What is your most trusted source for news?

[Deleted]

Sorry, but when you are FACTUALLY WRONG, your opinion doesn't fucking matter. When you listen to a literal character, yes he is a character, he admitted it to a court of law when he was going to lose his kids, and take him as truth, then yes you are in fact IGNORANT.

You claim they are fake news, but haven't shown anything that has been proven fake. You claimed you had some but I thoroughly debunked them handily and you handwaved them away because you are FUCKING GULLIBLE.

And you say they have to remain partial? You mean non-partial? Because you will not find a source that isn't partial. Except for NPR, AP, Reuters, and maybe BBC.

Infowars doesn't qualify as "non-partial". There is a reason that it didn't get Whitehouse credentials until the orangutan in chief got there.

And no, the Russia investigations aren't "completely BS claim". Otherwise there wouldn't be what? 5 or so investigations into it? The FBI, House, Senate, Meuller's investigation, possibly others. Then there are 2 grand juries in Virginia and New York. Then there is 2 more lawsuits from DC and New York for his breach of the emoluments clause. It isn't going away.

But what do you expect from someone from "Jesusland"? You aren't someone that lives in reality obviously.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission

If they blow unimportant details out of proportion, take things out of context and hide the facts that are harmful to their agenda, it also counts as fake news. But lately they have started telling actual lies too.

Why do I even bother replying to you, you're obviously one of their useful idiots(it's a term, not an insult).. the number of investigations is meaningless. They do that because Trump actually managed to grab power from those globalists and they can't have it, so they are doing everything they can to discredit him, slander him and eventually get rid of him. As long as they dont have actual unquestionable proof, they can whine and complain as they like. Innocent until proven guilty.

Oh and I did notice that.. how typically regressive from you. Im not only from "Jesusland" but Im also like 75% white and I also joined the local college Republicans! Feeling triggered yet? Cause you can't leave your silly identity politics out of anything.

[JamesMartigo]

[QUOTE=Gombado;46136223]please lay down the crackpipe, nos has a more left agenda than cnn

- - - Updated - - -

Wikipedia is more accurate than encyclopedia's, the verification happens by everyone.

Lay down the crackpipe? What a weird rude reply. There's not much point discussing whether they have a left or right agenda, but you have to agree that they conduct themselves in a professional matter. No sensationalism, no cute human interest stories, no gimmicks. If you've seen the difference with some American news shows among others, you can clearly see how calmly and seemingly neutral the news is brought.

[Deleted]

[QUOTE=JamesMartigo;46158387]

please lay down the crackpipe, nos has a more left agenda than cnn

- - - Updated - - -



Lay down the crackpipe? What a weird rude reply. There's not much point discussing whether they have a left or right agenda, but you have to agree that they conduct themselves in a professional matter. No sensationalism, no cute human interest stories, no gimmicks. If you've seen the difference with some American news shows among others, you can clearly see how calmly and seemingly neutral the news is brought.

They are 'better' than the americans, but that is a low bar to set.

And no cute human interest stories? LOOOOLL , I went on their website, this is the first article I saw. http://nos.nl/artikel/2178802-door-a...-de-regie.html


You sir are either delusional or dishonest, the nos is manipulative left wing organisation.

[Orange Joe]

Phillip DeFranco.

Same here, but I also try to get news from difference sources to see what is different between them.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah yes, I meant to also create a category for internet clickbait trash.

Where did the ebul phillyD touch you?

[Kynario]

BBC.

I don't trust anything from the US.

[Grapemask]

My favorite people are Fox News people. Especially when they start insisting "CNN is just as bad/worse." Other news networks and their own problems aside, of the top news networks, only Fox News regularly pulls stories directly from backwater blogs and cites them as "credible sources," while also rewriting them with blatant political spin. The major "left leaning" networks at least show an effort to try to lean back the other way, even if they may fail to do so - but Fox News has no shame in its conservative agenda.

But my favorite brand of Fox News people are the ones who say "I don't watch Fox News, I get all of my news from various sources and make my own opinions." That "various sources" line is almost always a dead giveaway that they're getting their news from some deeply biased source. It's like the ultimate defense mechanism for people who are fighting some severe cognitive dissonance.

[Deleted]

Guardian and Le Monde

[Dismembered]

liveleak i would say

// and this poll is pretty shit, i mean come on.. breitbart, infowars or cnn, why not facebook?

[Mormolyce]

Where did the ebul phillyD touch you?

What's the part of the human body that reacts to mediocre clickwhores?

[Moralgy]

From this poll, I feel the forum isn't really filled with "insane liburalz" like we hear constantly. Who would have guessed.

[Chinese Bootlickers]

Phillip De Franco and a few other newstubers.

[Blade Wolf]

What's the part of the human body that reacts to mediocre clickwhores?

