What news sources do you trust for "global" news? - Social Anxiety Forum
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 11:21 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,360

What news sources do you trust for "global" news?


I'm not sure if this has always been the case or just something recent, but I often try to compare how media outlets tend to cover events.

I find it a bit disturbing that the average English speaking person looking for information on global events will get a lot more results from very biased sources.

I mean you can go to youtube right now and lookup "sudan flooding" and you'll get more than 5 videos from Aljazeera with barely any coverage from Western news sources.

And I think I got the same impression for the recent Libya conflict ...

With the exception of maybe France24, there was almost no coverage or analysis or anything. And the reason is because France has direct "urgent" interest there.

But generally you just get RT, TRT, Aljazeera, and I assume will become more significant with time CGTN too.

And it seems a bit scary to me that non-democratic countries get to control the narrative about global issues because they can just spend money on what is sometimes so obviously just propaganda serving their geopolitical interest.

It's sort of weird because I guess the US is still the most powerful country with the most influence on the rest of the world and will remain so for some time, but its media covers so little global news (with some great exceptions * , but I'm speaking generally).

I mean China is still really bad at providing an influential news network, but I assume they will figure it out eventually, so how will that end up?

Oh, and I'm not saying Western media isn't full of propaganda too, lol, no, it's just a less dangerous kind of propaganda imo, because you don't just get a unified voice, generally. I think it's more non-interest in the rest of the world honestly. And it's more pronounced in the case of the US specifically. And that's fine, except the US is still THE superpower, right?

I sometimes even wonder if the US involvement in other countries was more harmful than British or French colonialism in some cases. I mean I can't think of any positive effects for Iraq or Afghanistan. At least the British / French left some good behind (even if they were exploitative and saw other peoples as uncivilized) - Americans just seem pretty uninterested honestly. More so every year.

And other countries seem trying to fill that gap of being influential, globally, or even regionally. Russia, Turkey **, etc. The only Western country I see trying to project the image of an influence is probably France:

https://@www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idn...l=GuardianNews

^ I mean think of Trump walking through the streets of Baghdad after last year's protests (which again almost no one covered). Lol, that would've been interesting to see though. : P



---

* e.g. VICE documentaries are really good

** You could argue Turkey is just a US pawn though, since it doesn't want to be involved directly in the ME anymore, etc. It doesn't seem possible that Turkey would send troops to Libya or Syria without a green-light from the US. It just isn't that powerful.

Mucus is a living thing you know
Myosr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 11:58 AM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Rainforest <-> Tundra
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,966
My Mood: Bored
I consider reputable sources to be CBC/CTV/Global (Canadian), BBC, ABC (Aussie), New York Times (and similar in the network), Reuters, CNN. Al Jazeera is okay too.

I don't pay attention to sources like The Daily Mail (UK) or Fox News.
leaf in the wind is offline  
post #3 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 12:06 PM
♎ Mackinac Island Fanatic
 
tehuti88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: At the bottom of Lake Algonquin (Michigan)
Language: English
Gender: Female
Age: 44
Posts: 28,827
My Mood: Crappy
I literally just click whatever headlines on Reddit, Yahoo!, or whatever site I'm browsing look interesting, then if the article is from a site I'm not familiar with and there seems to be a bias, and/or if something in the article seems hinky or "too good/bad to be true," and/or if it's not news I'm seeing presented on numerous other sites as well, I Google to learn more about that particular site and article.

 
I admit I tend to read news from more liberal-leaning sites since IMO they're more likely to report factually and with less bias in general, though they do tend to withhold/play down background details that can influence one's opinion of a story; one can argue such details aren't necessary to understand the primary issue (kind of like not introducing a victim's sexual history in court), and that may be true, but they can have a bearing on understanding the individuals involved in a story. Maybe it doesn't ultimately matter if the victim in a news story has a criminal record or something like that, but if they're being presented as a paragon of virtue or a "perfect victim"/martyr, well, that does tend to influence how they're perceived. (This is my main peeve with more liberal reporting, whitewashing victims. Their pasts may have no bearing on what happened to them but the public should still know, in some circumstances.)

