Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Question on Obtaining Information

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Question on Obtaining Information

    For those of you on this forum who continually denigrate the 'Main Stream Media' where do you get information that form your opinions or for national and international news and events? Drudge? Fox News? Breitbach? Limbaugh? Where?

  • #2
    I wouldn't touch Drudge, Breitbart, Limbaugh or Fox with a ten foot pole for my news, because I know where they are coming from, but what you keep posting is MSN, that is not Main Stream Media like you think it is, It's Microsoft News, in other names Click Bait and I would trust them less than any of the afore mentioned sources, because they are about as left as left could be.
    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

    Comment


    • #3
      It's an excellent question.

      The lame stream media occasionally out and out lies but more often the form propaganda takes is omission of relevant information. Then there is simple laziness which or failure to fact check. That said traditional media outlets remain unavoidable even in an age of citizen journalism.

      The only traditional news source that I will click on is the local newspaper and TV stations. I don't give MSN or CNN or the alphabet channels any traffic but there content is passed on by independent providers so I offer them no revenue but indirectly use their services. If a story interests me I try to find video from ordinary people that is uncensored. If the story is complex I read research papers.

      YouTube is an interesting example of how malformed our attempt to take advantage of new technology is. YouTube loses a billion dollars a year but that doesn't stop independent journalists who use it for free from complaining about censorship. For citizens journalism to work there has to be a central cleaning house but YouTube's algorithms are at best incompetent and often impose their own bias. This presents us with the two unsolved problems of how to pay for news in a post cable world and how to organize random stories which includes verification.

      The fake news hysteria is a reaction to economic hardship on corporate news, the novelty of citizen journalism, the immaturity of the new structures, the establishment's fear of losing control, changing social values, etc. It is a moral panic of sorts.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        I use mainly the BBC. I know they are biased but its easy to fact check them. I try to look at both sides arguments and discern what the real facts are. I Can't stand Msn ,CNN, and Salon which really are fake news sources.
        Credo quia absurdum.


        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • #5
          I generally look at a number of sources. I try to avoid the most biased as a basis for determining facts however. CNN and the WaPo are particularly bad these days. That can change over time. Clearly and unabashedly biased ones can be used since you know where they're coming from. It's ones like CNN and the WaPo that are dangerous when it comes to politics. They claim they're object when it's utterly and completely clear they're heavily biased.

          Filtering fake or erroneous news isn't always easy but you can generally "smell' when a story is likely to badly biased, leaves out facts, or skews things in one direction or another. It's stuff like only one (of a few like-minded) major outlet is reporting is reporting it. Or, when all of the sources are unnamed or vague. With CNN video you can catch them phoning up a story by what they're recording. They've been caught repeatedly doing that.

          Comment


          • #6
            It is very easy : when CNN/Wapo, etc ,are saying that something is black, assume that it is white and you will be vindicated in 99% of the cases .

            Comment


            • #7
              To get a true picture of a item it is very important to view that item from many different angles. if not then you are just getting what you want to believe even if unfounded . I get mt information from, BBC, CTV, CBC, montreal gazette, new york times, NBC, PBS,

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                I generally look at a number of sources. I try to avoid the most biased as a basis for determining facts however. CNN and the WaPo are particularly bad these days. That can change over time. Clearly and unabashedly biased ones can be used since you know where they're coming from. It's ones like CNN and the WaPo that are dangerous when it comes to politics. They claim they're object when it's utterly and completely clear they're heavily biased.

                Filtering fake or erroneous news isn't always easy but you can generally "smell' when a story is likely to badly biased, leaves out facts, or skews things in one direction or another. It's stuff like only one (of a few like-minded) major outlet is reporting is reporting it. Or, when all of the sources are unnamed or vague. With CNN video you can catch them phoning up a story by what they're recording. They've been caught repeatedly doing that.
                Agreed.
                Even when the news report is fairly straightforward, I have noticed 2 tendencies, at least in the local, Chicago TV news (ABC, CBS, NBC)

                An example of the first tendency is found in the recent Mollie Tibbets murder.
                This was a heavily covered story here after her disappearance. Then, after she was found and her killer arrested, the stories were honest. They described him as an "undocumented immigrant" that worked on a farm.
                But, by the next day, they called him a "farm worker". And within a couple of more days, I noticed that any news about the killer was also shown just before or after a story of heroic illegal immigrants. The news was quick to report he was legal, but not so quick to correct that story when it fell apart. So, they arguably presented negative news about a murder by an illegal, but they seemed to be trying very hard to twist the context of that news.

