The debate over credible sources... (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #1

Andrus

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
552
Reaction score
529
Age
60
Location
Sunset, Louisiana
Offline
This should be interesting. I see lot's of arguing about the credibility of sources on this board. It would nice if we could have some consensus about what sources could be cited without being dismissed as not being credible by one side or the other. I realize that isn't going to happen, but we could strive for some common ground, right?

While bias creeps into just about everything to some extent, and no news source is perfect, being as I have to post up daily news compilations on the home page I've created my own guide over the past couple of months that I reference when linking to news, which I will post below. By now I pretty much know this list by heart.

Perhaps we can develop an approved source list out of this and squelch at least some of the "not a credible source" citing from the discussions.

These are not ranked, but random, and they include my own "note to self" notations. So below is my list. Post your thoughts, disagreements, or your own list.

Most reliable/Least biased/Most factual:
  1. Reuters
  2. CBS News
  3. The Hill
  4. AP
  5. NPR
  6. Politico
  7. ABC News
  8. Forbes
  9. BBC
  10. PBS
  11. USA Today
  12. Business Insider
  13. CNN (News, not opinion)
  14. Fox (News, not opinion)
  15. Bloomberg (News, not opinion)
  16. CNN (News, not opinion)
  17. NBC (News, not opinion *Read article before posting)
  18. CNBC (News, not opinion)
  19. Buzzfeed (News only *Read article before posting)
  20. ALJazeera
  21. Axios (Not much content)

*WSJ *Pay site. Do not tease.
*The Economist * Pay site. Do not tease.
*New York Times (News, not opinion) * Pay site. Do not tease.
*Washington Post (News, not opinion) * Pay Site. Do not tease.

Somewhat reliable. Note: Be skeptical of deceptive and misleading partisan narratives, titles, content, and loaded phrases. Be cautious about linking to articles from these sources:


  1. Reason.com (Can be iffy, so read before posting)
  2. Washington Examiner (News, not opinion, read before posting)
  3. Huffington Post (News, not opinion. Still, read before posting)
  4. Vice , (read first before posting)
  5. Washington Times (News, not opinion, read before posting)
  6. The Intercept (Read before posting)
  7. Vox (Not always - Read before posting)
  8. MSNBC News (Read before posting)
  9. RealClearPolitics (All over the map - Read before posting)


Biased & agenda driven, very often loaded with false & misleading political propaganda, and twisting of facts in order to fit their narratives/agenda (Avoid all):

  • FOX/CNN/MSNBC,etc. - (Opinion)
  • Mother Jones
  • The Nation
  • Jacobin
  • Daily Wire
  • New York Post
  • Newsmax
  • OAN
  • Democracy Now
  • Washington Examiner (opinion)
  • The Federalist
  • The Intercept
  • The Daily Caller
  • Palmer Report
  • Brietbart
  • New York Times (opinion)
  • Washington Post (opinion)
  • National Review
  • Daily KOS
  • Bipartisan Report
  • Huffington Post (Opinion)
  • Washington Times (opinion)
  • The Daily Beast
  • Daily Mail
  • Infowars
  • GP
  • Shareblue
  • News Punch
  • The Western Journal
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
192
Reaction score
324
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
I should have know better than to argue with someone packing Wikipedia in their arsenal. The world over Reuter’s is known as the pinnacle of ethical journalism...... But a former 1980’s beat writer for the Shreveport Times got em pegged as a British puppet.... from the 60’s. Learned about it in school and everything! I would like to know your opinion on the color of the sky if you don’t mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
788
Reaction score
488
Age
51
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Here is why we have so much misinformation on the web called news.


It is easy to generate money and lots of it with click bait.

Always pay close attention to where you get your information from.
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
995
Age
39
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
This should be interesting. I see lot's of arguing about the credibility of sources on this board. It would nice if we could have some consensus about what sources could be cited without being dismissed as not being credible by one side or the other. I realize that isn't going to happen, but we could strive for some common ground, right?

