What's your news source?

Okay, over the past 20 some odd years, whenever I read or hear "conservatives" of any ilk rant about "liberal media bias" or "fake news" I always ask them how do they form an opinion on current events and what do they consider a legitimate news source.

To date, I seldom get a straight (if any) answer. So I'm putting this out there to EVERYONE of every political/social leaning; what are your trusted news sources and how do you form an opinion if you don't trust any news source?

 

This question shouldn't even have to be asked. That's likely why you don't get a straight answer.

I definitely wouldn't depend on ANY single news source because they are run by human beings, and being human means their own opinions will "color" their reporting no matter who they might be. At LEAST read both sides of an issue before deciding who is telling you the truth. And any news source that lies to you or omits info, EVEN ONCE, you should end getting any further info from that news source.

What YOU have to do is learn critical thinking skills. It takes time over a period of years to actually be good at it. For starters, words like, "probably, could, might" yadda-yadda are not definitive language and are intended to color your own opinion. Believe it or not it happens all the time today. That's just to get you started on learning critical thinking skills.

The mainstream media AND schools should be ashamed of themselves when we have to discuss these things outside of school settings.

Steve

 

Yep, we read multiple sources and form our own opinion.

Myself, I start with the forums, like here, to see what the top news stories are, then go google them from many sites.

Eventually I can put the picture together myself of what really happened.

 

My main source is MSNBC. They definitely lean left and so do I. However, their reporting is honest. Any one that wants to scoff at my statement only has to explore what happened to Brian Williams when he told a lie about a personal event in his life. He was demoted. Had he told a lie about a news event I'm confident he would have received more severe punishment, probably being fired.

 

There are exceptions, however I prefer books to articles. I find on-screen sources to be, in general, the least accurate. Radio is the least worst source for on-the-scene reporting. With print, volume speaks volumes because the more someone puts into a piece, the less likely they are to be able to hide their biases.

 

I start my day on Politico.

I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

I check this forum to see what the right wing noise machine is up to.

I listen to POTUS on Sirius radio during the day, particularly Julie Mason and Michael Smerconish.

I walk stories back to see whose agenda is being pushed or to follow the money.

And I finish up with a few minutes of MSNBC. (one of the things about cable TV news, is taht ,like right wing talk radio, it is so repetative that you only have to stick around for about a half hour to 45 minutes).

 

There is an enormous difference between bias and lying. In truth, there are very few instances of out and out lies coming from any of the networks, cable news outlets, or major newspapers. Almost all of the differences between these sources is how the information is spun and what conclusions are drawn from that correct information. If there is indeed fake news from any mainstream sources, that refers to their conclusions and implications that they draw, and amount or lack of attention paid to various issues that hurt one side more than the other.

If Fox or MSNBC tells you that the DOW hit 26,000 today, you can pretty much take that to the bank. Now when MSNBC predictably follows that with "continuing an 8 year upward trend of the market", and Fox says "buoyed by the news of the upcoming tax cut", therein lies the spin and biased conclusions. Neither is lying, but both are explaining the result based on their preconceived notions.

In regards to liberal bias in the mainstream media....When you watch a news program about a crime with 1 pundit that is a prosecutor, and the other is a defense attorney, it is blatantly obvious which is which. It does not take a brain surgeon to delineate between the two. The same principle applies to TV news networks. With the exception of FOX, every media outlet plays the defense attorney when it comes to Democrats, and the Prosecuting attorney when it comes to Republicans. The same concept works in reverse with FOX. Once again, it does not take a brain surgeon to delineate between the two. When a conservative points out this undeniable reality, that is NOT a rant. Rather it is merely pointing out the obvious. Leftists often times very easily point out the bias in Fox, but for some strange reason cannot see that bias when it comes to every other news outlet. But I digress....

