What news sources do you trust and why?

[GSOgymrat]

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.

[Unbeliever]

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

[Baruch]

Trust only the DNC ;-)

[Cavebear]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[pr126]

American Pravda

The 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.

[Cavebear]

American Pravda

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.

[Baruch]

American Pravda

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/

[GSOgymrat]

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.

[Unbeliever]

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.

[Cavebear]

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.

[Baruch]

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.