What sources do you trust? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Ter
#14820902
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, Trump does lie an incredible amount.

Nobody disputes this. It is the way the NYT and WP and others report it that is no longer deemed acceptable for reputed news organisations. See the article I posted.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It seems possible that you trust it becuase it confirms your own biases.

No. It could be the other way round with you not trusting it because your bias for the NYT et al.
#14820906
Ter wrote:Nobody disputes this. It is the way the NYT and WP and others report it that is no longer deemed acceptable for reputed news organisations. See the article I posted.


I am not going to reread a crappy editorial from a newspaper that specialises in articles about women in bikinis.

What is unacceptable about reporting that Trump lies when he, you know, lies?

No. It could be the other way round with you not trusting it because your bias for the NYT et al.


It could be, if I had any bias about the NYT at all, but I do not. I believe the NYT to be just another capitalist paper that supports capitalism.
User avatar
By Ter
#14820910
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not going to reread a crappy editorial from a newspaper that specialises in articles about women in bikinis.

I did not see any women in bikinis, only the article I posted.
I think it is worth a read, especially since the author used to work for the NYT.
It is somewhat difficult to discuss this if you continue to refuse to read it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What is unacceptable about reporting that Trump lies when he, you know, lies?

It is not about the fact that he is lying but the wording of the articles and article titles.
When Hillary Clinton claimed to be met by sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia, they did not report this as "Hillary is lying" but rather that she did not recollect the event and such.
The point is that the journalists at NYT and WP have lost all claim of impartiality. Even after Trump leaves office they will not regain the trust of many readers.
#14820916
Ter wrote:I did not see any women in bikinis, only the article I posted.
I think it is worth a read, especially since the author used to work for the NYT.
It is somewhat difficult to discuss this if you continue to refuse to read it.

It is not about the fact that he is lying but the wording of the articles and article titles.
When Hillary Clinton claimed to be met by sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia, they did not report this as "Hillary is lying" but rather that she did not recollect the event and such.
The point is that the journalists at NYT and WP have lost all claim of impartiality. Even after Trump leaves office they will not regain the trust of many readers.


You have already answered my question. Thank you.
#14820925
Maybe there's a certain threshold that a presidential candidate must reach before being called a liar and Trump is the first one ever to breach it. Ter gives only one example of Hill Clinton lying. It seems reasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they fuck up once. Trump lies 10 times a day and regularly contradicts himself within the same breath so it seems reasonable to call him out.

Neutrality doesn't mean equal outcomes regardless of inputs.
#14820967
Ter wrote:I did not see any women in bikinis, only the article I posted.

Admittedly, the woman on the right (the New York Post's front page today) has discarded her bikini top, and is just covering her tits with her hands. Her bikini bottom is still clearly visible, however.

It's hard to accept lectures on media bias from a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch without bursting into laughter. For over 50 years, he has been using his papers and TV channels to influence politics.

This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch (who owns the New York Post) thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited the late Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market, all right — half the country!

Christ, what a load of bollocks. No one can seriously state that Fox News is "fair and balanced". With that, you know that the entire worldview of this man has been hopelessly corrupted by the cash he's paid to lie about his boss.
User avatar
By Ter
#14821030
The respondents in this thread demonstrate their own bias by either refusing to read the OP or by dismissing it out of hand because of the source. It is all fine and well, and I agree that Trump is a buffoon, but at the end of the day the NYT and the WP have shown themselves to have become unreliable and very biased news sources. Their influence on what happens in America has therefore significantly diminished.

I have continued to read the NYT (I found out how to bypass their paywall) but I restrict myself to their non-political articles.
#14821034
Ter wrote:The respondents in this thread demonstrate their own bias by either refusing to read the OP or by dismissing it out of hand because of the source. It is all fine and well, and I agree that Trump is a buffoon, but at the end of the day the NYT and the WP have shown themselves to have become unreliable and very biased news sources. Their influence on what happens in America has therefore significantly diminished.

I have continued to read the NYT (I found out how to bypass their paywall) but I restrict myself to their non-political articles.


Please explain to me how anyone can be without bias at all. Even you yourself have a bias. If I were wearing my philosopher hat I would say that it is not earthly possible to be 100% purely objective about anything, especially not about what we believe. Our beliefs are so deeply impacted by our life experiences, both in the past and present.

To try to distance yourself from all the "respondents" in this thread is just silly. You are one of the "respondents".

As to reliable and unbiased sources, I do not believe that there are any. Why? Because every one has an angle, whether it be from a US angle or a European or Asian perspective. So it really comes down to how much you want to pull apart the news you read, how much you want to trust or distrust what you hear and see in the news.

