the latest moving of a thread

[Benjamin Cole]

The moderator makes an immoderate accusation:

"What you see and perceive as our D-Party adherence is really our adherence to the truth. The reason you see it that way is because you trust MAGA news over true news. MAGA news is largely fake news designed to favor Trump, his policies, and his cult following."

The moderator has implied that I trust "fake news," and that I trust MAGA news. 

I am also unable to discern "true" news. 

Should a moderator be so immoderate? 

(BTW, I do not trust MAGA news, whatever that is). 

The moderator is entitled to his views, and to be respected for views---but should the moderator moderate according to his views?

The moderator implies he is able to discern "true" news. 

The moderator has stated MAGA news is "largely fake." Does that mean news from D-Party or R-Party affiliated media outlets is "real"? 

Frankly, I place little trust in all the major news outlets, including Fox, for whatever that is worth.

BTW, I would like to know where the "true" news is published.

I would happily read a "true" news outfit. 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The moderator makes an immoderate accusation:

 

Because Ben keeps on insisting that the moderator (me) moderates according to his political views. Which is nonsense.

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Because Ben keeps on insisting that the moderator (me) moderates according to his political views. Which is nonsense.

 

 

 

OK, afford me at least this small consolation:

Where can I read "true" news? 

I actually try to read some primary materials (time permitting). I consider that a worthy endeavor, somewhat free of filtering biases--but, of course, one must be aware of government or party narratives embedded in official narratives (ponder the Warren Commission). 

You have been reluctant to reveal the news sources you trust, or if not trust, then believe you can decipher and from which divine the truth. 

I have no such confidence my abilities, but would be happy to be advised by you. 

[Sandy Larsen]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, afford me at least this small consolation:

Where can I read "true" news? 

I actually try to read some primary materials (time permitting). I consider that a worthy endeavor, somewhat free of filtering biases--but, of course, one must be aware of government or party narratives embedded in official narratives (ponder the Warren Commission). 

You have been reluctant to reveal the news sources you trust, or if not trust, then believe you can decipher and from which divine the truth. 

I have no such confidence my abilities, but would be happy to be advised by you. 

 

PBS is pretty good. Reuters, but I think it costs.

I watch primetime MSNBC shows to get stuff I'm interested in that the unbiased news sites don't cover. Google News provides news from several news sites. If something smells fishy, I check it out there as well as at Wikipedia and the fact-checking sites like Snopes and Politifact.

I also watch Fox news now and then to make sure MSNBC is being honest. Fox News lies all the time. But they tell the truth on many things. They sometimes have a show that includes one liberal commentator. I liked it when they had liberal Juan Williams on the show. He kept them honest. Unfortunately he's gone and Geraldo Rivera is in. Geraldo is NOT liberal, but he's pretty honest.

Basically I just like to check around the various MSM sites and channels. I have no specific formula other than diversity.

Good luck!

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

PBS is pretty good. Reuters, but I think it costs.

I watch primetime MSNBC shows to get stuff I'm interested in that the unbiased news sites don't cover. Google News provides news from several news sites. If something smells fishy, I check it out there as well as at Wikipedia and the fact-checking sites like Snopes and Politifact.

I also watch Fox news now and then to make sure MSNBC is being honest. Fox News lies all the time. But they tell the truth on many things. They sometimes have a show that includes one liberal commentator. I liked it when they had liberal Juan Williams on the show. He kept them honest. Unfortunately he's gone and Geraldo Rivera is in. Geraldo is NOT liberal, but he's pretty honest.

Basically I just like to check around the various MSM sites and channels. I have no specific formula other than diversity.

Good luck!

 

I recommend streaming news services such as Breaking Points and The Hill, found on Youtube.  The Hill also operates a website.

Find anything by Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Shellenberger--you can Google search.

I have a low opinion of Fox, MSNBC, PBS really all the cable or network news shows. 

The Messenger is new news site, heavily backed, and likely to flop. But in the meantime they are probably worth a look.

But jeez---you know how little broadcast-narrowcast coverage the Biden JFK Records snuff job received. 

IMHO, you are not watching "news," but state-adjacent propaganda. 

 

 

[Mark Knight]

I don't watch anything from FOX News or MSNBC, as both seem biased, but in opposite directions.

I get news summaries in my email every morning from Reuters and The Associated Press. I get twice-daily news briefs from Axios, which I also consider less biased than most. I receive Raw Story updates to stay informed on the "tabloid" style news releases, but I don't completely trust this source for accuracy.

I don't have PBS on my list because they have a pro-liberal REPUTATION. When I studied journalism, reporting the news wasn't meant to be political; you simply reported the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

I don't watch anything from FOX News or MSNBC, as both seem biased, but in opposite directions.

I get news summaries in my email every morning from Reuters and The Associated Press. I get twice-daily news briefs from Axios, which I also consider less biased than most. I receive Raw Story updates to stay informed on the "tabloid" style news releases, but I don't completely trust this source for accuracy.

I don't have PBS on my list because they have a pro-liberal REPUTATION. When I studied journalism, reporting the news wasn't meant to be political; you simply reported the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

MK--

My take on corporate news (or CIA-linked outfits) is that they have become throwbacks to the old party-machine newspaper days. 

This is a period I studied at one point, actually reading some of the yellowing newspapers. We did not have the internet in those days. 

Party loyalty entirely trumped ideology, principles, good governance or truth. The party-affiliated newspapers were there to relate party narratives. 

This resonates with modern journalism. Fox-Wall street Journal went into the GOP camp, and much of media migrated to the D-camp. 

At present the D-Party has somewhat merged itself into the intel state, creating a powerful brew and alliance. 

This in now way makes the R-Party admirable, or Trump a nice guy. 

But it is what I refer to when I talk about "donk-state media." 

Three recent examples were the coverage of Russiagate, the C19 lab leak story and the Hunter Biden laptop story.  Vulgar party narratives were presented as news. 

The 'Phants had a run at such poison when they took after Clinton on his private life, and impeached him. 

The porousness among the intel state, and the Donks and media is now nearly complete. 

The 'Phants are wondering how to create their own rival party-machine media. 

[Michael Griffith]

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

PBS is pretty good. Reuters, but I think it costs.

I watch primetime MSNBC shows to get stuff I'm interested in that the unbiased news sites don't cover. Google News provides news from several news sites. If something smells fishy, I check it out there as well as at Wikipedia and the fact-checking sites like Snopes and Politifact.

I also watch Fox news now and then to make sure MSNBC is being honest. Fox News lies all the time. But they tell the truth on many things. They sometimes have a show that includes one liberal commentator. I liked it when they had liberal Juan Williams on the show. He kept them honest. Unfortunately he's gone and Geraldo Rivera is in. Geraldo is NOT liberal, but he's pretty honest.

Basically I just like to check around the various MSM sites and channels. I have no specific formula other than diversity.

Good luck!

The "fact checks" done by Snopes and Politifact are sometimes inaccurate. 

Wikipedia is erratic, all over the map--it all depends on who writes the article. Their primary editors have a strong anti-conspiracy bias.

NPR and MSNBC are extremely biased and one sided--and monolithic. 

CNN is biased but is less one sided than NPR and MSNBC.

Fox News is biased but is much less one sided than NPR and MSNBC. MSNBC almost never includes conservative guests in their panel discussions and interview segments.

Newsmax is interesting because it includes traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives, and there are often wide gaps in the views of those two camps. Newsmax does a reasonably good job of including liberals in their interview segments, and occasionally in their discussion panels. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

IMHO, you are not watching "news," but state-adjacent propaganda.

 

I'm just as capable as others to weed out the propaganda. You rely on others to do it for you, and who knows how good they are at it?

In the meantime, your selection of news sources are Trump tolerant. They think that it's no big deal for Trump to try and get ~11,000 fake votes. Etc.

It appears to me that the Breaking Point and The Hill YouTube channels just show both the left and right side of the news and let you decide which is right, Again, I can do that myself.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:18 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Where can I read "true" news? 

....

I have no such confidence my abilities, but would be happy to be advised by you. 

 

I figured you were probably being disingenuous when you wrote this post. But I had to be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt.

I was such a sucker.

And your Jan. 6 conspiracy theories are still a joke. Even Trump himself admits to most of what he's done. Others in his administration admit to the rest.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I don't have PBS on my list because they have a pro-liberal REPUTATION.

 

PBS is actually very unbiased. Those on the right paint it as liberal because they get part of their funding from government sources, which is something many on the right don't like.

 

17 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I get news summaries in my email every morning from Reuters and The Associated Press.

 

Reuters and AP are also very unbiased.

 

17 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I don't watch anything from FOX News or MSNBC, as both seem biased, but in opposite directions.

 

I watch them because they go into more depth on issues I'm interested in. After so many years of watching them, it's second nature for me to filter out the nonsense. Though Fox News is so bad sometimes that it angers me.