You mean how he used to be?

[Bakis]

These poll options suck its very limited.
AP, Reuter, WP, BBC are fine in my book. I'm overall dubious to mainstream US media to say the least.

[Will]

So in short if you're getting your news on social media, you're getting it from professional journalists. But its being filtered through an intermediary (other users who watch the professionals) before it reaches you.

Not necessarily true. When the recent attacks in London happened, a lot of folk got the answers they needed from regular citizens on social media long before they got it from the journalists. You'd be surprised how much you can learn off regular folk whilst the 'professionals' are still repeating the same shit over and over. This fact itself actually made news recently in the UK where a lot of the younger generation were telling news about the attacks to the older generation long before they heard about it from the actual news organisations.

So no, in many ways it can be normal people who live through these things who can provide news faster and more accurately than the journalists who make their way to the scene. I get my news from people like you and I. People who are living in a place when a bomb goes off, who then tell you directly on things like Facebook the horrors of what they just experienced. Straight from the lion's mouth. No intermediary. Please don't assume you know me or how I get my news

[Heladys]

CBC/BBC/any other non-american source > Any american source > FOX > Breitbart

[-Nurot]

I'm unsure why infowars is in the poll.

The topic does say news and not conspiracy trash right?

I mean unless we've actually started believing 9/11 was a false flag, that Bin Laden was innocent and Israel was involved in bringing the towers down. The Colorado movie theater shooter was a false flag, pizza gate was real, sandy hook was a false flag/no one died and it was staged. The Boston marathon bombing was a false flag. The list of garbage that they've actually had headlines for goes on and on and on and.......

If you read that garbage great, but I think we can ascertain 100% that fictional websites, not only, should not be anyone's primary source of news, but they shouldn't be considered news at all.

[Zmaniac17]

Not necessarily true. When the recent attacks in London happened, a lot of folk got the answers they needed from regular citizens on social media long before they got it from the journalists. You'd be surprised how much you can learn off regular folk whilst the 'professionals' are still repeating the same shit over and over. This fact itself actually made news recently in the UK where a lot of the younger generation were telling news about the attacks to the older generation long before they heard about it from the actual news organisations.

So no, in many ways it can be normal people who live through these things who can provide news faster and more accurately than the journalists who make their way to the scene. I get my news from people like you and I. People who are living in a place when a bomb goes off, who then tell you directly on things like Facebook the horrors of what they just experienced. Straight from the lion's mouth. No intermediary. Please don't assume you know me or how I get my news

Yes, you're right there's no substitute for eye witnesses. However, there is a relatively big problem with this type of news. People are generally unreliable when it comes to reporting. It actually takes a lot of training to be able to report a story accurately and with due diligence. In addition to this, most people cannot be asked to understand a story in-depth and will only up or down vote based on their initial impression.

Reporters go to the eyewitnesses and figure out what exactly happened. Piecing together a story through social media is difficult for normal people who don't have the time or will power to sort through every piece of information and make an informed conclusion. That is why there are many false stories on social media because people just share them without checking other sources.

Also social media is problematic because, in addition to the lack of due diligence and accuracy, it only elevates stories that prove easy to understand and enjoyable to read through the up and down voting process. Many stories that would otherwise be important will get relegated to obscurity because not many people could understand them or could figure out what the real story was and why it was important. This is the low-information-voter problem we see manifesting itself all over the world today.

Good story tellers (such as reporters) are not a dime a dozen. And given that we rely so heavily on them to understand our world, I think they deserve some appreciation. I don't believe they can be replaced by social media.


BTW None of this is meant to be a critique of you. My original post was only meant to highlight that most social media news actually comes from regular professional news reporters. Some is original, but like I said in this post that has issues as well.

[Mormolyce]

You mean how he used to be?

Used to my ass. I've seen the thumbnails he's using to this day.

[Orbitus]

I'm unsure why infowars is in the poll.

The topic does say news and not conspiracy trash right?

I mean unless we've actually started believing 9/11 was a false flag, that Bin Laden was innocent and Israel was involved in bringing the towers down. The Colorado movie theater shooter was a false flag, pizza gate was real, sandy hook was a false flag/no one died and it was staged. The Boston marathon bombing was a false flag. The list of garbage that they've actually had headlines for goes on and on and on and.......

If you read that garbage great, but I think we can ascertain 100% that fictional websites, not only, should not be anyone's primary source of news, but they shouldn't be considered news at all.

Guess you didn't read where Cherise believes that it is true compared to CNN and Washington Post and that Alex Jones is like 90% truthful. I didn't facepalm. I had to break out the tripe facepalm that slapped my own face off at the stupidity.

[Zathrendar]

Myself. I'll look at things from both points of view and sift through the bullshit.

Right, because you have infinite time.