I've seen reporting on more conservative sites that's okay but I avoid extreme-right sites. I saw a headline from The National Review on Yahoo! once and it turned out, when I looked it up on Google afterward, it was a fake story. (I hate using the term "fake news" since that's come to mean "news I just don't agree with," but this was LITERALLY a false/disproven story.) So that put that particular source on my blacklist. Local Fox News websites seem okay for news (just avoid the comments, yikes) but I'm warier than usual on them, and most of their cable channel is crap. Likewise, when I'm on something like HuffPost I keep in mind they're pretty liberal so while I agree with them more often than not, I know there's a bias. I also get annoyed by some CNN TV programs that are more editorial (even if I agree with it) than news.



...I'm just going to put that behind a spoiler since I'll probably regret going into detail. :/ I don't pretend to be an unbiased expert at looking up news but I don't want to be anyway, I just look at what interests me and try to keep each site's particular biases in mind. I avoid a few extreme sites, especially ones I know have been misleading. But I definitely don't just go out there and blindly believe/accept everything written in every article I read like some might think people like me do; if something seems off I try to fact-check it. Several times I've come across people at both ends of the political spectrum sharing false info based on misinterpreting news or just passing along made-up stuff without checking it themselves. I don't want to do that.

If I don't reply to you, it's NOTHING PERSONAL. It's my ANXIETY.

***

(Devetko's boyfriend Stan Brooks & Det. Reichert are horsing around.)

Det. Kristeva: "If it were legal you'd marry me, right?"
Det. Devetko: "Definitely."

(It's legal now!! But Kristeva's already married. ;_; )

***

"No canoes...no maple sugar...this place is horribly uncivilized."--Manabozho, Escape From Manitou Island
tehuti88 is offline  
 
post #4 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 12:38 PM
Villain
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down one ****post at a time
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 40,520
Well they're all biased so if you're looking for something without bias you won't find it including sources like the BBC, they are definitely biased on various topics. Most of the outlets announce their bias so it's open. The more politically charged a topic is, the harder it will be to find a neutral source. Sometimes it might not be obvious what topics the people who own the media might have a special interest in either, the ones that bother the public are obvious but there are various agendas.

I do get the impression that Western media covers global events less. I'm sure the US in particular won't because they have 75,000 news stories to write about Trump every second (and a two year or something election cycle where they really talk about **** all except that usually, the pandemic and protests + riots put a slight dent in it though,) and various other chaotic things going on all the time.

The UK was obnoxiously obsessed with Brexit for a while. That was a great distraction, I'm sure many people with power exploited that opportunity. Now working class British people get to pretend they have control/power when they still have 0 :')

I definitely think a lot of people in the West trust non Western new sources more for the same reason you probably don't trust non Western sources. A significant chunk of Western people don't trust Western media. There are also some less mainstream sources people use.

Quote:
Oh, and I'm not saying Western media isn't full of propaganda too, lol, no, it's just a less dangerous kind of propaganda imo, because you don't just get a unified voice, generally. I think it's more non-interest in the rest of the world honestly. And it's more pronounced in the case of the US specifically. And that's fine, except the US is still THE superpower, right?
There's not a lot of choice, some things are unified in the mainstream media. Many of the differences are purely on social topics and blown up. Serious discussion of the economy isn't allowed in most mainstream media outlets.

Speaking of social issues the UK mainstream media is typically anti-trans both left and right but the left in the US isn't so it's important to note differences throughout the West too depending on the topic. To the point where journalists from different countries from a single news source will have issues with each other:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nder-rights-uk

There are also far left groups that are anti trans in the UK and not subtly like full on reactionary, this is pretty much unheard of in the US I think.

Many countries are less polarised on social issues so to continue using this example you have like Argentina vs countries that have capital punishment still for LGBT people. Both the UK and the US have more or less two tribes though with smaller ones that somewhat overlap with the two main ones so it's not very heterogeneous. We don't have thousands of self governing anarchist communes lol with media that gets relatively equal attention.

I think I know what you mean though and the same thing that leads to what you mean leads to cultures failing over time due to no unifying elements. Anyway since the UK copies the US I'm looking forward to being classified as a terrorist or something 5 years from now for having non-nationalistic opinions. Maybe not though there are still differences and we don't have a precedent for Trump like figures being able to get into power. Everyone has to go to Eton etc. Then they have to pretend to relate to common people.


Anyway this went off track lol. (But still edited in that above song after typing that.) The only wildcard in the UK I'm aware of right now is Dominic Cummings. I don't think anyone in the mainstream media like him (it took them a while though,) and I definitely don't trust him at all.