While bias creeps into just about everything to some extent, and no news source is perfect, being as I have to post up daily news compilations on the home page I've created my own guide over the past couple of months that I reference when linking to news, which I will post below. By now I pretty much know this list by heart.

Perhaps we can develop an approved source list out of this and squelch at least some of the "not a credible source" citing from the discussions.

These are not ranked, but random, and they include my own "note to self" notations. So below is my list. Post your thoughts, disagreements, or your own list.

Most reliable/Least biased/Most factual:
  1. Reuters
  2. CBS News
  3. The Hill
  4. AP
  5. NPR
  6. Politico
  7. ABC News
  8. Forbes
  9. BBC
  10. PBS
  11. USA Today
  12. Business Insider
  13. CNN (News, not opinion)
  14. Fox (News, not opinion)
  15. Bloomberg (News, not opinion)
  16. CNN (News, not opinion)
  17. NBC (News, not opinion *Read article before posting)
  18. CNBC (News, not opinion)
  19. Buzzfeed (News only *Read article before posting)
  20. ALJazeera
  21. Axios (Not much content)

*WSJ *Pay site. Do not tease.
*The Economist * Pay site. Do not tease.
*New York Times (News, not opinion) * Pay site. Do not tease.
*Washington Post (News, not opinion) * Pay Site. Do not tease.

Somewhat reliable. Note: Be skeptical of deceptive and misleading partisan narratives, titles, content, and loaded phrases. Be cautious about linking to articles from these sources:


  1. Reason.com (Can be iffy, so read before posting)
  2. Washington Examiner (News, not opinion, read before posting)
  3. Huffington Post (News, not opinion. Still, read before posting)
  4. Vice , (read first before posting)
  5. Washington Times (News, not opinion, read before posting)
  6. The Intercept (Read before posting)
  7. Vox (Not always - Read before posting)
  8. MSNBC News (Read before posting)
  9. RealClearPolitics (All over the map - Read before posting)


Biased & agenda driven, very often loaded with false & misleading political propaganda, and twisting of facts in order to fit their narratives/agenda (Avoid all):

  • FOX/CNN/MSNBC,etc. - (Opinion)
  • Mother Jones
  • The Nation
  • Jacobin
  • Daily Wire
  • New York Post
  • Newsmax
  • OAN
  • Democracy Now
  • Washington Examiner (opinion)
  • The Federalist
  • The Intercept
  • The Daily Caller
  • Palmer Report
  • Brietbart
  • New York Times (opinion)
  • Washington Post (opinion)
  • National Review
  • Daily KOS
  • Bipartisan Report
  • Huffington Post (Opinion)
  • Washington Times (opinion)
  • The Daily Beast
  • Daily Mail
  • Infowars
  • GP
  • Shareblue
  • News Punch
  • The Western Journal
I'd generally agree with this.

I stick with the AP, Reuters, NPR news, and BBC news briefs for the "just the facts" news.

Otherwise, the main broadcasters like CBS, ABC, NBC are generally good. USA Today too. NPR is often good, minus some of the podcasts. They are all often smart, but some have strong bias. The Hill is pretty good. WSJ is good, but I find their editorials to be lacking severely the last few years. Forbes had also declined in my eyes.

I also like the major US papers for various news. Chicago Tribune, LA Times, NY Times, and any city paper currently dealing with a crisis (like the former T-P for hurricane Katrina coverage). They usually offer an in depth reporting you just dont get with broadcast.

However, too many outlets are leaning on click bait type headlines with varying degrees of intensity.

I agree with your bias and agenda driven list, but I'd likely separate them out into two tiers. Some of those sites are far worse than the others.
 

Dadsdream

Ugly kids have ugly parents.
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
892
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
I should have know better than to argue with someone packing Wikipedia in their arsenal. The world over Reuter’s is known as the pinnacle of ethical journalism...... But a former 1980’s beat writer for the Shreveport Times got em pegged as a British puppet.... from the 60’s. Learned about it in school and everything! I would like to know your opinion on the color of the sky if you don’t mind.

