Reliable news source?

Do any still exist? Fox News beats the drum of war for Republicans and Bush; other outlets such as the "liberal" CNN and New York Times are also guilty of running claims that have no factual basis or any scrutiny whatsoever. That's why Knight Ridder was one of the few who questioned the legitimacy of the administrations reasoning for war w/ Iraq- everyone else was busy spewing the propaganda from the White House onto the people.

One example was the administration leaked a story to the New York Times and that same morning that the story broke, the administration was pointing at the story in the Times as proof- complete circular logic. The more I learn about the deception of the White House and the willingness of the media to be fed lies, the more pissed off I get and want to do something to change- such as support a truly "fair and balanced" news source- and none of that bullshit Fox News tries to pull (they are fair and balanced if you believe exactly as they do.)

Peace and love

 

The internet? I still read the liberal and very mainstream Washington Post every morning, but I supplement it with a lot of internet news. I actually laugh when I watch the news on TV because it's so sensationalist.

 

After what I saw about the Washington Post's reporting on Iraq, pre-invasion, no thanks. They ran thousands of articles, all pro-war, while any articles (literally a handful) that even questioned the intelligence were pushed in the back. No articles were ran on the front page if they didn't push the war propaganda.

Where on the internet? How can I trust random sites? I'm not going to believe ANYTHING that I read on here unless there is some sort of reliable source. It doesn't take much to make up stories- any idiot w/ access to the internet can. Come on, look at the nonsense pundits can spew on national tv that is accepted- how can the internet be much better?

I kind of answered my own question by investigating the new Knight Ridder site. They were the only ones who questioned and ran stories about experts being doubtful about Iraq & WMD's. Their journalists in and around Iraq were shaking their heads in confusion while other reporters were hearing two complete opposite stories- the official one being fed to us and the one the experts and other deep gov't sources were telling. Basically, their head reporters were sitting around saying that all the evidence against the White House's march to war was open to anyone, if they had done their research (which other new sources hadn't), all the while the unsuspecting public was being spoon fed lies. That disgusts me and I refuse to read any of the mainstream newspapers.

This kind of seems like Nazi Germany, especially since at that time, no newspaper reported any story against Hitler and his gov't. Of course, there were gov't sanctions for news sources to worry about, although post 9/11, there's the Patriot police for reporters to worry about b/c they'll dirty anyone's name that opposes their stance. Sickening.

Peace and love

 

Oh, You misunderstand (not that I really clarified), but I read almost all news, including the post, understanding it is biased. It's impossible to find news that isn't though some may come close. The post is undoubtably so, and it likes its sensationalist stories like any other. And I say mainstream like its a bad thing. I really get my news from sites like newsvine.com, which are semi-communities where people seed articles from other sites. You can find a lot of info there which isn't availible elsewhere, and though I haven't, you can also become an author/seeder. The bbc website also seems to have fairly intelligent articles with a world view.

 

read all the different newspapers, research, and decide for yourself. Google "Democracy Now!". they're an awesome source.

 

“Don't hate the media, become the media”
-Jello Biafra

 

the is no such thing as a totally reliable news source. but there are some you can count upon for their particular bias. if a media is controlled by the same economic intrests that control a government then it is "free" in name only.

the corporations control the government, but they don't control everything. you won't find any sort of real balance or honest diversity of reporting on network television, but you will find stories the networks refuse to cover if you look for the places they dismiss as trivial in an attempt to discredit.

i don't know why anyone would expect useful information from corporate media, nor why, if they wan't any, they wouldn't have the sense to look elsewhere. this just doesn't make any kind of sense in either case.

non-corporate media IS out there, on independent radio, and on the net, and not on net outlets for corporate media either. i just don't understand the silliness of people refusing to think.

outfits like fairness and accuracy in reporting really do exist, as does the center for constitutional law, pacifica and many many others.

of COURSE you'll hear corporate bias on fox and cnn, why in the hell would you expect anything else, or for that matter, watch them at all in the first place?

=^^=
.../\...

 

Just a suggestion, but... If you've not done so already, take a class in intro Logic at any major university, it'll be worth every penny it costs. If you can't afford that, find a used copy of either of Irving Copi's books about logic.

I only took two quarters, but it helped tremendously in evaluating assertions. It covered a lot- informal logic, formal logic, the role of definition and the types of definitions, the major fallacies, evaluation analogical arguments, the work of Venn and Boole and Aristotle, symbolic logic, the construction of half and full adders (the basis of all electronic computers), and tons more stuff. I wish I still had my copy of ... Copi.

It's been decades since the class, but I could still recite parts of some of the lectures, and most of what I learned there is applicable in normal life every day.

The source is less important than having skills needed to detect bad reasoning. Even sources that are world-famous for accuracy (e.g. snopes.com) should be reviewed with some skepticism, as this article so wonderfully demonstrates.