In regards to your original question, I trust all major news outlets for absolute points of fact. When it comes to conclusions drawn and bias shown, I try my best to sift through that bias and draw my own conclusions. Being a Conservative, admittedly my conclusions tend to be much closer to the FOX interpretation.

 

New York Times, National Review, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, The Federalist, Politico, Fox, CNN, The Daily Wire, The Hill, a few others.

These sites often tilt either left or right, some more than others. If I want a mostly unbiased source, I like Reuters or former CBS reporter Sheryl Attkisson's website; she is just about the most unbiased reporter I've ever run across.

When I want to see how the more fringe elements are reacting to news, I'll visit sites such as Breitbart, MSNBC, the DU, InfoWars, Koz, and a few others. But I try to stay out of those swamps...

 

This was very well-said, thanks.

 

There's only one NEWs organization I trust - One America News.

All of the rest are opinionated news - I already have my opinion - I need the truth to reinforce or change it.

 

Since I've completely given up hope of anything good happening, I mostly intentionally read the most godawful news outlets I can find so I can make fun of them.

 

Here's a great example of the media "editorializing" events while interviewing Ambassador Bolton. And Bolton naturally tells it like it is and calls the woman a "munchkin in the media" for saying President Trump "is slippery" for wanting out of the Iranian nuclear deal. Bolton is right of course and the so-called "journalist" deserved it.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-burley-live-you-are-a-munchkin-in-the-media/

LOL,
Steve

 

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed that very much.

 

Where does the omission of relevant facts and admission of irrelevancies fit into that?

 

LOL! Sure you do.

 

WSJ, Intercept, Reuters, Consortium News, RT(american hosted programs, like Ed Schultz, Chris Hedges, etc) Zero Hedge. Then I peruse CNN, MSNBC and Fox. I can get all sides to an issue or story using these sources, and then it is time to use the brain I was born with to try to sort the diamonds from the dung, even as I always notice the absence of journalistic standards from MSM. Or, propaganda pablum for the partisans who need to be fed what they have already been propagandized to believe.

You can always spot the propagandized. They have cognitive dissonance. They are incapable of refuting reality, but will not accept it either. This is what MSM yields.

 

Everything was fine except for the first sentence. Fox does lie. It does it all the time. It does it because its audience will never hold it against them as long as they are being told what they want to hear.

 

You can make the argument that the mainstream media lies through omission, and I'd agree with you. That fits into my explanation as part of the biased conclusions and implications that they put forth, and it is NOT an example of them lying about a point of fact.

 

Interesting. How about you provide a few examples of them lying about points of fact, and we can discuss ? Please dont waste both of our time by providing examples of editorial conclusions because Ive already addressed that in a fair amount of detail.

 

Guardian and Morning Star, Times and Economist (except for anything, anywhere, connected with 'left' politics) and the i. I wouldn't believe any newspaper completely, but they tell me what educated peopled are likely to be talking about.

 

Like everything, an informed person relies on not one, but several sources. We know that all too often, bias effects the presentation. For me, I get "news" from the wires. I don't depend on one source, although I do admit to being emotionally tied to the WAPO, even though their political bias is so obvious. I read the WSJ, The Times (London), Der Spiegel (auf Deutsch) and sprinkle in entertainment news from others, like the Fox, NBC, et al cable cabal... Sometimes, I even listen to National Socialist Radio (NPR).

And like everything, the perspectives presented inform us about those presenting the news to us. What their priorities are, how they believe they are positioning themselves in the market, both economic and ideologically. It's all there.

 

Good thoughts. I would add, "It looks like," "Some people believe," "It has been said," etc. These are dead giveaways that there is no substantiated source.

 

I don't use news to form opinions. I use common sense and experience.

 

I listen to Mark Levin; also to Rush but that's mostly for entertainment. I watch NBC news again mostly for entertainment. For news I watch PBS Nightly News which I think has been and is the best broadcast network news program -- populated heavily by liberals or not. It is hard to detect the leftist broadcasters there. I am a constitutional conservative.