Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I usually consider AP and Reuters to be fairly reliable and not too terribly biased.
Associated Press is a news feed to all mainstream media. I would not count AP as a credible/unbiased news source, unless you just want to read about natural disasters, feel-good stories, and stories about freak accidents around the country. If you go online to ABC, CBS, NBC in any given hour, you will find essentially the same stories with tweaked headlines.
I'm not a 'site guy' im an information guy, what i mean by this is that i wouldn't just blindly trust a 'news site' when i can look at what's being reported and decide for myself. Isn't that a better way to do it? Why would anyone blindly trust a 'news organization' when you can get the report, or information or story and fact check that up against many other sites and make a 'guesstimate' on how true you believe the report to be.
That "guestimate" is based on what you want to hear, what you want to believe is true. That holds for people of all stripes and persuasions.
Been thinking about this a bit, I think there are actually 3 distinct cases at play
You got:
News based on verifiable facts, it may have bias but the facts are true
-This is fine but be aware of the biases. This is most of the big names most of the time.
News that was not based on facts, but not intentionally - this is what happens when most of the major news
companies f**k up in their haste to get news out the door the fastest. Usually after the fact you get some sort of retraction.
-This is problematic because the major news orgs are not doing their due diligence fact checking a story due to the monetary advantages of being "first" but it is not malicious more just greedy.
News that is based on "facts" invented whole cloth with the intentional and malicious purpose of misleading people towards some goal.
-This is basically the definition of propaganda, this type of news is the most problematic. You get this from your conspiracy and SJW bloggers, among others.
I would say 1 & 2 would not be classified as "Fake news" as long as #2 does not happen too often. #3 is clearly Fake news
So how do you solve this problem and maintain free speech? Beats me!
As someone here said, apart from an airplane crash or tornado, etc., we no longer know what is news and what is opinion or editorial. "News" reports were originally used to alert citizens to critical threats in their limited environment, like war, invaders, etc. As early as Ben Franklin's time, when he operated his own press, we have gotten political opinion and bias, political cartoons, etc. See who owns "the paper" and you'll see which way the publication leans. I completely doubt that anyone rightwing would consult Huff, or anyone leftwing would consult Breitbart. So what we're all getting is constant confirmation of the opinions we already subscribe to, and we love to have our opinions confirmed in "the press" that we choose to follow.
It is sad how gullible much of the American public has become. Told that reputable media companies like LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NYT, WAPO and CBS are untruthful but believe paid shills for lobbyists or millionaires or a political party.
You're still not getting it... NO SOURCES ARE REPUTABLE, PERIOD!!!!! They're ALL biased in varying degrees. You must still not be able to identify the bias that confirms your own beliefs. As a Conservative, I have no problem pointing out Conservative bias in the media when it's there.
You call the NYT "reputable"??? After the election, they came out and said they were going to "rededicate themselves to journalism and cover the Trump administration fairly"....What does that mean? That they weren't dedicated to journalism before the election and giving fair coverage to each candidate? Most of us already knew that but the fact they openly admit it is astounding. Yet you call them reputable?
It's only when you realize that there is no such thing as a completely biased free, reputable news source, and can be honest and identify even the bias that validates your own position, that you'll ever be able to pick out actual truth.
So you actually give credibility to someone who's said that there are hidden chips within juice boxes that make children gay, and that believes Sandy Hook was a hoax, and that believes that Hillary Clinton has, quote, "murdered, chopped up, and raped so many children".....????
Wow, no wonder our country is in the toilet.
Is this what people told you he said, or did you hear it with your own ears in full, without being edited by your Fake News source?
Why does the proven to be liars, MSM nonsense news, spend so much resources trying to discredit Alex Jones? Did he prove them to be liars? There has to be some reason they are framing Alex Jones and spending so much time on him. Is he really right and the Establishment New World Government, trying to smear him and frame him for insighting violence?
Never heard mainstream media talk about Alex Jones, ever... until now. Kill the messenger!!! Never the message, that has exposed you for who you really are.
The problem that I see with liberals today is that they have had a lifetime of deep indoctrination from the majority liberal MSM, the liberal entertainment industry, liberal pop culture, and our highly liberal education system, so that they can not discern anymore what is liberally biased, skewed, dishonestly edited, and untruthful. They think liberal biased news is just normal factual news, correct news, correct facts -- why else would it be so pervasive?
There are very few conservative outlets for information, and liberals (often today devoid of healthy critical thinking skills) dismiss all the conservative outlet information with a knee-jerk reaction as merely right-wing propaganda rather than fact or valid opposing opinion.
And this is disturbing because often they miss a whole missing part of the puzzle where liberal news has purposely
Hidden facts or edited news in an untruthful way. It can be shocking when you read facts and missing info from conservative media that are so disparate from liberal sources. I am not talking here about extreme nut-wing sources on ether side.
No kidding, huh? So "liberals" everywhere are "devoid of healthy critical thinking skills"? The vast majority of Canadians, Europeans, and Australians, for example, can't think critically? I guess these countries are full of stupid people? I wonder how they manage to run their countries so well, then? Is it luck, do you think?
God, you people need to expand your horizons. Maybe then you'll be able to see the forest from the trees.
I start of with MSN - only because I want to see what they are up to this time. Then I go to Reuters - which basically repeats MSN. Then I go to the BBC - which can repeat the first two; but I do like their articles. Then I go to the Keystone Report - which catches me up to date with our State. Then I hit the Drudge Report to see what I missed. I also check three local news stations.
But I have to read between the lines. No matter where I go I can still see biased reporting. You have to be careful that you don't get taken in - think, question and research. I wish that we would break up the six corporations that control 90% of the news - we were better off when we had dozens to chose from.
You realize the BBC is very liberal, by American standards?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God, you people need to expand your horizons. Maybe then you'll be able to see the forest from the trees.