Or maybe we should ask robots to report the news. They have no feeling or prejudice against anything. :)
#14821049
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

    These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

    Factual Reporting: MIXED

    Notes: A daily tabloid type newspaper from New York City. This source can swing very far to the right, but does occasionally provide a balanced account. Not a very credible source overall. (7/16/2016)
User avatar
By Ter
#14821052
@Pants-of-dog
Thank you.

I looked up the New York Times on that web site:

They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.


Both your search for The New York Post and my quote from the NYT seem to confirm what we discussed earlier in this thread.
#14821056
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

    Factual Reporting: HIGH

    Notes: The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated to NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by The New York Times Company. The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. NYT is well sourced and factual in reporting. The paper has a pretty strong left wing editorial bias, but is considered one of the most reliable sources for information. (5/18/2016) Update (4/25/2017)
User avatar
By Ter
#14821058
@Pants-of-dog
Yes but I am certain the perception of over-biased news reporting has damaged the credibility of the NYT. To me this is indisputable but we all have our own biases.
#14821213
I'd like to put it simply...

I tend to trust nearly every source to a degree. Even if I do not believe in the angle that they make, I generally believe there are objective facts in the article. I value getting a biased Leftist opinion as well as a biased Rightist opinion because, ultimately, there is no objective center.

I think that most sources have axes to grind and I do not overly frequent the Leftist Secular Humanist sources, but I really try to make a point to not entirely dismiss them.

I like to make this distinction because it plays both to the fact that we can all learn from other people as well as it reinforces the idea, which should be normal, that the objective does not exist.
#14821234
I think that with any source, there is an amount of truth, whether it includes some factual truths or some truths about feelings at the time. Both I consider truth.

Verv puts it well when he says that he trusts "to a degree." It is like how we feel pain "to a degree."
#14821271
I think that with any source, there is an amount of truth, whether it includes some factual truths or some truths about feelings at the time. Both I consider truth.


I think this is a very good point Misty. It does not do to dismiss something simply because some or even all of the points made are objectively untrue. If the source is willing to act on those falsehoods they have power nonetheless.
#14821287
mikema63 wrote:In that case what conditions lead you to believing a story?

I like audio visuals from various sources before I'm inclined to take something too seriously. However, I now tend to prefer footage from non-journalists. For example, if I want to know what the Syrian war looks like, I go to YouTube or LiveLeaks and watch a bunch of videos. Even video productions that are done for a particular story often get the B-roll wrong. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a video about a weapons platform--say the F-22--where the video also has B-roll of the F-15. Believing something might have happened (getting your attention) and believing the story (veritas) are two very different things.

Decky wrote:Party publications, all else is bourgeois propaganda.

Even that is impossibly naive. A lot of Republican voters thought that the Republicans would repeal ObamaCare, but they've reneged. I knew they would do that. I knew Trump wouldn't repeal it either, but I'm glad he's president just because I despise the establishment.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I trust each source to provide those facts or narrative that support their agenda.

That's why I like Frontline, but believing them is a different matter. They will provide solid facts to support their agenda, but they will omit facts that don't.

Drlee wrote:I trust PBS. I trust the BBC for international news. I like MSNBC and CNN. Fox News is a laughingstock. Before it shut down I appreciated Al Jazeera USA. Sadly it is gone.

PBS is good, but like NPR, it is absolutely biased. The BBC is good for international news. CNN used to have a great foreign news desk, but sadly it's a vestige of its former self. France24 also gives you a perspective you won't get in American media. That's why Al-Jazeera was interesting too. FoxNews is good if you want to know what the Democrats aren't telling you or what the Republicans want you to know. Even RT is good if you want to know what Vladimir Putin's public position is, because you won't get it from an establishment outlet in the US.

Drlee wrote:I agree with POD and also trust work done at universities. I have been around them most of my adult life and have never personally seen a case of deliberately falsified data and very little with a deliberately slanted point of view.

I totally disagree. Cold fusion would be a fine example. First of all, there is a lot of shit work done that doesn't need to be done at all. People should be working on useful projects like how to scale up graphene or carbon nanotubes, and get off of the mating habits of bears and such. A huge chunk of the global warming work is pure bullshit--business-driven government propaganda that uses scientists as a means of trying to bypass public debate on policy, just as Eisenhower had warned about.

Here is a very sad example of how easy it is to destroy your reputation: Stephen Hawking issues dire warning about the threat Trump poses to a livable climate.

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” explained the world’s most famous scientist. “Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250º” C (482°F).

Poor old fool. I'm sure he was well paid for that one.

Maybe the Earth will reach an average of 250F when the Sun becomes a red giant. The paleo record stops at about 22C, or 71F.

