What sources do you trust? - Page 3 - 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

#14821856
Some sources I trust (not a complete list):

NYT, WaPo, CNN, LAT, Snopes, Vox, BBC, NPR, The New Yorker, Sally Yates, Time, Adam Schiff, Ted Lieu, Talking Points Memo, Pro Publica, Robert Reich, The Atlantic.
#14822156
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.)


This is a very good point. Perhaps the most important comment so far.
#14822242
There are media outlets that have a legal (e.g. BBC) and a self-imposed (e.g. NYT) mandate to be neutral in their reporting. Opinion creeps into news stories easily and the stronger reporters feel about a subject the easier it gets. Editors of high quality and reputable media outlets usually view it as one of their duties to prevent this from happening.

Note that this is about news reporting. Opinion pages and magazines are obviously a different story.

In the Trump era things have changed, which is usually excused by how bad Trump himself is, i.e. the NYT editor claims that Trump has changed the media and how they report. This is ridiculous.
#14822612
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:There are media outlets that have a legal (e.g. BBC) and a self-imposed (e.g. NYT) mandate to be neutral in their reporting.


Do you have a link to the NYT's self-imposed mandate? I'd like to read it. I looked on their website but couldn't find anything.

Opinion creeps into news stories easily and the stronger reporters feel about a subject the easier it gets.


No source will be completely without bias. It's also the reader's responsibility to do due diligence.
#14822629
anna wrote:
Do you have a link to the NYT's self-imposed mandate? I'd like to read it. I looked on their website but couldn't find anything.

No source will be completely without bias. It's also the reader's responsibility to do due diligence.

It is (or was) generally understood that the NYT holds itself to the highest standards, which obviously must include fair and neutral reporting and at least trying to represent the full range of political perspectives present in America. It's not only a matter of journalistic integrity, but builds public trust and widens the user base. At least that's my understanding of how it used to be. Perhaps it was only a thin veneer of trying to appear neutral in the recent past anyway?

The question of striving for neutrality and fairness reminds me of how appointed judges are considered liberal and conservative in the US and how their judgments are expected and tend to conform with their politics. When I first came across this, I thought it was outrageous. Where I come from and where I live now this is unheard of and would undermine the courts' and judges' credibility. On the other hand, somebody recently put it to me that perhaps Americans are just more honest and upfront about it. After all, as you say, being completely unbiased seems to be impossible.

I guess the question is whether striving for impartiality is worth it and makes a difference.
#14822736
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:It is (or was) generally understood that the NYT holds itself to the highest standards, which obviously must include fair and neutral reporting and at least trying to represent the full range of political perspectives present in America.


That's not at all what you said, though. You said the NYT had a "self-imposed (e.g. NYT) mandate to be neutral in their reporting." That sounds pretty concrete, and it ought to be written down somewhere. If it's not, then maybe it's not an accurate statement to have made about them.
#14822743
anna wrote:
That's not at all what you said, though. You said the NYT had a "self-imposed (e.g. NYT) mandate to be neutral in their reporting." That sounds pretty concrete, and it ought to be written down somewhere. If it's not, then maybe it's not an accurate statement to have made about them.

I don't think there is any difference in the substance of the two statements. Maybe something is lost in translation for me.

And does it actually matter whether this is written down somewhere? Fox News had it written down that they were fair and balanced (or something along those lines) and nobody was or is under any illusion that they are a right wing outlet.
#14822744
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I don't think there is any difference in the substance of the two statements. Maybe something is lost in translation for me.


There is a difference. First you said the NYT had a "self-imposed" mandate to be neutral, then you said it was "generally understood" - which means (in a very vague sense) that the mandate isn't actually self-mandated by the NYT but is inferred by nebulous others. So - apples and oranges.

And does it actually matter whether this is written down somewhere?


It does, because it would have provided support for your assertion that they've imposed a mandate on themselves to maintain neutrality.
#14822752
anna wrote:
There is a difference. First you said the NYT had a "self-imposed" mandate to be neutral, then you said it was "generally understood" - which means (in a very vague sense) that the mandate isn't actually self-mandated by the NYT but is inferred by nebulous others. So - apples and oranges.

Okay, but are you actually claiming that the NYT does not understand itself in the way I've described?

anna wrote:It does, because it would have provided support for your assertion that they've imposed a mandate on themselves to maintain neutrality.