Quote:
I sometimes even wonder if the US involvement in other countries was more harmful than British or French colonialism in some cases. I mean I can't think of any positive effects for Iraq or Afghanistan. At least the British / French left some good behind (even if they were exploitative and saw other peoples as uncivilized) - Americans just seem pretty uninterested honestly. More so every year.
I think Britain and France had an interest in ruling/control on top of just plowing for resources which is what the US primarily wants. That and to stamp out leftist governments. They've not really been concerned with the wreckage they leave behind because they're not very concerned with ownership. That being said colonialism is all trash, and the UK and France have teamed up with the US a bunch of times too for various bull**** too. Another thing is advances in weapons technology and power imbalances over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouTube comment
Yet another man lost to irony poisoning, cynicism, hyper-self awareness and the inability to be sincere.

Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #5 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 02:18 PM
Fupa King
 
donistired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: United States
Language: English
Gender: Male
Age: 24
Posts: 768
I use bbc, reuters, and npr (I think they do world news sometimes, can't remember, but they focus on an American audience).

Life's Wack
donistired is online now  
post #6 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 03:40 PM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,360
@Persephone The Dread

I find the left / right polarization in the West to be particularly annoying, honestly. I find it pretty weird that so many people with I guess reasonable intelligence spend so much of their mental effort trying to prove the other side (or tribe as you call it) wrong. Even if it is something that shouldnít even be a left / right issue, like coronavirus, or relationships with China & Russia, or even North Korea or intervention in the ME, etc.

It almost feels like one side picks a position, and the other side just tries so hard to prove why the complete opposite position is the right one. And itís such an obvious trend, I donít see why people even do that honestly.

And yeah, maybe for some things the mainstream media is all on one page, but I guess thatís a consequence of capitalism?

The problem is that I donít even think social media, the way it exists now, is a better alternative. For one, itís also controlled by giant companies that determine the guidelines, the algorithms, and they in the end only care about money, so I think the algorithms are more likely to cause chaos / spread of disinformation than be a useful alternative to MSM. Also, people are tribalistic, emotional, and arenít really invested in knowing the whole picture about anything, generally speaking. I donít think this is something that can change.
Also, non MSM, like youtube channels, or whatever, they also have to sensationalize their content, and have to stick to the in-group thing or they lose audience, patrons, ads, etc. Itís just a smaller version of the same thing I guess.

Also, I feel like youtubers / independent media whatever, I think they can easily get unhinged, because you can get a few tens of thousands believing in any wild BS or conspiracy theory.

Quote:
I definitely think a lot of people in the West trust non Western new sources more for the same reason you probably don't trust non Western sources. A significant chunk of Western people don't trust Western media. There are also some less mainstream sources people use.
I don't think it's equivalent though. In a democracy (doesn't have to be Western, but mostly is), you can get more than one voice. In the US, it tends to be two. I think having two narratives (even if both are wrong) is better than having just one.

I mean to give a different example, I'm more likely to believe a new source from Taiwan than I am to believe one from mainland China. Especially if it's something that is against the Chinese government. Knowing how little free speech exists in China, I just canít have any trust in anything their media says.

In one country I shall not name , the agencies flat out bought every independent newspaper, every TV network, etc through dummy companies. So, it becomes logical to assume everything you hear / read is propaganda. Nothing is really real.

I guess you can say Western media / politics is more eventful, lol. At least regarding local issues. And it being dynamic, means it's more likely to evolve, though within limits. Limits can be good and bad (good = you can't just vote in a dictator, bad = if something is really wrong with the whole system it will never really change).

The polarization does seem ridiculous though. I was watching a horror / comedy movie a few days ago, about the liberal elite hunting down conservative. It was weird because even trump tweeted about how bad it is that this movie exists or something, even though the ďprotagonistĒ was a conservative . Itís crazy though because I think the movie is just a dumb movie, lol.
https://@www.youtube.com/watch?v=sow...versalPictures

Quote:
Speaking of social issues the UK mainstream media is typically anti-trans both left and right but the left in the US isn't so it's important to note differences throughout the West too depending on the topic. To the point where journalists from different countries from a single news source will have issues with each other:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nder-rights-uk

There are also far left groups that are anti trans in the UK and not subtly like full on reactionary, this is pretty much unheard of in the US I think.
Hm. Iíd have assumed the UK to be more liberal than the US in general. I donít know though. I think my default nowadays is to assume that everyone is virtue signaling until it makes more sense to assume otherwise. And the whole process of people unconsciously virtue signaling opinions because it is whatever is 'good' to believe today is very unstable imo.

