ebook/dp/B071YLKMBD/ref=pd_typ_k_sp_2_6/262-3664481-8557366?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=084AJGM80DZ3J71BWJN0)
QuoteThe one real difference between the American press and the Soviet state newspaper Pravda was that the Russian people knew they were being lied to. To expose the lies our media tell us today, controversial journalist James O’Keefe created Project Veritas, an independent news organization whose reporters go where traditional journalists dare not. Their investigative workâ€"equal parts James Bond, Mike Wallace, and Saul Alinskyâ€"has had a consistent and powerful impact on its targets.
In American Pravda, the reader is invited to go undercover with these intrepid journalists as they infiltrate political campaigns, unmask dishonest officials and expose voter fraud. A rollicking adventure story on one level, the book also serves as a treatise on modern media, arguing that establishment journalists have a vested interest in keeping the powerful comfortable and the people misinformed.
The book not only contests the false narratives frequently put forth by corporate media, it documents the consequences of telling the truth in a world that does not necessarily want to hear it. O’Keefe’s enemies attack with lawsuits, smear campaigns, political prosecutions, and false charges in an effort to shut down Project Veritas. For O’Keefe, every one of these attacks is a sign of success.
American Pravda puts the myths and misconceptions surrounding O’Keefe’s activities to rest and will make you rethink every word you hear and read in the so-called mainstream press.
Quote from: pr126 on August 12, 2018, 09:47:07 AM
American Pravda (https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Pravda-Fight-Truth-Fake-ebook/dp/B071YLKMBD/ref=pd_typ_k_sp_2_6/262-3664481-8557366?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=084AJGM80DZ3J71BWJN0)
I do trust mainstream journalism. Those people are dedicated to facts wherever it leads them. Politicians don't like that, but that has been true for over a century. The trick is to recognize that a CURRENT politician doesn't like facts and claims the non-Fox media is "fake news". It isn't.
Think about it. Either 90% of the world is dedicated to faking the news or it isn't. And it isn't.
Quote from: pr126 on August 12, 2018, 09:47:07 AM
American Pravda (https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Pravda-Fight-Truth-Fake-ebook/dp/B071YLKMBD/ref=pd_typ_k_sp_2_6/262-3664481-8557366?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=084AJGM80DZ3J71BWJN0)
Everything is political now, and everything political is ideological. So we are all idiots now ;-(
This started with war propaganda in WW I, and continues to this day ...
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/08/12/what-if-there-were-no-official-narratives/
If you can't trust Lloyd George or the Kaiser, who can you trust?
https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/themes/propaganda
My favorite WW I poster ...
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.40824/
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2018, 11:10:49 AM
Everything is political now, and everything political is ideological. So we are all idiots now ;-(
Of the many bon mots you've made on this forum, that is one of my favorites.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 04:41:32 AM
I won't hide the fact that I tend to watch MSNBC. When they make a claim, they show dates, times, sources and full quotes. They don't cherry-pick parts of quotes, they don't make innuendos, and they stick to what is provable (ie what can be shown as original statements in recordings).
There is a problem with trying to show averages of perceptions. If 2 people are stating facts and 8 people inaccurately deny that, the average shouldn't be that the 2 people are at 25% of reality. History is filled with a majority of people being wrong.
I
really like Rachel Maddow! She gets it right, and doesn't beat around the bush.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2018, 05:34:35 PM
I really like Rachel Maddow! She gets it right, and doesn't beat around the bush.
A fellow Rachel Maddow admirer here. I even had 2 bumber stickers made. "Maddow For President 2016". I kept one and sent her the other.
Her opening 20 minutes are some of the best information of my day.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2018, 08:16:43 AM
A fellow Rachel Maddow admirer here. I even had 2 bumber stickers made. "Maddow For President 2016". I kept one and sent her the other.
Her opening 20 minutes are some of the best information of my day.
Female talking heads are more comely than the male kind ... for many viewers.