My point is that even if it was written down somewhere, it wouldn't lend it more credibility than a general public regard for the NYT as an - as far as this is possible - impartial and neutral newspaper that wants to appeal to a wide user base and not to only one side of the political spectrum. Publications can claim to be all kinds of things and Fox News is a case in point.
#14822854
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Okay, but are you actually claiming that the NYT does not understand itself in the way I've described?


Eh. We're just going in circles. I'm not claiming they don't make an attempt to be aware of bias in a general sense but my point was that you were attributing a self-mandate to them that wasn't their creation, it was yours.

My point is that even if it was written down somewhere, it wouldn't lend it more credibility than a general public regard for the NYT as an - as far as this is possible - impartial and neutral newspaper that wants to appeal to a wide user base and not to only one side of the political spectrum. Publications can claim to be all kinds of things and Fox News is a case in point.


I don't expect any news organization to be impartial and neutral. I think that's an impossible bar, and because it's impossible, easy for one who has a different bias to point fingers and say "See? Not neutral! Not neutral!"

I never, even when I was a conservative, saw FOX as "fair and balanced." We all knew what side FOX was on, and the only way you could truthfully put "balanced" into the equation was that they were on the other side of the scale from the rest of the MSM so they "balanced" out a more liberal approach.

It still falls on the consumer to weigh their sources, but it's so human to put ourselves in a silo that it's the exception to the rule who consciously and regularly exposes themselves to news and opinion from viewpoints different from their own. I celebrate them, they're worth emulating - but they're still the exception to the rule. For the people (in the U.S.) who even care enough to follow news and opinion (and so many don't, and that's so dangerous), for the most part they're either going to be in the FOX/Drudge/Breitbart/Rush silo, or they're going to be in the NYT/MSNBC/CNN/WaPo silo.
#14822866
Very few media publications present raw facts. There is almost always an agenda to adhere to.
Every morning I turn on the news. Both Canadian and CNN. Sometime BBC, which I happen to think is one of the most impartial.
Every morning I watch Chris Kuomo and his co-host who's name I can't remember, try like hell to paint pictures of "reality" that are complete nonsense.
Today I watch the 2 of 'em wrestle with the fact that Donny Jr. has broken no laws, so they attempt to make this meeting of his an "ethical" matter.
Let's be honest with ourselves. The words "ethical" and "politics" do not belong in the same sentence.
That's what makes the USA so very amusing. The media has known for a long time that if they repeat falsehoods often enough, they'll be eventually accepted as fact. So they get what they deserve. The world as Donald Trump sees it.
Is that a commentary on the media, or is it a commentary on the average intellect of the American population?
#14822881
AFAIK wrote: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.


This is a joke right ? Seriously 8 years of Obama lying through his teeth and 9/10ths of the media covering it up never happened. Let keep things real.
#14822896
Finfinder wrote:This is a joke right ? Seriously 8 years of Obama lying through his teeth and 9/10ths of the media covering it up never happened. Let keep things real.

Yes let's do.
First of all, Hillary-Billary has played hanky-panky with the raw truth of things, as many times as any politician alive. And let's remember that lies of omission are still lies. Which means that, more than likely, Obama lies as well. "Nature of the beast" and all that. Even though he had a lack-luster-ish 8 years, he actually did some good...and he did some silly shit. I don't know who advised him to announced that "line" that shouldn't be crossed but, that person was not too sharp. Nor was Barry for actually announcing such a foolish thing. IMO, in modern history, Bush 2.0 wins the "Groovy Guy of the Century" award for the best liar.

