What do you guys think on "reliable" news sources?

D

Denise1952

Well-known Member
I found a forum, called debate.org and ran across some research a gal had done and she come up with these sources that she believes are the most honest and reliable, what do you all think? I mean, in my way of seeing news today, well, it's hard to know who's on target and who isn't. Also, what we don't hear about is a more frightening thought than what is actually reported to the public.

Wikinews
AlterNet
The Real News
Reuters
The Independent
PBS
BBC
CSPAN
 

I find all reporting a bit on the doubtful side to be honest.The BBC used to be trusted [not so much now] but for years and years have been putting a left wing slant on things.There should be no slant at all either to left or right [politics]. Also sometimes, pictures do not tell the whole story, and some things are reported 'out of context'. I consider the best [British] newspaper to be The Times. For obvious reasons, cannot comment on US or Australian reporting.
 
Thanks Oakapple, I agree 100% on reporting the news, period, leaving the "slant" out. Doubt that's gonna happen though:( I guess we have to weed through it all and give it our best guess on what is truth. Can't very well be everywhere, eye-witnessing every thing can we;) And if we could, how many would believe us, LOL!! What a world hey:)
 
All news sources have a ax to grind. Read or listen to a number of them and draw your own opinion and conclusions. There is no one source that is without flaw.
 
I agree with Lon, I don't think any of the news is completely true and reliable. We just have to listen to a couple of different reports, along with some alternative news, and make our own decisions.
 
When I was younger, in the 60's & 70's, I used to think that if a guy in a suit could sit and talk rationally about the terrible world events, ....that in itself brought a sort of order to events, and all would be OK. Today, with 24 hour news, and the smaller network influence, most news is un-watchable. PBS has become slanted and one sided as well. ....and local-yokel news is like the old police radio with pictures. We never watch the news before going to bed.:)
 
It's a bit like reading the comments on trip advisor [the news I mean.]You have to select the 'mean' average and disregard the gushing or the nit-picking! Then you get something very like the truth.
 
science-surprise-surprised-surprises-elements-periodic_tables-dre2313_low.jpg
 
For the fairest take, I choose Christian Science Monitor. I totally dismiss the main TV broadcasts because their ownership dictates what they can say. Read lots of online sources for a broader comparative viewpoint. Even PBS can't be trusted. it must be due to the money once again. One of their reporters was attacking all Palestinians onlyi to learn later he has two sons in the Israeli army. : Bias seems to crop its ugly head.
 
I'm finding independent online sources valuable for comment and analysis of the news.
By browsing around it is possible to glean different viewpoints.

For news itself, I find The Guardian very quick to break important news and a good counterbalance to the Murdoch press.
Huffington Post seems to have a broad coverage, dealing with topics that are generally ignored by other sources e.g. religion.

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) online is a must for news and current affairs, including local and regional news.
 
Janis said:
Even PBS can't be trusted. it must be due to the money once again. One of their reporters was attacking all Palestinians onlyi to learn later he has two sons in the Israeli army. : Bias seems to crop its ugly head.
Click to expand...
Just like a lot of Americans were attacking or against all Nazis. ?

Would you "UN" biased think Americans should not speak against Nazis if they had any family in the military fighting the Nazis ?

I'm not sure if that bias would be even called bias, or wrong, by anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top