Google "skeptic" and "James Randi" and you'll find a whole subculture devoted to science, logic, and accuracy in communications, the "skepticultists" I think some call them. My favorite of such sites is this one.

PS- Actually this is the one I meant to link to (and don't miss the archives!):

http://pointofinquiry.org/

 

Yeah the best thing is be vigilant. Personally I read BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

But that's not 100% either, the big thing you need to watch out for is bullshit medical studies relating to drugs and drug use. They just released a study the other day about how people who smoke marijuana are 10x more likely to develop lung cancer even though earlier this year the link was completely obliterated. Further reading of the article reveals the "study" had a test group of 10 people. HEH. Turns out they are set to vote very soon on the reclassification of marijuana and laws pertaining to it's possession... gotta get that sensationalist shit somewhere! At least they mentioned that one of the "studies" only used 10 people.

So yeah, you always need to have the ol' bullshit O meter on, but on the whole BBC news is ok.

 

Hunter S and his columns told it how it was and in a way i could understand. i always sort of looked to him as a beacon of truth and silliness. i didn't really notice it until he died, but without his occasional commentaries i have difficulty discerning up from down in this bullshit world. CNN, Fox, MSNBC all have their hidden agendas and are shameless about what they don't want us to see and hear. it's pretty sad.

 

I have been watching The Real News a lot lately, its a lot less biased and not run by corporations.

http://therealnews.com

 

Best to avoid getting sucked in to any one source too deeply, the point being that *every* news source has moments when it buys into a story that's too good to be true (WMDs & the "mushroom cloud" image being the big one, IMHO). The real problem is usually less about institutional bias than about individual reporters & editors who sell out their credibility in exchange for what they think is "access" to power (course, they almost always end up screwed in the end, while the people with power make off like bandits). There are a fair number of places where it really is about institutional bias (FN, NYPost, anything else owned by Murdoch, etc.). But usually it's about ridiculous ambition.

 

Try Buzzflash.com. They run most of my articles and are a great headline-based news source with tons of links to others.

 

There's a old hippie guy in NYC who is semi-famous for successfully perpetrating hoaxes on the media, but I can't think of his name now. The only one I remember offhand was the claim that there are actually "psychiatrists" for cats and dogs (entirely fiction, though we've become so dumb as a society that no doubt we have 'em by now). I seem to recall that he also once faked a crucifixion or something too...

 

BBC is pretty good, one thing that you might wanna do is look at news sites of differant countrys so you can see whats going on that you dont hear about. Or just try useing more then one resource so you can hear differant sides of the story

 

Many of the assertions made so far are correct. Especially the comment about taking a logic class. It takes time and plenty of reading/research to cultivate your bullshit meter. One thing I always tell people is that to gain a decent understanding of what is going on today you have to know some history which seems quite logical. Another thing is that it is no easy task to build a picture of what is really going on and I have found through my intense interest in world events that the only reliable way to do that is to look at a variety of sources. Time consuming I know but it seems to pay off when I talk with some of my so called "in the know" peers who think they are in touch with things because they watch CNN and check drudgereport every week or two. What a joke.

My "go to" site for news is infowars.com. Though it has a certain inflection of opinion in the way they title their headlines they essentially poach news stories from a cast cross section of the media and comment on them. You have to be able to identify where opinion is being blurred with the facts which is not always simple.

News from other countries besides the US tends to be more comprehensive and less vulnerable to CIA media plants or memo makers at the White House, State and the Pentagon putting their propaganda spin on things.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/2vcPD9bVWZc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/2vcPD9bVWZc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/

http://english.aljazeera.net/

http://www.wrmea.com/links/index.htm

http://www.headlinespot.com/international/

Google is good for news at a glance: http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn


x

 

Mainsteam Media or Ruling class media, What to do for news you think is right?

1.Turn off your T.V.
2. Communicate w/ yourselves, make sure there are alternate ways of getting information circulated. This can be as simple as an E-mail list or a blog.
3. Get more people to do the same.
Alot of folks here get parts 1 and 2. So we just need more people doing it. it DOESN'T
have to be big numbers, but go convince one other person to do 1 and 2.

Of all the threads in this faux hippy site, this one is the best.

 

Two of my favourites have been mentioned so far:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (British)
http://english.aljazeera.net/ (Qatarian)

another one is:
http://www.channel4.com/news/ (British)

Between these 3 I think I have a fair idea of what is going on, and it's also up to the minute. I know what your news is like in the US. When I was on holiday I was starved of what was going on in the world for 16 days!

 

these are the current news and analysis sites i check on a daily basis. i also browse the google news.

BlackListed News
Online Journal
Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash
DollarCollapse - Your ringside seat for the global financial crisis
Stormwatch - Market Reports
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

you can see im a wee bit concerned about the economy at the moment....