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

• Journalistic Norms And Methods... (Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday December 28 2018, @11:05PM

  by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Friday December 28 2018, @11:05PM (#779503) Homepage Journal

  Given that errors are inevitable whenever humans are involved, it seems to me that a "reputable" news source would be one that adheres to journalistic norms, methods and ethics [wikipedia.org].

  There are a variety of organizations which attempt to quantify the levels to which sites adhere to such methods and ethics. For example, NewsGuard [newsguardtech.com] details their analytical process for identifying those that do:

  A news or information website is rated green if its content is produced by people who are trying to communicate news, information, and opinion that they believe is accurate, and who adhere to practices aimed at ensuring basic standards of accuracy and accountability. A site is rated red if it fails to meet these minimum standards.

  As explained below, NewsGuard uses 9 specific criteria to evaluate these possible points of failure. We start with the premise that a site should be green until our evaluation of the site, based on those 9 criteria, produces a red rating.
  [...]
  Here are the 9 criteria that NewsGuard uses in determining if a provider is rated red. A site that fails to adhere to a preponderance of these criteria, as described in the weighted criteria definitions below, are rated red. No site must adhere to all of the criteria to be rated green.

  In every case the NewsGuard Nutrition Labels that are provided for each site (by clicking on the rating) spell out the site’s adherence to each of the 9 criteria that yielded that source’s particular rating.

  The 9 criteria below are listed in order of their importance in determining a red rating. For example, failure to adhere to the first criteria—publishing false content—will be more influential in determining a red rating than failure to reveal information about content creators.

  Credibility

  • Does not repeatedly publish false content: In the last three years the site has not produced multiple stories that have been found—either by journalists at NewsGuard or elsewhere—to be clearly false, and which have not been quickly and prominently corrected. (22 Points. A label with a score lower than 60 points gets a red rating.)

  • Gathers and presents information responsibly: Content on the site is created by reporters, writers, videographers, researchers, or other information providers who generally seek to be accurate and fair in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information, even if they approach their work from a strong point of view. They do this by referencing multiple sources, preferably those that present direct, firsthand information on a subject or event. (18 Points)

  • Regularly corrects or clarifies errors: The site makes clear how to contact those in charge and has effective practices for publishing clarifications and corrections. (12.5 Points)

  • Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly: Content providers who convey the impression that they report news or a mix of news and opinion distinguish opinion from news reporting, and when reporting news, they do not regularly or egregiously misstate, distort, or cherry pick facts, or egregiously cherry pick stories, to advance opinions. Content providers whose clearly expressed purpose is to advance a particular point of view do not regularly and egregiously misstate or distort facts to make their case. (12.5 Points)

  • Avoids deceptive headlines: The site generally does not publish headlines that include false information, significantly sensationalize, or otherwise do not reflect what is actually in the story. (10 Points)

  Transparency

  • Website discloses ownership and financing: The site discloses its ownership and/or financing, as well as any notable ideological or political positions held by those with a significant financial interest in the site, in a user-friendly manner. (7.5 Points)

  • Clearly labels advertising: The site makes clear which content is paid for and which is not. (7.5 Points)

  • Reveals who’s in charge, including any possible conflicts of interest: Information about those in charge of the content is made accessible on the site, including any possible conflicts of interest. (5 Points)

  • Provides information about content creators: Information about those producing the content is made accessible on the site. (5 Points)

  Whether or not you give Newsguard (and Steven Brill [c-span.org]) validation and agree with the ratings they provide, the criteria listed are both valid and can be applied by using common sense, a modicum of critical thinking skills and an open mind.

  That's not to say that a "reputable" news source won't ever make mistakes, because they will. Whether they've been deliberately misled by sources, incorrectly stated facts or some other boner, how they deal with such issues is also quite important.

  If you apply the criteria above, you will likely find that some sources you dislike/disagree with are, in fact, reputable sources of news. Contrariwise, you will likely also find that some sources you like/agree with aren't.

  Can you be open-minded enough to apply criteria like the above when assessing the reputation of a news source?

  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr

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