I was watching (another) horror movie a few days / weeks ago with people being forced to kill each other and so on (notice the trend? : P). Anyway, there was one hijabi woman in the crowd and I kept waiting for the cringe moment, I was sure it was coming, and yes, they had to add the cringe moment of the Muslim woman telling a bunch of people to stop kicking a guy to death before being shot herself without killing anyone because she is so peaceful :/

I donít know. I just hate that stuff. Not sure what it has to do with news, but whatever.

I guess the only time I would care for that stuff if it affected how the average people empathize or vote for my group. But I donít think I really trust peopleís empathy that much, I think itís more of a feel-good thing. So maybe it's just not as socially rewarding to be pro-trans in the UK as in the US? or maybe the opposite? like being less socially alienated if you're anti-trans (in liberal circles I mean).

Quote:
I think Britain and France had an interest in ruling/control on top of just plowing for resources which is what the US primarily wants. That and to stamp out leftist governments. They've not really been concerned with the wreckage they leave behind because they're not very concerned with ownership. That being said colonialism is all trash, and the UK and France have teamed up with the US a bunch of times too for various bull**** too. Another thing is advances in weapons technology and power imbalances over time.
I don't know. I honestly feel the US is just clueless sometimes. Which I hope isn't true.

Mucus is a living thing you know
Myosr is offline  
post #7 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 03:49 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 16,078
BBC, ABC, Deutsche Welle or Al Jazeera live online sometimes.
harrison is offline  
post #8 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 05:19 PM
Born Of Blotmonaū
 
Canadian Brotha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Over Yonder
Language: South Martian, North Terran, & Lunarian
Age: 32
Posts: 18,690
My Mood: Cynical
BBC, ABC(Australia), CBC, NPR, Al Jazeera, Reuters, Associated Press on occasion...a lot of western outlets have a bias but a bit of critical thinking & research is all it takes to get beyond that I find
Canadian Brotha is offline  
post #9 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 07:58 PM
Villain
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down one ****post at a time
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 40,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myosr View Post
@Persephone The Dread

I find the left / right polarization in the West to be particularly annoying, honestly. I find it pretty weird that so many people with I guess reasonable intelligence spend so much of their mental effort trying to prove the other side (or tribe as you call it) wrong. Even if it is something that shouldn’t even be a left / right issue, like coronavirus, or relationships with China & Russia, or even North Korea or intervention in the ME, etc.

It almost feels like one side picks a position, and the other side just tries so hard to prove why the complete opposite position is the right one. And it’s such an obvious trend, I don’t see why people even do that honestly.
Yeah usually, although segments do team up on some issues if they agree.

I'm not really keeping up with it but I think the US left wing media is probably bigging up the military right now to own Trump lol after some comments he made.

Quote:
And yeah, maybe for some things the mainstream media is all on one page, but I guess that’s a consequence of capitalism?

The problem is that I don’t even think social media, the way it exists now, is a better alternative. For one, it’s also controlled by giant companies that determine the guidelines, the algorithms, and they in the end only care about money, so I think the algorithms are more likely to cause chaos / spread of disinformation than be a useful alternative to MSM. Also, people are tribalistic, emotional, and aren’t really invested in knowing the whole picture about anything, generally speaking. I don’t think this is something that can change.
Also, non MSM, like youtube channels, or whatever, they also have to sensationalize their content, and have to stick to the in-group thing or they lose audience, patrons, ads, etc. It’s just a smaller version of the same thing I guess.

Also, I feel like youtubers / independent media whatever, I think they can easily get unhinged, because you can get a few tens of thousands believing in any wild BS or conspiracy theory.
Yeah but that's the part that can't be questioned. Mark Fisher referred to it as 'capitalist realism' not just a Western issue though.

Oh there is no decent alternative no lol just have to make do.

Quote:
I don't think it's equivalent though. In a democracy (doesn't have to be Western, but mostly is), you can get more than one voice. In the US, it tends to be two. I think having two narratives (even if both are wrong) is better than having just one.

