What News Sources Are Invalid Here?

[GePap]

The problem with that is that every source will NOT report everything.

The most important things is commn sense. before you post something, think about it and try to accertain yourself if it is true. I trust the common sense of most people here. And if someone does post somehting false, eventually a countersource will come and show the mistake.

[Az]

GePap: take Indymedia for example of unreliable "reporting".

[Solly]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
indymedia
salon
democratic action
90% of the stuff Che links too and expects us to believe as credible sources.

[mrmitchell]

indymedia
salon
democratic action
90% of the stuff Che links too and expects us to believe as credible sources.

---
The best thing is for us all to post from every goddamn source we can find--thus, eventually we will merge them all into a sort of reliable news. Or I think.
---

. Personally I am ok with Fox News

Really? Remember when they declared that plant was a chem weapons lab before it even got checked out? Didn't it turn out to be a pesticides plant? Anyways, I can't change your news sources because I'm tired, other annoying litle bugs keep exclaiming for the computer, and experience shows me that people get stubborn quickly about this kind of thing. Signing off for now, see ya tomorrow!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
A source should be avoided if it obviously has a political bias.

All sources have biases. These biases change over time, on various things, and sometimes more obvious than others

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
GePap: So, if I make a website named www.thetruenews.com, and I start publicizing things about pink unicorns on the other side of the moon, someone can freely quote me, and use me as a valid source?

Yeah? Do you have photos of them?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
GePap: take Indymedia for example of unreliable "reporting".

1. Can you porve to me its unreliability?
2. Does general unreliability ever actually disprove one specific story?

I can tell you straight out that you can never discount a specfic story from any source, even if 70% of the time before they have been wrong.

Only single stories can be challenged, not general sources.

[Seeker]

Any Russian newsource "coming soon! Interview with Erich von Daniken....FROM THE SURFACE OF VENUS!"

People's Daily if it's about America or Chinese achievements....for Korean news and politics it can be more objective than the local government sychophant papers, though.

FOX news for obvious reasons.

AFN (American Forces Network) 'if you want us to do propaganda, at least give us a budget/my high school had a more professional TV network'

North Korean state news. 'All Dear Leader, All the Time'

the SABC: 'Nothing is wrong in South Africa. Please send more lightly-armed tourists with money.'

the Cato Institute.

Anything with the word 'Family' in it, or 'Values', or 'Tradtional'.

Chick Publications.

CNBC, BBC are my main newsources, CNN follows. The Economist is fairly reliable when they aren't grinding an ideological axe. ....I hate to admit it but I learn a lot about new software and related stuff by lurking and listening to the rants on Slashdot.

But for the earth-shaking stuff....the 9/11s, the dot-com meltdowns, the wars.....you've gotta go to Apolyton! Surely the mix of all extremist views will produce some sort of vaguely coherent picture.

[Dauphin]

I find the Times to be less biased than a lot of other news sources. I guess that means they represent my views the best.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I find the Times to be less biased than a lot of other news sources. I guess that means they represent my views the best.

I agree with the first, disgaree with the implication of the second.

[Drogue]

I like the Times too. Very surprising since some of it's political writers are ex-tory MPs, but it is still relatively unbaised IMHO.

In terms of credibility, I think all major newspapers and media channels can be quoted. WHen it coems to political stories, you can see biases in most, butn when it coems to factual reporting, very few are that unreliable (fox being the only one I can think of).

Bods: If the Guardian is considered unreliable because of it's bias then so is the Telegraph, which to me is more overtly political (although both are). I wouldn't call the Guardian Lib Dem either, since I support the Lib Dems, and I don't like the Guardian. The Guardian is a leftist paper economically, whereas the Lib Dems are pretty centre economically (though they are very liberal in social values). I don't think the BBC is biased either. You claim it's leftist yet it's flagship politics program (Newsnight) is headed by a staunch Tory (Jeremy Paxman).

There also seems to be more and more leftwards bias in channel 4 too, which is a shame. They have good reporting, but seem to be anti-capitalist whenever they get an opportunity.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
As for the guardian, they retracted what they said about Wolfie online(and it never made it into print anyway).

It only took someone here a few minutes to confirm that the article was bollocks. How long do you think it would have taken a newspaper that actually cared about factual content? They jumped for the story because it confirmed thier only barely hidden political biases.

PS What does the fact that it never made it to print have to do with anything?

[GePap]

They jumped for the story because it confirmed thier only barely hidden political biases.

So? Everyone here has a barely hidden, if hidden at all, political bias. So can news sources. The fallicy being preached here is that bias= not trustworthy. That may, or may not be true, specially for specific stories. If I linked a report about a cricket game from the Guardian, would you call it biased, because it is from the guardian?

As for the print comment: the net is ripe for this sort of shennanigens, since you can rather easily and without cost post somehting online. That it did not reach print means that before they dcided to print it , someone checked up, and found the mistake. If the Gurdian was so disreputable, why got rhoguh all that? Why not must print the story the next day anyway?

[*End Is Forever*]

Drogue,

I like the Times too. Very surprising since some of it's political writers are ex-tory MPs, but it is still relatively unbaised IMHO.

Not true. Whilst some of their comment writers are former Tories (ie, Matthew Parris) the feature writers and reporters are Blairite to the core.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Any of you guys ever read "The Final Call"? I think that's what it's called.

The Nation Of Islam is a truly terrible reporter of news. Even Tass was less biased.

Are you referring to ITAR-TASS?