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

Users who are viewing this thread

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,028
    Reaction score
    851
    Age
    64
    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
     
    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

    1. Are you saying that this country is so big that we cannot provide universal healthcare, universal education, or strengthen laws that protect workers?

    2. Can you show me where Reuters has redefined the words 'terrorism' or 'terrorist', assuming those are the words in question?
     
    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


    The Mashall plan may have helped Europe but it also helped the US by creating a marked for US goods so please do not call the European nations "gnats" - that does not belong in at polite discussion.

    What we have build in Europe have been build over the last 70 years by hard work and to insult us by saying that we would still be in the "dark ages" without help 70 years ago is an insult to all those who have worked so hard to build societies based on democracy, and an understanding of that no man is an island and society as a whole is stronger if every member of said society gets a chance to use their talents to the fullest.

    That include ensuring that people have access to necessary medical treatment so that they can get back to being productive members of society as fast as possible and ensuring that everyone gets an education which makes him/her able to contribute and pay back to the country they live in without having to worry about being able to afford it,

    But lets get back to the topic which is news sites. If you want to discuss the other things please make a new thread.
     
    The Mashall plan may have helped Europe but it also helped the US by creating a marked for US goods so please do not call the European nations "gnats" - that does not belong in at polite discussion.

    What we have build in Europe have been build over the last 70 years by hard work and to insult us by saying that we would still be in the "dark ages" without help 70 years ago is an insult to all those who have worked so hard to build societies based on democracy, and an understanding of that no man is an island and society as a whole is stronger if every member of said society gets a chance to use their talents to the fullest.

    That include ensuring that people have access to necessary medical treatment so that they can get back to being productive members of society as fast as possible and ensuring that everyone gets an education which makes him/her able to contribute and pay back to the country they live in without having to worry about being able to afford it,
    Well, Dragon,

    What we have built in the United States in over 200 years was built so we wouldn't have to do things the European way.
    You might want to revisit Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the subject of Europe and the European Way. He was not kind.
    If you're insulted about my thoughts regarding the Marshall Plan, you might try reading the consensus of most American historians about the subject.
    The topic of this thread is credible sources. I find Reuters not to be credible. You can make your own choice as you see fit.

    Dadsdream.
     
    Well, Dragon,

    What we have built in the United States in over 200 years was built so we wouldn't have to do things the European way.
    You might want to revisit Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the subject of Europe and the European Way. He was not kind.
    If you're insulted about my thoughts regarding the Marshall Plan, you might try reading the consensus of most American historians about the subject.
    The topic of this thread is credible sources. I find Reuters not to be credible. You can make your own choice as you see fit.

    Dadsdream.

    No matter how many insults you throw out, I refuse to play your game out of respect for Andrus. Make a new thread if you want to continue that discussion and I'll be more than happy to anwer there. To get back to the topic:

    Reuters is IMHO one of the most neutral and ubiased sources of news. The fact that they were financed 30 years ago by the British government does not change that. You even admitted yourself that they are Canadian owned today and that you don't know where that company stands. And again - refusing to call someone a terrorist does not make them biased - on the contrary. It show a newsagency which reports the news and don't take sides...
     
    So who’s credible DD?

    You spent a lot of time going after one outlet for not being credible, but the other part(the core part) of this thread is determining who is credible, who people can use as agreed upon sources, so if Reuters is a no-go(which to be clear I dont think you have a made anything close to a credible or convincing case), who is a yes?
     
    No matter how many insults you throw out, I refuse to play your game out of respect for Andrus. Make a new thread if you want to continue that discussion and I'll be more than happy to anwer there. To get back to the topic:

    Reuters is IMHO one of the most neutral and ubiased sources of news. The fact that they were financed 30 years ago by the British government does not change that. You even admitted yourself that they are Canadian owned today and that you don't know where that company stands. And again - refusing to call someone a terrorist does not make them biased - on the contrary. It show a newsagency which reports the news and don't take sides...
    I did not insult you. I stated historical facts/opinion about the Marshall Plan, the comparative size of Europe's economy to that of the US, and the issue of scalability. You don't like what I said. No insult was intended.

    You don't like my opinion about Reuters. That's OK too.

    It's Memorial Day weekend here in the States, Dragon. I hope you enjoy your weekend.
     