People might start questioning integrity and intellectual honesty when you one goes off the rails like that.
Hi again, CoolBrees.

2019 - Documents unsealed that prove Reuters was on the British government's payroll, after years and years of denial by both the news agency and the government.

Reuters: The news agency that refuses to call terrorists what they are: terrorists.

Beat reporter? Try bureau chief .... several hundred byline stories, over a hundred photo credits, I did interviews with Tom Benson, Governor Edwin Edwards, Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Karl Malone, . . . say, how many bylines and photo credits do you have under your belt, assuming that you know what those are?

The sky is blue. The grass is green. Life is good!
 
Last edited:

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
788
Reaction score
488
Age
51
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Hi again, CoolBrees.

2019 - Documents unsealed that prove Reuters was on the British government's payroll, after years and years of denial by both the news agency and the government.

Reuters: The news agency that refuses to call terrorists what they are: terrorists.

Beat reporter? Try bureau chief .... several hundred byline stories, over a hundred photo credits, I did interviews with Tom Benson, Governor Edwin Edwards, Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Karl Malone, . . . say, how many bylines and photo credits to you have under your belt, assuming that you know what those are?

The sky is blue. The grass is green. Life is good!

Hi dd!


Well that sure is impressive!


Might I ask how come with the plethora of news experience why don't you post more articles that align with your life views?

Since we played I am a news man to try and shut down an argument I do expect to see you post links to news to support your views.

Hope all is well and I am waiting to read tons of links you post.
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
192
Reaction score
324
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
Hi DD-

1) I am not wasting my time arguing Reuter’s. You are wrong. I am right. They write the truth. You, well.

2) My apologies. I didn’t realize I was dealing with the bureau chief from the Shreveport Times. That is MUCH more impressive. Karl Malone! Wow!

3) I haven’t written a single article. But I didn’t become a journalist. I am an engineer. I was the project manager on the design and installation of the largest bottle line at the biggest brewery in the world (Corona / Piedras Negras, Mexico), and green field built (in case you don’t know what that means - it means the whole thing) four breweries that I am sure you have had the beer from. I am considered one of the foremost experts on brewing and indoor cultivation facilities in the world, and that is why I started my own firm. But I haven’t done anything as impactful as interviewing Senator J Bennett Johnson

But by all means, lecture me on the spectacle that is writing about the homecoming dances and Main Street parades in Shreveport

Good talkin with you
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
995
Age
39
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
If I had to pick one on air news source, it'd have to be ABC news. I watch them for all of the debates and elections. They mostly keep the fluff out.
Honestly, I pretty much don't watch broadcast news anymore. Been quite a while.
 

Dadsdream

Ugly kids have ugly parents.
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
892
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
Hi DD-

1) I am not wasting my time arguing Reuter’s. You are wrong. I am right. They write the truth. You, well.

2) My apologies. I didn’t realize I was dealing with the bureau chief from the Shreveport Times. That is MUCH more impressive. Karl Malone! Wow!

3) I haven’t written a single article. But I didn’t become a journalist. I am an engineer. I was the project manager on the design and installation of the largest bottle line at the biggest brewery in the world (Corona / Piedras Negras, Mexico), and green field built (in case you don’t know what that means - it means the whole thing) four breweries that I am sure you have had the beer from. I am considered one of the foremost experts on brewing and indoor cultivation facilities in the world, and that is why I started my own firm. But I haven’t done anything as impactful as interviewing Senator J Bennett Johnson

But by all means, lecture me on the spectacle that is writing about the homecoming dances and Main Street parades in Shreveport

Good talkin with you
1. Reuters was a paid puppet for whatever the British government wanted to call the truth, a fact that they denied and concealed until just last year.