I mean to give a different example, I'm more likely to believe a new source from Taiwan than I am to believe one from mainland China. Especially if it's something that is against the Chinese government. Knowing how little free speech exists in China, I just can’t have any trust in anything their media says.

In one country I shall not name , the agencies flat out bought every independent newspaper, every TV network, etc through dummy companies. So, it becomes logical to assume everything you hear / read is propaganda. Nothing is really real.

I guess you can say Western media / politics is more eventful, lol. At least regarding local issues. And it being dynamic, means it's more likely to evolve, though within limits. Limits can be good and bad (good = you can't just vote in a dictator, bad = if something is really wrong with the whole system it will never really change).

The polarization does seem ridiculous though. I was watching a horror / comedy movie a few days ago, about the liberal elite hunting down conservative. It was weird because even trump tweeted about how bad it is that this movie exists or something, even though the “protagonist” was a conservative . It’s crazy though because I think the movie is just a dumb movie, lol.
https://@www.youtube.com/watch?v=sow...versalPictures
I wouldn't really trust any country to report accurately on their own country. Probably the best way would be to get a consensus from many country's media, but then you'd have to be multilingual really. Still wouldn't be perfect though.

I think most of the mainstream Western media is owned by the same few companies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concen...edia_ownership

It's more that the economy has more power than the state, but mostly in the US. The UK government owns the BBC but the Daily Mail which is privately owned is very influential (among others.) But yeah the interests of people from the 1% have to be taken into account and they are more varied than in many countries (probably.)

I was watching some clip from Sky News Austrialia a few months ago and wondered why it had such an obvious right wing bias it was interesting to me because the UK one is dramatically different, but apparently it was owned by Murdoch:

Quote:
... and the television broadcasting channels Sky News Australia and Fox News (through the Fox Corporation). He was also the owner of Sky (until 2018 ), 21st Century Fox (until 2019), and the now-defunct News of the World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

Kind of explains that.

Hadn't heard of that movie but doesn't surprise me lol. Actually I think the left are often portrayed as villains and this goes back a long way. It's pretty interesting actually and it has to do with the left never being considered American (in America, but something similar probably happens in the UK.) I also use the term left loosely tbh because it's more like a vague cultural thing that completely transcends politics and has more to do with interests etc:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/3...-the-outgroup/

Quote:
My hunch – both the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe, for whatever reason, identify “America” with the Red Tribe. Ask people for typically “American” things, and you end up with a very Red list of characteristics – guns, religion, barbecues, American football, NASCAR, cowboys, SUVs, unrestrained capitalism.

That means the Red Tribe feels intensely patriotic about “their” country, and the Blue Tribe feels like they’re living in fortified enclaves deep in hostile territory.
I would assume these groupings date back further than the left/right labels too. Many people have theorised about that. It also reminds me of the MacLeod Life Cycle/Gervais Principle:

https://tinyurl.com/kj2mb9s

(not enough characters left to quote.)

Quote:
Hm. I’d have assumed the UK to be more liberal than the US in general. I don’t know though.
The UK is more economically left than the US though it's probably not a huge difference, but we have socialised healthcare for example. On social issues it depends on the state. Some areas of the US like Alabama are a lot further right than the UK, other areas like Oregon are further left. I'm not sure it makes sense to consider something like drug law left/right so I guess I won't include that.

I think the US legalised gay marriage before the UK did though it was limited to certain states, then it was legalised in every US state by 2015 but the UK didn't start until 2014 and Northern Ireland (part of the UK,) didn't legalise gay marriage until January of this year, same with abortion I think (previously people there had to go to another UK country to get an abortion.)

The UK is also really prudish and lots of people are judgemental especially on these topics so a while ago it banned a bunch of porn stuff from being created in the UK, and the previous government were also trying to introduce a porn ban where everyone would have to verify their age to access porn (which would involve identifying yourself.) We've had conservative governments since 2010. A full decade of their nonsense.

As for trans stuff that's fairly new in debate. I think Argentina has the most liberal policy. The US is more individualistic so it's easier to get access to treatment over there than in the UK but everything is very expensive on the flipside. The UK is infamous for being considered one of the most transphobic Western nations though.

