SoylentNews

Looking for Reputable Online News Sources

posted by Fnord666 on Friday December 28 2018, @05:19PM   
from the who-do-you-trust? dept.

martyb writes:

For on-line news, what sites do you avoid and which ones do you seek out as being trustworthy?

Thanks to my position as an editor on SoylentNews, I've had the privilege of viewing story submissions which have referenced a veritable plethora of different sources. It has been a privilege to serve you these past few years. My goal has been to provide stories that cover a diversity of areas but always with an attempt to provide level-headed background. I strive to avoid shrill in-your-face!!!!elevnty! diatribes. To invoke a common mis-quotation "Just the facts, ma'am." Full confession: I'm not above posting an occasional funny or feel-good story, either.

Over time, I've come to learn that some sources are more reputable than others. News outlets are comprised of people who have their own biases; some try to remain objective whereas others use their position to push an agenda.

For example, I've learned here that RT is a mouthpiece for the Russian government (A modern-day Pravda, if you will).

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), on the other hand, is funded primarily through a television license costing £147 per year per household. But, it has received a funding boost from government to expand its global reach.

Fox News has had complaints about its content and has had its share of controversies. But even some commonly-held beliefs about Fox News have proved exaggerated and not fully supported by the facts.

ScienceDaily, phys.org, CNET, Quora, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), ESA (European Space Agency), Spaceflight Now, weather.gov, and Hurricane Prediction Center are just some of the sites that I have found especially helpful.

So, I turn to the SoylentNews community:

• What biases have you found with MSM (main-stream media)?
• what 'news' sites do YOU avoid? Why?
• where do YOU find trustworthy, unbiased, fact-supported news?

Bonus question: What would you think of a news story on SoylentNews whose only supporting link is CNN? Fox News? Breitbart?

---

Original Submission

• Biased at every level Biased at every level (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Friday December 28 2018, @06:27PM (1 child)

  by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday December 28 2018, @06:27PM (#779409) Journal

  What biases have you found with MSM

  • The reporters bring in bias with what questions they choose, and how they frame the answers.
  • The editors being in bias with what stories they send reporters to get, and what stories they accept.
  • The publisher (owner/board/stockholders) bring in bias with the requirements placed upon the editors, who in turn inflict those on the reporters.
  • The advertisers apply bias by pressing the publisher financially to cover this, but not that, and/or see to it that certain framings are adhered to.
  • The readers apply bias by selecting the news source that best matches their preconceptions.
  • Society applies preset biases via broadly accepted social inertia imposing noise from (for instance) nationalism, jingoism, superstition and religion. These, in turn, strongly control framing. One fairly obvious example is extreme violence is generally deemed suitable for the public, but even pretty vanilla sexuality is not.
  • Classic (and utterly deceptive) attempts to provide "balance" by doing things like contrasting consensually experiential, repeatable, objective data with superstition as if it was a valid thing to do.
  • The tendency of "baby down the well" stories to force actual consequential stories to lesser levels of prominence or even outright off the board — because that stuff sells.

  It's not just the MSM, either. Smaller outlets and government outlets are just as prone to most, sometimes all, of this.

  My approach is to try to look at multiple sources and try to work my way down the lowest level of underlying presumption and question from there on up. I find it quite difficult; but I also find that it works better than just sitting there drooling and accepting whatever the pablum of the day the news source is trying to serve up.

  some commonly-held beliefs about Fox News have proved exagerated[sic] and not fully supported by the facts.

  Sure. There are pretty much always untrue allegations thrown by people who severely dislike pretty just about any focus of attention. However, the fact is that Fox News is guilty of presenting its audience with such severely biased outlooks and reporting that quite aside from any untrue allegations about them, there is more than enough factual assessment of their agitprop vending to assemble a solid assessment of them as one of the very worst of the worst.

  Saying some allegations about them are exaggerated doesn't exonerate them in the least; it's like saying "well, but mass murderer John Doe never actually strangled kittens" — he's still a bloody mass murderer.

  The fair and balanced truth is: Fox News really, really sucks. If accuracy is even slightly on your information-gathering agenda, you need a different information source.

  --
  If you enjoy TV, you have a stake in a medium rarely well done.

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+3
  Flamebait=1, Insightful=4, Total=5
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		5

• Re:Biased at every level (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 28 2018, @11:25PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 28 2018, @11:25PM (#779510)

  Oblig:

  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvcJMknXgAANtAN.jpg [twimg.com]

  Parent