2. I interviewed Karl when he announced he was entering the draft.

3. I have a deep and abiding respect for project managers and engineers . . . I interviewed Sen. Johnston about the Red River lock and dam project and the completion of I-49. Instead of parades and homecoming dances, perhaps you'd prefer to discuss the state NAACP conference at Grambling State University . . . or the toxic train derailment in downtown Arcadia and subsequent evacuation of the entire population . . . or the Edwards vs Treen election . . . my bureau's coverage area was the five parishes east of Shreveport, not the city itself.

I would never presume to enter a thread about bottle making to lambast, lampoon and otherwise belittle a former bottle plant engineer . . . seems you can't say the same about Journalism threads.
 
Last edited:

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
995
Age
39
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
So, @Dadsdream how does Reuters, taking money from Brittain, a close ally, like 60 years ago (what were the exact dates?) affect them today? What about their articles today is biased or unfactual?

Edit, found it. So, they were paid to counter Soviet Cold War propaganda. Oh, shock and horror...


 

Dadsdream

Ugly kids have ugly parents.
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
892
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
So, @Dadsdream how does Reuters, taking money from Brittain, a close ally, like 60 years ago (what were the exact dates?) affect them today? What about their articles today is biased or unfactual?

Edit, found it. So, they were paid to counter Soviet Cold War propaganda. Oh, shock and horror...


You've omitted the Reuters policy not to call terrorists or terrorism by using the words "terrorists" or "terrorism."

In other news, during the tenure of elected socialist governments in Britain, France and Italy, Reuters took on a distinctly pro-socialist/anti-capitalist stance in its reporting, which led to accusations that it was effectually a bought-and-paid-for arm of the British government, which it denied, which the British government denied, which we found out last year to be TRUE.

My former employer, Gannett, issued a caution about Reuter's bias at the time those allegations were originally made.

These days, Reuters is owned by a Canadian conglomerate, so who knows which way the wind blows now.

Since this is ostensibly a thread about credible sources, you can either accept what I'm telling you and thank me for choosing to share it or not. Your choice.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend. I watched "The Mighty 8th" a retrospective on the U.S. 8th Air Force in WWII on National Geographic. Great show!
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
705
Reaction score
701
Offline
You've omitted the Reuters policy not to call terrorists or terrorism by using the words "terrorists" or "terrorism."

In other news, during the tenure of elected socialist governments in Britain, France and Italy, Reuters took on a distinctly pro-socialist/anti-capitalist stance in its reporting, which led to accusations that it was effectually a bought-and-paid-for arm of the British government, which it denied, which the British government denied, which we found out last year to be TRUE.

My former employer, Gannett, issued a caution about Reuter's bias at the time those allegations were originally made.

These days, Reuters is owned by a Canadian conglomerate, so who knows which way the wind blows now.

Since this is ostensibly a thread about credible sources, you can either accept what I'm telling you and thank me for choosing to share it or not. Your choice.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend. I watched "The Mighty 8th" a retrospective on the U.S. 8th Air Force in WWII on National Geographic. Great show!
Can you show an example of Reuters exhibiting bias in its reporting? Also, when was Reuters a "bought and paid for arm of the British government"?
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
995
Age
39
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
You've omitted the Reuters policy not to call terrorists or terrorism by using the words "terrorists" or "terrorism."

In other news, during the tenure of elected socialist governments in Britain, France and Italy, Reuters took on a distinctly pro-socialist/anti-capitalist stance in its reporting, which led to accusations that it was effectually a bought-and-paid-for arm of the British government, which it denied, which the British government denied, which we found out last year to be TRUE.

My former employer, Gannett, issued a caution about Reuter's bias at the time those allegations were originally made.

These days, Reuters is owned by a Canadian conglomerate, so who knows which way the wind blows now.

Since this is ostensibly a thread about credible sources, you can either accept what I'm telling you and thank me for choosing to share it or not. Your choice.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend. I watched "The Mighty 8th" a retrospective on the U.S. 8th Air Force in WWII on National Geographic. Great show!
OK, I don't. Thanks.

I do read headlines, and read articles and then think about them to make my determinations of bias.
 

Dragon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
314
Reaction score
460
Age
57
Location
Elsinore
Offline
You've omitted the Reuters policy not to call terrorists or terrorism by using the words "terrorists" or "terrorism."

In other news, during the tenure of elected socialist governments in Britain, France and Italy, Reuters took on a distinctly pro-socialist/anti-capitalist stance in its reporting, which led to accusations that it was effectually a bought-and-paid-for arm of the British government, which it denied, which the British government denied, which we found out last year to be TRUE.

My former employer, Gannett, issued a caution about Reuter's bias at the time those allegations were originally made.

These days, Reuters is owned by a Canadian conglomerate, so who knows which way the wind blows now.

Since this is ostensibly a thread about credible sources, you can either accept what I'm telling you and thank me for choosing to share it or not. Your choice.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend. I watched "The Mighty 8th" a retrospective on the U.S. 8th Air Force in WWII on National Geographic. Great show!

You do know that

1. what many americans call socialist/anti-capitalist governments are far from that from an European point of view. Free education, Free healthcare and laws protecting the employees from unfair treatment are not necessary socialist but simple humanitarian human rights and actually benefits the entire society including the employers because they get healthy, well educated employees. Most western European countries have a healthy private business sector very similar to the one in the US.

2. Terrorist is one of the most misused labels in the history of mankind. Those who opposed the East German communist were called terrorists, Those who opposed the Nazis were called terrorists. Those who died at tiananmen square was labeled terrorists. The fact that Reuters will NOT use that label underscores their neutrality far more than the opposite.
 

N.O.Bronco

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
613
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Houston
Offline
This trend of Republican detachment from reality probably deserves its own thread outside this which is a prescriptive thread. Because there is a whole lot to mine with this detachment problem.
According to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, 44 percent of Republicans believe that Bill Gates is plotting to use a mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign as a pretext to implant microchips in billions of people and monitor their movements — a widely debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.
The survey, which was conducted May 20 and 21, found that only 26 percent of Republicans correctly identify the story as false.
In contrast, just 19 percent of Democrats believe the same spurious narrative about the Microsoft founder and public-health philanthropist. A majority of Democrats recognize that it’s not true.





So essentially you have a majority of Republicans that think the sort of sources that you all are prescribing in here are the real fake news. So then they consume their news from places like Fox News and put their faith in the words of the President, and because that is actually a much more harmful diet, they end up believing even the most absurd conspiracies like Bill Gates is using Covid to put microchips into everyone. Where only 26% of Fox News viewers rightfully debunk this as garbage.
 
Last edited:

Dadsdream

Ugly kids have ugly parents.
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
892
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
You do know that

1. what many americans call socialist/anti-capitalist governments are far from that from an European point of view. Free education, Free healthcare and laws protecting the employees from unfair treatment are not necessary socialist but simple humanitarian human rights and actually benefits the entire society including the employers because they get healthy, well educated employees. Most western European countries have a healthy private business sector very similar to the one in the US.

2. Terrorist is one of the most misused labels in the history of mankind. Those who opposed the East German communist were called terrorists, Those who opposed the Nazis were called terrorists. Those who died at tiananmen square was labeled terrorists. The fact that Reuters will NOT use that label underscores their neutrality far more than the opposite.
Hi Dragon.

1. You know that I am aware of all of that. You are also aware that the Marshall Plan allowed everything you're listing to occur. Without the massive investment of US capital in the post-WWII, Europe would still be wallowing in the New Dark Ages. France's GNP is roughly equal to that of California. Germany's GNP is roughly equal to New York and Texas combined. What works for a gnat might not work for an eagle.

2. The fact that Reuters chooses to redefine a word so as not to offend is propaganda on their part.

Nice talking with you, Dragon.

Dadsdream
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

Top Bottom