What Is *Real* News?

[Independent voter]

I'm not asking for 100% accurate sources, just trustworthy ones.

You can trust Associated Press.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/...P&SECTION=HOME

It sells news to thousands of media outlets around the world, if AP is wrong you can bet someone will say they are wrong. Even then they occasionally make mistakes and post corrections.

There's not any editorializing like Fox New's Bill O'Reilly or that kind of thing, no opinion pieces. You read it and make up your own mind.

I trust it anyways.

[Adolecent]

Five Core Principles of Journalism

Truth and Accuracy
Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

Independence
Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

Fairness and Impartiality
Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

Humanity
Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.

Accountability
A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.

EJN supporters do not believe that we need to add new rules to regulate journalists and their work in addition to the responsibilities outlined above, but we do support the creation of a legal and social framework, that encourages journalists to respect and follow the established values of their craft.

In doing so, journalists and traditional media, will put themselves in a position to be provide leadership about what constitutes ethical freedom of expression. What is good for journalism is also good for others who use the Internet or online media for public communications.

http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/...-of-journalism

The problem with the highly commercial and/or political motivations of media companies is that it undermines their credibility. What one can do is check if an article is written where the facts are confirment by another, independant, source and "audi alteram partem" is used.

The last 2 decades it has become more easy to spread fake news realy fast, but has also became more easy for news consumers to check facts yourself. So, as with anything in life, it is your own goddamn responsibility to distinguish true from false!

[Crillam]

Real news comes from Trump the shitlord himself or every time the media says something good about Trump.
Tbh real news are when it comes from multible confirmed sources. So if every media report on the same thing but the source came from only 1 person named Carl livning down the street, that is not reliable. Unless there are some sort of proof like a recording etc.

[ParanoiD84]

Sadly have to check multiple sources and see if they report the same.

[Flutterguy]

You can trust Associated Press.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/...P&SECTION=HOME

It sells news to thousands of media outlets around the world, if AP is wrong you can bet someone will say they are wrong. Even then they occasionally make mistakes and post corrections.

There's not any editorializing like Fox New's Bill O'Reilly or that kind of thing, no opinion pieces. You read it and make up your own mind.

I trust it anyways.

The AP is the least likely to have those issues, but it's not a stranger to them.

[Dezerte]

Obscure YouTubers, www.truthism.com or directly from the ruling government's mouth. Facebook, meme's and to some extent private interests (that interest generally being "making more money").

It is an unfortunate reality that even with the easy access to information, thanks to the Internet, that we find ourselves even less sure of what is true. Wikipedia is perhaps among the most trustworthy due to it's nature, followed by international/independent news agencies such as AP.

[primalmatter]

Anything with a credible source. Wikileaks for example has a exlamperary track record.

[Deleted]

Anything with a credible source. Wikileaks for example has a exlamperary track record.

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[primalmatter]

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

... care to explain? Are you suggesting wikileaks isn't creditable?

[Djuntas]

Phillip Defranco is great, STATE run news organizations. Like in Denmark we have Danmarks Radio.

[Deleted]

... care to explain? Are you suggesting wikileaks isn't creditable?

They are biased. I yet have to read an article on wikileaks that contradicts the russian government.

[ParanoiD84]

You should never be sad about "having to check multiple sources". You should do that anyway if you want really be informed.

I guess so, wouldn't the ultimate be one massive site that everyone checks and that always brings the truth though

[Deleted]

Real news is when facts are presented as they are, based on actual confirmed information, without attached opinion, without speculation.

But those are boring to dumb people who can't think for themselves, therefore they aren't popular and don't result in good ratings.

[primalmatter]

They are biased. I yet have to read an article on wikileaks that contradicts the russian government.

There is so much wrong with your logic I am not really sure where to start...

Because they don't have a bunch of info on every single nation on earth they must not be creditable...

I wonder at times what lies you were taught that have set you down such a dark road.

[Deleted]

They are biased. I yet have to read an article on wikileaks that contradicts the russian government.

Maybe that's an issue of you believing too much in mainstream media, not issue of wikileaks credibility.

[Deleted]

Because they don't have a bunch of info on every single nation on earth they must not be creditable...

They have a ton of informations about the syria conflict. But just nothing compromising.

And no, they arent credible. They even questioned the authentity of the panama papers.

I wonder at times what lies you were taught that have set you down such a dark road.

It is not me who is lying. Take a look on the "alternative facts" trump produces. As like the "sweden-miracle" he tried yesterday.. while infact nothing happened.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe that's an issue of you believing too much in mainstream media, not issue of wikileaks credibility.

I believe in real news. After i double- or even triple checked them.

Do you actually check your news?

[primalmatter]

They have a ton of informations about the syria conflict. But just nothing compromising.

And no, they arent credible. They even questioned the authentity of the panama papers.



It is not me who is lying. Take a look on the "alternative facts" trump produces. As like the "sweden-miracle" he tried yesterday.. while infact nothing happened.

- - - Updated - - -



I believe in real news. After i double- or even triple checked them.

Do you actually check your news?

Why bring Trump into this at all. What has wikileaks made up or lied about that makes them a non creditable source?

I will bring you into the light out of darkness even if I must drag you kicking and screaming out.

[Deleted]

Why bring Trump into this at all. What has wikileaks made up or lied about that makes them a non creditable source?

I told you they are biased. A biased source that only publishes informations which contradict only selected targets isnt credible.

If the informations they publish based on their bias are credible, is another question. I am sure the DNC email leaks were authentic. In special considering the fact what followed those leaks.

I will bring you into the light out of darkness even if I must drag you kicking and screaming out.

Thanks, i dont need your "guidance". Better start to read different news sources and not just your filter bubbles.

[Orbitus]

It's interesting how this "fake news" stuff came about at a time when the major media outlets are enjoying their lowest public trust ratings (at least according the the Pew Poll) in polling history.

When you have the President of the United States telling his followers that live in his bubble, that the news is fake, then of course their opinion of the news is going to go down. But then they believe in the news sources that Trump does, which are habitually incorrect on almost EVERYTHING. Places like Breitbart, Infowars, fucking blogs, and now that even people on Fox News is turning against him. Which is great, because they are the only right wing cable news network, and even they are showing that Trump is batshit insane.

[D3thray]

Slow down there.

Yes, NYT published an article about it. But if I remember right, most mainstream news articles admitted that the source wasn't confirmed, and usually stated as much early on in their article about the leak.

Furthermore, the leaked "Russian Contact" documents were in fact real documents. The contents there-in were not able to be confirmed yes or no.

And Buzzfeed is the website is the where the leak was originally posted, and if it wasn't posted on Buzzfeed, then I doubt you'd have seen any of the other mainstream sites talking about it.

I think there's a word for spreading around unverified stories...

Oh right. Gossip. It's gossip. Passed off as news. In the New York Times.

This is not defensible.