AFAIK, I don't know anyone who actually lies 10 times a day. So I'm sort of inclined to believe that you're engaging in the same sort of horse-shit that the news media in the states likes to engage in. Ya, conga-rats for that... :roll:
Trumpy is definitely odd. And that's a major reason he's been elected President of the USA. He doesn't...or should I say "didn't" smell like a politician. He is obtaining that certain odor now though. His verbal presentations are just about as awkward and at times juvenile as his Twitter-ing. A POTUS who uses Twitter while taking a mid-morning crap...ya gotta admit, there's something odd about this cat. However...he is following through on his fence and the immigration/visa thing. The ACA is being dissected. These happen to be the main policy items the man presented while running. But the "Dumb-ocrats" are so incensed that Hillary-Billary got out-played by this...buffoon, that they've taken their eye off the ball. They're gonna lose the policy debates completely, because they have had their feelings hurt and can't get over it. Nobody even talks about how Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign at the DNC for actively fucking over Bernie. And who doesn't strongly think that Hillary-Billary wasn't aware of this goings-on? Hmmm? You do realize Bernie would have killed Donny, one-on-one...don't you?
:lol:
Indeed, US politics is fun to watch. And the input the news media has is friggin' wild to watch...as a "foreigner". It's amazing that so many actually believe, verbatim, the horse-shit you're shoveled.
I sure hope someone with an actual PLAN that puts the USA as a whole first is at the helm, instead of the usual cast of corporate pirates. Cause if that guy don' exist...we're all fucked.
#14822953
Buzz62 wrote:Very few media publications present raw facts. There is almost always an agenda to adhere to.
Every morning I turn on the news. Both Canadian and CNN. Sometime BBC, which I happen to think is one of the most impartial.
Every morning I watch Chris Kuomo and his co-host who's name I can't remember, try like hell to paint pictures of "reality" that are complete nonsense.
Today I watch the 2 of 'em wrestle with the fact that Donny Jr. has broken no laws, so they attempt to make this meeting of his an "ethical" matter.
Let's be honest with ourselves. The words "ethical" and "politics" do not belong in the same sentence.
That's what makes the USA so very amusing. The media has known for a long time that if they repeat falsehoods often enough, they'll be eventually accepted as fact. So they get what they deserve. The world as Donald Trump sees it.
Is that a commentary on the media, or is it a commentary on the average intellect of the American population?


I don't know... sounds like another Canadian opining on Americans to me.

But you raise a good point - it didn't occur to me to list a Canadian news source in my list. ;)
#14822954
:lol: Ya Canadian new is a little less "mythical".
But most of it is pretty left-leaning.

You'll just have to trust me when I say, America...been there, done that, not interested.
I'm just quirky. I enjoy comic relief... 8)
#14822958
The world seems to be buying the idea of Canada as a 'paradise'. I wonder why Canada has so many secessionist movements then?
#14822959
Buzz62 wrote:You'll just have to trust me when I say, America...been there, done that, not interested.
I'm just quirky. I enjoy comic relief... 8)


Oh, no worries, I trust you on that. :)

And you can trust me when I say I almost... almost made it to the Canadian border once. I was on a trip from my home state of CA through OR and on to Seattle and then north of that, and got within 50 miles of the border, and decided to turn around and head back home. 8)
#14822967
Ya One Degree, we have our own silly people too. But I suspect that the world sees Canada as a place that sends "Peace Keeping Forces" instead of "Shock and Awe". But I think it's deeper than that. I mean...we aren't full of ourselves. For instance, nobody here says things like, "I'm from the great province of Alberta!"

anna: You should have come for a visit. BC is a beautiful place. And when you tell us that you're from the great state of California, we'll giggle a bit under our breath, and then commence to explain just exactly where you are in Canada. You'll be treated politely and generally nicely, after which, you may not want to go back.
#14822968
Buzz62 wrote:Ya One Degree, we have our own silly people too. But I suspect that the world sees Canada as a place that sends "Peace Keeping Forces" instead of "Shock and Awe".


Seriously here, I agree with you 100% on this.

But I think it's deeper than that. I mean...we aren't full of ourselves. For instance, nobody here says things like, "I'm from the great province of Alberta!"


No, they tend more towards "commentary on the average intellect of the American population..."

anna: You should have come for a visit. BC is a beautiful place. And when you tell us that you're from the great state of California, we'll giggle a bit under our breath, and then commence to explain just exactly where you are in Canada. You'll be treated politely and generally nicely, after which, you may not want to go back.


I'm sure BC is gorgeous since it's like a continuation of Washington ( 8) sorry, had to do that because you might have been expecting it and I didn't want to disappoint you), and I'd really like to get back that far north again, maybe over to Lake Louise. As far as saying I'm from CA - not even OR or WA want to see us - what's up with that? :eh:

@Kaiserschmarrn what is more important: acedemic[…]

Of course things are changable. But at first, the[…]

EU-BREXIT

Well here is a solution : if the people of Gibral[…]

Will it matter? Ultimately I doubt much will ch[…]