Quote:
I was watching (another) horror movie a few days / weeks ago with people being forced to kill each other and so on (notice the trend? : P). Anyway, there was one hijabi woman in the crowd and I kept waiting for the cringe moment, I was sure it was coming, and yes, they had to add the cringe moment of the Muslim woman telling a bunch of people to stop kicking a guy to death before being shot herself without killing anyone because she is so peaceful :/

I don’t know. I just hate that stuff. Not sure what it has to do with news, but whatever.

I guess the only time I would care for that stuff if it affected how the average people empathize or vote for my group. But I don’t think I really trust people’s empathy that much, I think it’s more of a feel-good thing. So maybe it's just not as socially rewarding to be pro-trans in the UK as in the US? or maybe the opposite? like being less socially alienated if you're anti-trans (in liberal circles I mean).



I don't know. I honestly feel the US is just clueless sometimes. Which I hope isn't true.
I think there are probably multiple things going on including that the US is just more outspoken in general about everything and people in the UK are a bit more cynical/cold so probably more likely to express disapproval than approval. We also have a different history with radical feminism and many things it would probably require an essay to go into all of it but yeah cultural differences.

I still think the sex negative attitudes are somehow related though. I think there's a kind of hysteria about pedophilia and sexual abuse as well that gets lumped into LGBT discussions both with trans, and homosexual, bisexual etc people (I mean this is definitely a thing in the US as well but I dunno. The ratio is a little different.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouTube comment
Yet another man lost to irony poisoning, cynicism, hyper-self awareness and the inability to be sincere.

Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #10 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-12-2020, 08:02 PM
SASsy
 
Cletis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Area 51
Language: King's English
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,009
My Mood: Pensive
None.

Most of the media is very liberally biased and even some liberal media figures admit that.

Who? Lara Logan and the late Peter Jennings come to mind.
Cletis is offline  
post #11 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-13-2020, 06:07 AM
SAS Member
 
Raies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Up North
Gender: Male
Age: 27
Posts: 1,391
My Mood: Fine
None.

I do check some sometimes to know what's being talked about. I also think it's a problem, because there isn't many ways to find out about things that aren't being talked about. - so what I can do is just fact check.
But the things that are talked about are still run by these media companies and I don't really know a way around that.

As for how trustworthy organizations are?
Absolutely not at all. Just fact check any political story, and you'll find so much bs in it that it's insane.

"If you need a safe space, see a therapist" - Jordan Peterson
Raies is online now  
post #12 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-15-2020, 10:26 AM
SAS Member
 
Vladimere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 984
My Mood: Scared
I used to think media was not biased 30 years ago. What I realized back then, to my disappointment, is that they we're all sensationalists. Today I believe they are heavily biased and we can only be sure of getting half the story.

A girlfriend asked me once, "What is it like to be an 8 year old boy?". I told her, "Full of curiosity and exploration.". I told her that something like going into an abandoned building is an adventure for a little boy. You wonder who lived there, why they left, if you could find anything new. You didn't know what to expect. I was a security guard and near the site I was working at the area was being reconstructed. New houses and a road was being put in but a few houses were abandoned and about to be demolished. I took her in one and we looked around. She thought she would get in trouble. I said the place was abandoned and nobody owned it so nobody would care. There was no trouble. To prove it I kicked a hole in the wall. I told her to do it too, that nothing will happen except that in a couple days the heavy machinery will come and tear the place down. She did, she kind of enjoyed it and we looked around a bit more. She had that moment of exploration I wanted to show her.

Two days later a reporter from the local newspaper walked up to me and asked me if I saw anything 'over there at the abandoned buildings'. I told him that I saw a couple kids wandering around and exploring. Yeh, I lied out the left side of my butt. That since I'm not watching the place and it being abandoned, I didn't feel the need to ruin their fun. He smiled at me and said he agreed but he was doing a story and wanted some info. He asked me if I thought anything dangerous could happen or if I saw anything like drug gangs and such. I told him no, just some kids playing. Then I told him, don't make a fuss about it, you will only scare little kids. He grinned at me and said he wouldn't scare the kids. He lied too.

The very next day I walked into my GF's house and her mother was watching the news. My GF came down and a report came on with an image of the site that me and her had wandered into. She stared at the tv in shock. The report detailed random vandalism in the city and the decay of society, ending with a statement equating the vandalism to "the criminal underbelly of the city". We suddenly became the mafia. For a moment I was truly scared, then I looked over to my GF who was shaking and in tears. She believed that we were going to jail and I began to laugh. All anyone knew is that a couple kids walked into an abandoned building , looked around and left. But the news story became a commentary on a lawless and corrupt society that was quickly heading for collapse. It was hysterical and I learned that the media is all about hype and headlines.