I don't know why believing scientists is such a popular thing. Anyone who has seen a court trial has seen the corruption of scientists as expert witnesses. Two scientists will give you diametrically opposite views. One will tell you that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer, and the other will tell you that second hand smoke is even more dangerous than smoking and they are both wrong.

fuser wrote:Economic & political weekly i.e. http://www.epw.in both in print and web format is my preferred place for analysis of national and international events.

Stock, commodity, bond, and currency prices will tell you a lot, but they get manipulated too.

4cal wrote:The news magazines on NPR are the few places you can find in-depth reporting.

I find in-depth reporting more credible on average than a daily news story or headlines, because they have to stack up more facts to support a narrative. That's why 60 Minutes and 20/20 used to be gospel along with Frontline.

Drlee wrote:I am very concerned that those formerly middle class whites who are following him because they feel disenfranchised have yet to discover that they have chosen the wrong side.

Well, you can't say that Hillary was the other side for the formerly middle class. They weren't going to be given a choice, but the establishment figured Trump was a joke. The joke was on the establishment.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Christ, what a load of bollocks. No one can seriously state that Fox News is "fair and balanced".

Not even FoxNews does that anymore. They dropped that line recently. I think that's one of the changes the boys are interested in. FoxNews used to give both sides--meaning the Democrats and the Republicans. However, there are more than two sides, and FoxNews has never been interested in that.

Verv wrote:I'd like to put it simply...

I tend to trust nearly every source to a degree. Even if I do not believe in the angle that they make, I generally believe there are objective facts in the article. I value getting a biased Leftist opinion as well as a biased Rightist opinion because, ultimately, there is no objective center.

I think that most sources have axes to grind and I do not overly frequent the Leftist Secular Humanist sources, but I really try to make a point to not entirely dismiss them.

I like to make this distinction because it plays both to the fact that we can all learn from other people as well as it reinforces the idea, which should be normal, that the objective does not exist.

Well, I do that too. However, I do like to read what non-journalists say. For example, I saw a video that had an anti-drone bias. It was well produced and persuasive, but I ended up totally disagreeing with it. That would be a great opportunity to attack Barack Obama for someone like me. However, I had read soldier accounts like Level Zero Heroes and how the Taliban would do things like kill a woman and child and use them as props to try to make it look like a US Marine JTAC had called in an airstrike on them and killed them, and then tried to extort money. When you read other accounts of soldiers in Afghanistan, you get the very clear impression that women are worth less than livestock in that culture. So this video said that an airstrike killed a boy's grandmother and injured him. No picture of the grandmother, but a boy with a 3.5 inch keloid scar that had healed some time ago on his knee, and he was frowning as the camera panned his well-healed scar. It struck me right away that the NGO lawyer was trying to extort money out of the US government and was probably sympathetic to the Taliban, or otherwise had an anti-US/anti-ISAF bias. The reality is that you just can't trust production quality anymore either.

When I see a national network news report--CBS, NBC, ABC--I'm usually leery of what they report, but typically very impressed with the production quality.

What's interesting about today's news critics, is that they can compete with the networks using green screens, 4k or 1080p cameras, a decent microphone and some video editing software. While Adobe Premiere is probably the best, the free and open source kdenlive is free and now much more stable.

I like Shirvan Nephtli's "Caspian Report." However, he is biased too. It's interesting that one guy can produce at that level now though, including b-roll footage, stock photography, royalty free music, and so forth.
#14821312
Even that is impossibly naive. A lot of Republican voters thought that the Republicans would repeal ObamaCare, but they've reneged. I knew they would do that. I knew Trump wouldn't repeal it either, but I'm glad he's president just because I despise the establishment.


I'm talking about the party. Not just any party. :eh:
#14821378
That is an excellent observation about the Taliban, Blackjack.

I would say that one of the successful aspects of the Taliban is their ability to put their true psychopaths into the needed warrior positions. I know that the culture is a bit barbaric and corrupt to begin with, but even that level of evil -- of killing a woman and her child, photographing i tand trying to extort money -- goes beyond even the healthy bounds of a thoroughly debauched society.

It's really only what a barbarian would do.

And in that regard... they have made a tactically right decision toward their strategy of victory.
#14821854
Ter wrote:I am not sure this is the proper thread to post this but I found the following article interesting, it is about the lack of neutrality in, amongst others, the NYT and WP.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/why-the-me ... -of-trump/


They don't have an obligation to be neutral. They have an obligation to the truth.


(And an obligation to correct errors made in the process of their obligation to to the truth.)

But labor can be sold. But when Marx talked abou[…]

Yeah it's really difficult for teenaged girls to r[…]

@Suntzu > Never has been to Tijuana >Sa[…]

Is It Okay To Be White?

I have a question about white privilege. Is it eq[…]