                Next, when local or national news reports positive stories about the right/republicans, they always make sure that we know what the dems have to say about that news.
                The reverse rarely seems to happen.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Donald supporters rely on El Rushbo and Hannity as leaders for their news. Even though these people aren't journalists or even accurate in the things they say. Hannity will say one thing and then Shep Smith will say completely the oppposite. One is an entertainer, the other is reporting news.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                    Agreed.
                    Even when the news report is fairly straightforward, I have noticed 2 tendencies, at least in the local, Chicago TV news (ABC, CBS, NBC)

                    An example of the first tendency is found in the recent Mollie Tibbets murder.
                    This was a heavily covered story here after her disappearance. Then, after she was found and her killer arrested, the stories were honest. They described him as an "undocumented immigrant" that worked on a farm.
                    But, by the next day, they called him a "farm worker". And within a couple of more days, I noticed that any news about the killer was also shown just before or after a story of heroic illegal immigrants. The news was quick to report he was legal, but not so quick to correct that story when it fell apart. So, they arguably presented negative news about a murder by an illegal, but they seemed to be trying very hard to twist the context of that news.

                    Next, when local or national news reports positive stories about the right/republicans, they always make sure that we know what the dems have to say about that news.
                    The reverse rarely seems to happen.
                    You might add that suddenly the Republican-leaning farm owners became the subject of the story. Why were Republicans hiring illegals? Didn't these Republicans know about this guy? Republicans were harboring illegals... That became the story rather than the murderer at all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                      Donald supporters rely on El Rushbo and Hannity as leaders for their news. Even though these people aren't journalists or even accurate in the things they say. Hannity will say one thing and then Shep Smith will say completely the oppposite. One is an entertainer, the other is reporting news.
                      While I'm not some dyed in the wool "Donald supporter," I'd say that my views do tend towards being Conservative. I guess you'd be astonished to find out that I try very hard to read and listen to what the Left has to say far more than the Right. I rarely, if ever, listen to Limbaugh. I do listen some to Prager, Medved, or Hewett, among others. I read some Conservative web sites too.

                      Now the surprise. I also try to listen to the Left. I take interest in what CNN has to say. I listen to people like Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, or Thom Hartmann. I can listen to Hartmann at length. It's tough to get through the juvenile, and puerile stuff Miller and Rhodes do on their shows. I read The Nation, peruse the Huffington Post, and take great interest in what Vox, Salon, and other Left-centric publications have to say.

                      Why? Because as Sun Tzu points out in The Art of War (this being a military history board), Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will be safe in one-hundred battles.

                      Unlike the vast majority of Leftists and Progressives who ignore everything Conservative yet claim clairvoyance on Conservative views and positions, I spend time getting to know what the Left is thinking.

                      It's funny you should bring up that "these people aren't journalists..." when the average Progressive gets their news from the likes of Colbert or Stewart, talk show hosts who are comedians. Likewise, on Progressive talk radio... such as it exists... only Thom Hartmann really tries to put on a show that is serious about issues. The other hosts (like those listed above) are more entertainers who do "comedy" and satire on their shows mixing this with vapid news reporting.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I usually start out with OAN.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          It's funny you should bring up that "these people aren't journalists..." when the average Progressive gets their news from the likes of Colbert or Stewart, talk show hosts who are comedians. Likewise, on Progressive talk radio... such as it exists... only Thom Hartmann really tries to put on a show that is serious about issues. The other hosts (like those listed above) are more entertainers who do "comedy" and satire on their shows mixing this with vapid news reporting.


                          Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            You might add that suddenly the Republican-leaning farm owners became the subject of the story. Why were Republicans hiring illegals? Didn't these Republicans know about this guy? Republicans were harboring illegals... That became the story rather than the murderer at all.
                            You are right.
                            The guy who hired him got more negative attention from the media than the murderer.
                            The story has largely disappeared from the local news.

                            The media couldn't stop interviewing her friends and family for comments during her disappearance, but has shown little interest in their thoughts about her murder.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                              Donald supporters rely on El Rushbo and Hannity as leaders for their news. Even though these people aren't journalists or even accurate in the things they say. Hannity will say one thing and then Shep Smith will say completely the oppposite. One is an entertainer, the other is reporting news.
                              Shep Smith is a propagandist .Nothing more,nothing less .

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X