Today I believe the media will use any lie good enough to make a headline and I don't trust them a bit.
Vladimere is offline  
post #13 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-15-2020, 10:54 AM
SAS Member
 
fear24itself's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Europe
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
My Mood: Aggressive
infowars
fear24itself is offline  
post #14 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-15-2020, 11:40 AM
SAS Member
 
kesker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ricola
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,059
My Mood: Bitchy
Reuters, NPR/PBS even though it's left leaning I still like the format which is less geared toward quick soundbites and shallow reporting and more spending a bit of time on the subject matter. To riff off what @Canadian Brotha said, I get tired of the endless whining about how liberal the media is. IMO, the liberalism operates inside a container of conservatism so how liberal is it, really? but that's another argument. Not that I work too hard at it but I do recognize the need to do your own research and critical thinking.

...you gotta keep the goal in mind, develop tunnel vision to a certain extent. it's hard, and it's not for everyone.

~bad baby

"Daisy, may I ask why you're holding Miss Sybil's biscuit jar?"
kesker is offline  
post #15 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-15-2020, 02:58 PM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,360
https://@www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISTajZAmyKM

why do I keep watching these videos

Mucus is a living thing you know
Myosr is offline  
post #16 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-15-2020, 04:51 PM
Pesky Pessimist
 
Blue Dino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,239
AP and Reuters are my go to for global news. AP is good since they mostly rely on selling their articles to other new sources, so they strictly put up facts they can cater to and not alienate any new sources that buys their articles.
I like NYtimes for their quality writing, but they've been increasingly left favoring biased to the point where I feel it's sacrificing their article selection and getting facts.

The truth is strictly what the ones in power perceives it to be.

Enjoy any good things, even the little and menial ones, as you will never know what impending distresses could descend upon you in a moment.
Blue Dino is offline  
post #17 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-19-2020, 01:34 PM
SAS Member
 
Ohhai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 2,260
My Mood: Tired
Al-Jazeera is generally the best place to go for international news that's both important and often missed by Western Media. It's worth remembering that most news sources don't lie directly, it's what they omit and what they choose to cover that their bias and world view comes into play.

"have I not reason to hate and to despise myself? Indeed I do; and chiefly for not having hated and despised the world enough."
~William Hazlitt

"There have been times when only a hair's-breadth has intervened betwixt myself and the seething devil-ridden world of madness; for the hideous knowledge, the horror- blackened memories which I have carried so long, were never meant to be borne by the human intellect."
~Clark Ashton Smith
Ohhai is offline  
post #18 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-26-2020, 06:11 PM
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 30
Posts: 8,049
My Mood: Dead
I usually do a cross examination of facts from independent journalists and national news agencies then find a source where it encompasses most of the information that's out there on the topic.

The real answer is none. There some specific social groups I follow for a topic that do the same thing I do, cross examine different articles on the same topic especially when it comes to geopolitical news. The group I follow the most is largely older veterans who like to discuss what's going on in various conflicts and political activists that would do on the ground reporting in places like hong kong. Lying by Omission and using weasel words are the biggest tip offs that what you're reading isn't legitimate.

Also, what's up Mysore. How's that fight with the Mughal Empire and Dutch colonists going?

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
post #19 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-26-2020, 06:41 PM
Socializing with myself
 
EmotionlessThug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New York, Flushing
Language: Created my own language for context
Gender: Male
Age: 27
Posts: 4,901
New sources that allows me to see people reactions. This lets me know how people thinks and gives me social context.

Signature Under Construction - Be back very soon to update knowledge!


In the meantime. I'll perfect my writing techniques.
EmotionlessThug is offline  
post #20 of 28 (permalink) Old 09-30-2020, 10:33 AM
SAS Member
 
sprinter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NEPA
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,100
I can't trust any and my lack of trust was just reinforced again because I foolishly believed the mainstream news sources "experts" who said that SARS Cov2 was definitely not made in a lab, but after finally looking into the details and facts I find out that claim just can't be made, at least at this time. Seems if you wanted to apply Occam's Razor to the known facts you would choose the made in a lab option. I'm not going that far but it sure looks suspicious now knowing the facts and details.
sprinter is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome