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.
Wall Street Journal
BBC International
The Economist
PBS
C-Span (primary source news)
By the way, I enjoy Al Jezerra, The Atlantic, VOX, and Salon, although all have a tendency to be left leaning.
I think WSJ and The Economist both lean right, but still believe them to be credible news sources. I actually agree with all of your sources. especially Al Jazeera.
The people getting their news from bull**** sensationalist clickbait websites know who they are, at some level they know they are wrong for buying into it BUT it supports their biases/pisses off people they don't like - so they make mental excuses for it. Either that or they know it is fake but think that the ends justify the means. Since they already know deep down at some level that they are getting and propagating news from unreliable sources, they will be uncomfortable listing any of those sources (cause they don't wanna look bad) but will instead deflect or throw up sarcastic non answers (fight or flight response from the uncomfortable feeling earlier) even though its a perfectly valid question. Don't expect to get a truthful answer from this group.
The people getting their news from legitimate sources that may have some form of partisan leaning will list them and we will all agree that they are actually news. See earlier post listing WSJ, BBC, etc... hell, even Fox/MSNBC don't usually get the actual facts wrong, even if they layer it in a 3 foot deep slathering of opinion and bias. As others have said, there is a difference between biased news and "news" built at its core on a fabrication.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 12-15-2016 at 01:11 PM..
honestly? I have come to the place where I don't really take any source at face value.
if I read something, I evaluate it based on what I know of the sources bias, then if I think the information is important, I try to validate it by looking at some opposite bias outlet.
if it is something political and I feel important, I might read 4 articles from various sources, then opinions from other sources. and I might even vet thru places like City Data.
Every story from every MSM organization gets the "fake news" tag when you guys disagree with it. I'd like to compile a list of news sites you actually believe to be credible. Please, list a couple, so I know which facts I can present that won't be dismissed out of hand.
You honestly have to debunk just about every news source just to be sure. The TV news stations are pretty biased, but so are a lot of the news sites online. You just figure that everyone is full of crap until proven innocent.
Every story from every MSM organization gets the "fake news" tag when you guys disagree with it. I'd like to compile a list of news sites you actually believe to be credible. Please, list a couple, so I know which facts I can present that won't be dismissed out of hand.
There isn't any that immediately spring to mind as falling in the "well if THEY wrote it, it must be true" category.
I probably watch CNN more than any other, because I like to see what agenda they are pushing from day to day.
I watch Fox sometimes because they do cover stories that the other MSM will ignore, but I watch it KNOWING that they are slanted to the right and digest accordingly.
I can't really stomach MSNBC with the exception of Morning Joe which used to be my all time favorite news/opinion show, but it comes on far too early for my current schedule.
I'll watch David Muir on whatever network he is on, but I can always hear the spin and slant in a matter of minutes.
It really isn't very difficult to decipher if you are paying attention. The "News" opens with whatever actual news they have to offer and then they offer a few corroborating pieces or comments by so and so about that piece of news,and it becomes clear very quickly which direction they are trying to "steer" this bit of news.
If they are reporting on a plane that crashed in the Swiss Alps then sure it is typically fact based reporting, BUT if there is ANY way they can squeeze a bit of partisan politics into the story they surely will exploit it at every opportunity.
I wish there were two MSM news sources or even one that were always credible. There aren't, which is why I read many sources from both sides of the political aisle as facts are presented differently depending on the author's biases. If I had to choose two most credible they would be The Economist and the BBC. Other MSM sources I read regularly are CBS, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, and the Washington Times....all are biased depending on the article's author.
The point is all news media is suspect for biases, pushing certain facts and ignoring others. It is important to be a well read consumer of news and not stay in the echo chamber of confirmation bias.
This is a good response. A logical and rational method is to sample news from many different news organizations, and learn how to get to the facts, and to ignore any bias that the author may hold.
I'd add NPR and Reuters as pretty good sources - they do their best to present facts without much opinion on top of it. Just a "what happened" breakdown.
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.