    No matter how many insults you throw out, I refuse to play your game out of respect for Andrus. Make a new thread if you want to continue that discussion and I'll be more than happy to anwer there. To get back to the topic:

    I fail to see where he insulted you. Maybe I am missing something?
     
    If
    I fail to see where he insulted you. Maybe I am missing something?

    If I may be allowed to answer, I believe Dragon, as a European, felt insulted by Dad's gnat/eagle comparison. He has attempted to explain and offered that no insult was intended.

    If someone feels they have been insulted or reads what they interpret to be insulting, they should report the offending post to a moderator. There should not be running commentary within a thread.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Curious about Al jazeera, theres an implicit bias, especially in the US vs foreign entities. If it were called something that doesn't trigger some kind of scary middle eastern stereotype, would it seem more believable to people?
     
    Curious about Al jazeera, theres an implicit bias, especially in the US vs foreign entities. If it were called something that doesn't trigger some kind of scary middle eastern stereotype, would it seem more believable to people?


    I watch all other nations English speaking news shows.

    My favorite by far is NHK World

    That is a English speaking Japanese news channel fun to watch.

    Ndtv is from India and kinda cool. RT is Russian and wacky.

    I like to see what the world news being reported looks like in other nations.

    I watch al Jazeera from time to time. It is ok that network is from Qatar. I like to see what they say watch it you will be shocked it is not scary at all and pretty educational.

    Then again I am not afraid of Muslims at all.
     
    Curious about Al jazeera, theres an implicit bias, especially in the US vs foreign entities. If it were called something that doesn't trigger some kind of scary middle eastern stereotype, would it seem more believable to people?
    From what I have seen and read I think Al Jazeera English is actually a pretty solid enterprise. At least insomuch as they seem to put a solid emphasis on journalistic standards and practices and are one of the few outlets in the English speaking western world willing to not default to a sensationalistic clickbait format and a western exceptionalism focus and posture.

    Out of curiosity I just went to their live feed and it’s definitely refreshing to see an outlet willing to spend ten minutes deep diving into the abuses, assassinations, and questionable pardons of the Sisi government in Egypt and the effect of coronavirus in indigenuous communiites in Brazil as cases continue to mount(the idea of a location based long-form story on a 24 hour news channel is basically an extinct concept in America barring special events). Then switching to a more sober and impartial analysis of the increase in hostilities in Afghanistan and now the recent ceasefire. Bringing on a US military historian and a Middle East policy expert fron the region to analyze the going ons.
     
    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 don't see how we could have an approved list of credible sources. We all have our own viewpoints and biases so it's highly unlikely that everyone could agree to that list. Eye of the beholder
     
    I don't see how we could have an approved list of credible sources. We all have our own viewpoints and biases so it's highly unlikely that everyone could agree to that list. Eye of the beholder

    Even if it's only one or two sources we agree on, I think it is a worthwhile exercise. For instance, if I know you agree with the AP as a source, I will do my best to use them to support my positions when you and I disagree.
     
    I don't see how we could have an approved list of credible sources. We all have our own viewpoints and biases so it's highly unlikely that everyone could agree to that list. Eye of the beholder


    There is the problem. Without a list of what you find creditable sources we get the good old fake news response to a CNN article.

    If that list doesn't make you happy feel free to list yours.

    Then we can see what you believe is creditable.
     
    Even if it's only one or two sources we agree on, I think it is a worthwhile exercise. For instance, if I know you agree with the AP as a source, I will do my best to use them to support my positions when you and I disagree.
    I don't think people reading this thread all have the same understanding of its purpose and are just further using it to create division.
     
    I don't think people reading this thread all have the same understanding of its purpose and are just further using it to create division.


    That seems to be that case with all of them.

    The sending a thread down a black hole happens to all of them at one point.

    This one I don't understand because if you can't find something that speaks to you out of that list you are looking Q kinda stuff.
     
    Even if it's only one or two sources we agree on, I think it is a worthwhile exercise. For instance, if I know you agree with the AP as a source, I will do my best to use them to support my positions when you and I disagree.
    I would generally agree that AP and Reuters are credible and much less biased than other sources. I would be curious to see how their reporting was on the Russia investigation.
     

    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.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom