Where To Get Honest New Reporting ??


PDA






WALKERs210
September 23, 2013, 03:26 PM
I have finally admitted to myself that for the most part the main stream media has no desire to present an honest informed report. Mostly think they are more concerned about being First with the story and then fill in the blanks later. A few days back I saw an add on Direct TV for a new addition to their selection of channels which is a News broadcast service Al Jazeer America. I will probably be corrected but not a problem here but it was my understanding that this news agency was a Middle East based and in the past have posted more stories that put the US in a negative position. But after loosing faith in FOX, CNN, and the majority of others I would like to find one place that I can half way feel that what I am hearing is close to the truth. CNN's P. Morgan has made me so mad at the way he slams any one that owns a firearm that if I happen to turn to CNN and he is on I just keep going to something else like maybe Disney channel where at least the viewer knows it's make believe.

If you enjoyed reading about "Where To Get Honest New Reporting ??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
deadin
September 23, 2013, 03:29 PM
I would like to find one place that I can half way feel that what I am hearing is close to the truth.

The truth according to who??

(For many, perception IS reality....)

hso
September 23, 2013, 03:33 PM
You can't find honest responsible news reporting from the big commercial US sources about shootings, firearms, or RKBA. This has gotten so bad that Jon Stewart lampooned/lambasted CNN and other networks and NPR put out a guide for consumers.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/09/20/otm_consumer_handbook-4-copy_custom-0c8dfca9a3a739c93ad6ef34273fa5b252dd1214-s40-c85.png

It is remarkable when we can cite Al Jazeera America as being more objective and reliable than ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NSNBC and have many many people agree.

HoosierQ
September 23, 2013, 03:47 PM
Somehow we have to figure out how we are going live with our rights intact in the era of "Infotainment". News isn't news...it's entertainment. Look at "fictional" entertainment: Zombies, vampires, space travel, time travel. So how much of a philosophical (or even editorial) stretch is it to report "AR-15 shotguns"?

I'll bet a bazillion people tuned in to CNN during that crisis. Whether the truth was told, lies, or just mistakes...none of that matters to the ratings. Doesn't matter if we, in the role of "fact checkers" were there too...counting the mistakes. All that mattered to CNN was that a bazillion people were there watching it. They then plug that number into a calculator and their advertisers now have to pay more because CNN, for the first time in the process, actually can produce a fact and cite to their advertisers that a bazillion viewers watched their channel between the hours of x and y.

The truth is not important to the mainstream media anymore. I used to defend them...way longer than any of you guys did. I am not concerned about "liberal" vs "conservative" bias in this outlet vs that outlet. Truth? Well I am concerned about that.

Infotainment killed truth because truth does not increase ratings.

Sam1911
September 23, 2013, 03:59 PM
Ahhh, back in the day you could TRUST the news for unbiased and factual reporting!


...

:scrutiny:

...

No you couldn't. Remember the Maine?!? News outlets in the days of everyone from Sam Adams to Lincoln, to TR, JFK, LBJ, etc., etc., have always spoon fed the public whatever flavor of syrupy sweet yellow journalism they wanted! Heck, some of what happens now is absurdly tame in comparison to "news" in the days of the Civil War or the Victorian era. Mark Twain had an awesome short story about what it took to be a newspaper editor during those times that is worth reading if only to make our own current failures at news reporting seem mild by comparison.

Yeah, it sucks that there is very little that is truly "objective" but believing that that's a new problem is just as flawed as believing what the media tells you to begin with! :)

Midwest
September 23, 2013, 04:27 PM
Seriously, I stopped watching ALL news outlets years ago and this includes Fox News, I even stopped listening to Alex Jones some years ago. I DO watch the local news for weather, traffic and local happenings but that is the extent of it.

I figure they are going to distort the truth, outright lie, omit some facts. Why give them the time of day? It isn't worth my time...

If I want the latest news and items relating to firearms I'll come here to THR ,read the GOA alerts on Facebook or read some of the NRAILA news and alerts.

HoosierQ
September 23, 2013, 04:45 PM
Ahhh, back in the day you could TRUST the news for unbiased and factual reporting!


...

:scrutiny:

...

No you couldn't. Remember the Maine?!? News outlets in the days of everyone from Sam Adams to Lincoln, to TR, JFK, LBJ, etc., etc., have always spoon fed the public whatever flavor of syrupy sweet yellow journalism they wanted! Heck, some of what happens now is absurdly tame in comparison to "news" in the days of the Civil War or the Victorian era. Mark Twain had an awesome short story about what it took to be a newspaper editor during those times that is worth reading if only to make our own current failures at news reporting seem mild by comparison.

Yeah, it sucks that there is very little that is truly "objective" but believing that that's a new problem is just as flawed as believing what the media tells you to begin with! :)
Outstanding, and entirely factual reality check there Sam! At least back then it got a name "yellow journalism"...now it just passes for "journalism" if you're in the business and infotainment if you're not.

The Maine was an accidental coal dust explosion that we blamed on the Spanish as pretext for war so that Hurst could make millions reporting that war. Worked for him! The media actually started a war to sell news papers.

Good point Sam and well taken.

C5rider
September 23, 2013, 06:56 PM
People who don't read the newspapers are uninformed.

Those who do, are mis-informed!

:D

readyeddy
September 23, 2013, 07:04 PM
About 90% of all information given by humans is false. This is due to a variety of reasons.

WALKERs210
September 23, 2013, 08:17 PM
SAM1911 your not saying that both news and federal agencies would feed wrongful information in order to further an agenda that could lead to war between nations are you. If so then the second attack on a US Navy Destroyer in the Gulf of Tokin might not have happened as presented. Why that could lead to over 58,000 American service men dead and countless others crippled both physically and mentally, not to mention how many could be listed as M.I.A. for no reason...??? And then we are to believe the same group wanting to disarm the average American citizen for what reason.

Hurryin' Hoosier
September 23, 2013, 08:24 PM
Mad Magazine. Bacon wrappers. That's about it.

Sam1911
September 23, 2013, 08:45 PM
Walker, I'm not an insightful enough person to delve far enough into the reasons why and prove that any group has ever made known false claims to sway the US public specifically because they wanted a certain outcome. But I do know that many times one way of looking at a tidbit of information has acted as a mighty convenient excuse or rallying cry to do something that some folks REALLY REALLY wanted to do anyway.

Did the McKinley administration know that the Maine hadn't really been sabotaged or bombed? Hard to say. But the shoe fit and was pointed in the direction certain feet wanted to walk!

Seems a few wars, social movements, political movements, etc. since then have had vaguely similar triggers.

Ohen Cepel
September 23, 2013, 08:46 PM
We started to compare CNN with Al Jazeera when I was in OEF, only focused on things my team had first hand knowledge of; Al Jazeera consistently reported more fairly and accurately than CNN did.

I have also heard good things about CCTV (Chinese sourced). They of course do not report well on China but are supposed to be good with the outside world.

Been lied to too many times with the American crap so am willing to give just about anyone a chance now.

WALKERs210
September 24, 2013, 05:11 AM
Yes Sam I have to agree with you, I enlisted in the Navy at a ripe ole age 17. Gullible, over trusting are a few words that describe my outlook of our country. Bush 2 had to be curtailed, according to interviews from former staffers, after 911 to keep from invading Iraque. At this point of my life I'm not worried about another group or even our President getting us into a full scale shooting war. This is only because my son is over the age of military service, grandson way too young. Plus with today's social networking I do feel that the our young people have information at their finger tip than we had after a week or more of "Fact Finding" of the MSM. Makes me look back to the age of 18 and realizing what a foolish boy I was, mostly due to false information. Guess we as a firearm collection group need to start a News Gathering Network, self governed, financed by subscriptions and as few advertisers as possible. Who Knows, I don't.

Carl N. Brown
September 24, 2013, 05:58 AM
Remember the Maine? Yes, I do, semi-sister of the Texas 1892 first stirrings of the US toward an intercontinental navy. The genuine maritime investigations are still out on the sinking of the Maine, but it was immediately attributed to Cuban government sabotage, especially in the Morning Journal newspaper of Charles Foster Kane William Randolph Hearst, resulting in public outrage which may have tipped the U.S. government into the Spanish-American War aka the Journal's War (like the government wasn't already leaning that way).

Advocacy journalism is the modern mantra (by modern I mean the past three centuries): change the world by changing people's perceptions to promote social change. War movements, anti-war movements, crusades and moral panicks over alcohol, marihuana, comic books, Satanic Ritual Abuse, and guns and their control. The advocates report incriminatory evidence, suppress exculpatory evidence, and behave like misconducting prosecutors, grand inquisitors and at times like leaders of a lynch mob. Change based on lies, half-truths, innuendoes, insinuations is change based on falsehood, change doomed to failure because it is based on false premises.

Where To Get Honest News Reporting ?? You have to get multiple sources and develop your own bovine and equine manure filters for your mind, because searching for honest news reporting would put you like Diogenes of Sinope wandering the streets with a lamp by daylight endlessly searching for an honest reporter and ending up in News of the Weird yourself.

Carl N. Brown
September 24, 2013, 06:02 AM
Al Jazeera consistently reported more fairly and accurately than CNN did.
Al Jazeera America is turning out to be a fairly neutral resource (like Reuters in print news). It is sad to write that though.

Midwest
September 24, 2013, 07:58 AM
Guess we as a firearm collection group need to start a News Gathering Network, self governed, financed by subscriptions and as few advertisers as possible. Who Knows, I don't.
If all the firearm owners in the U.S. donated $2 to $5 each we should be able to start our own TV news network.

GAF
September 24, 2013, 09:19 AM
Take the blue pill and everything will be okay when you wake up in the morning. Just another bad dream!

Baba Louie
September 24, 2013, 09:30 AM
Reading the book John Adams by McCullough, mud slung lies that passed for free press goes back to those days as well (probably before that as well no doubt).

The old kids game our 5th grade teacher had us play... whisper something in kids ear next to you, ask him/her to pass it around the classroom until it gets back to you... whaddya get? :uhoh: :D :rolleyes:

GBExpat
September 24, 2013, 09:50 AM
Been lied to too many times with the American crap so am willing to give just about anyone a chance now.

That is a pretty good description of how I feel. I hate "spin", no matter the direction.

Midwest
September 24, 2013, 10:07 AM
I heard some people mention Press TV and RT (Russia Today) as alternative sources for news. Usually the 'conspiracy crowd' radio hosts appear on RT from what I understand. I'm at different forums from time to time and I see links to stories and videos to these sources.

Pilot
September 24, 2013, 10:11 AM
All "news" is biased to those that are profiting from it.

alsaqr
September 24, 2013, 10:12 AM
Post #3 covered it all.

At the time of the Spanish-American war William Randolph Hearst and his rival, Joseph Pulitzer, ran the US media. Hearst and Pulitzer refined yellow journalism and took it to unforseen levels.

http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/hearstyellowjournalism/

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/pulitzer.htm

Cee Zee
September 24, 2013, 10:55 AM
Walker, I'm not an insightful enough person to delve far enough into the reasons why and prove that any group has ever made known false claims to sway the US public specifically because they wanted a certain outcome.

I don't know about my insight but I know what I was taught in journalism school. They told me I would be expected to report in such a way as to lead people to come to a desired conclusion. In other words they said if I wasn't willing to sway people to a certain point of view I would never work in the journalism field. I don't know how much more clear it gets than that. I decided that day I would never be a journalist. And I haven't been one either although I have written some sports columns here and there. Even there they expect you to promote their POV.

GBExpat
September 24, 2013, 11:10 AM
but I know what I was taught in journalism school. They told me I would be expected to report in such a way as to lead people to come to a desired conclusion. In other words they said if I wasn't willing to sway people to a certain point of view I would never work in the journalism field. I don't know how much more clear it gets than that.

Wow. I have always suspected that something like that was happening, but ...

The Bushmaster
September 24, 2013, 11:21 AM
Wonder when "Al Jazeera America" will drop the "America" and become "Al Jazeera Radical Islam".

Just my [prejudice] thoughts...

CB900F
September 24, 2013, 11:21 AM
Fella's;

Like Midwest, I quit watching TV news a loong time ago. It's the only practical thing I can do, deprive the stations of viewer numbers & hope their advertising revenue reflects it. I have been known to inform business's that I don't watch, for what good that does, but it costs me nothing.

900F

gondorian
September 24, 2013, 03:03 PM
If I want get an accurate perspective on an international issue I will read at a minimum Al-Jazeera, BBC, and NY Times, and combine what all are saying. If I really want to go in depth I'll add RT (russia today) RFI (radio france international, which is in french) as well as whatever the AP put out and possibly Reuters. For a daily dose I usually just read BBC and al-Jazeera, with some Chicago Tribune on the side for more local stuff. Combining all this together with your own filters and an awareness for key words that indicate speculation or opinion gives a pretty good picture of most situations.

Cee Zee
September 24, 2013, 06:46 PM
Al-Jazeera, BBC, and NY Times

IMO you picked out 3 of the worst choices available. The BBC admitted to being biased a few years back. The Times is a joke but it's a good pair with Al-Jazeera - they both hate the USA.

IMO the best way to get decent news is to let Drudge do the work of filtering stories for you. You can links to a whole lot of papers and the reports he links are generally not opinion disguised as news. Drudge drives the news cycle the way the Times once did.

Other good sources are the London papers, the Times, the Independent and the Daily Mail. The Washington Times is also fairly good. The London papers will print things our own MSM won't touch. Fox was half decent at one time but they are a joke now. They are so open minded their brains fell out. It's the influence of "Birdbrain Bill" O'Reilly. Greta Van Susteren is the best show left on that channel with Bret Baier being fairly good. I can't hack watching O'Reilly. He is so in love with himself it's sickening and he's dumb as a donut. Worse he thinks he's a genius. I've seen him tell people that he's an "intellectual". Yeah maybe on the planet Spengo (in "Mom And Dad Save The World"). Well maybe not. Those guys managed to build a beam to tow people across space in a station wagon.

WALKERs210
September 24, 2013, 06:54 PM
Wonder when "Al Jazeera America" will drop the "America" and become "Al Jazeera Radical Islam".


It was my opinion that Al Jerk Around was already pro Radical Islam. This is why it was a surprise to me when I saw it listed on Direct TV as alternative station.

gondorian
September 24, 2013, 06:57 PM
IMO you picked out 3 of the worst choices available. The BBC admitted to being biased a few years back. The Times is a joke but it's a good pair with Al-Jazeera - they both hate the USA

I'm well aware they are biased, and most often against the US. I already have an inherent pro-USA slant, which is why I tend to read news sources which are less likely to confirm my already existing bias. If I want to read only about how the US is a city on a hill I can read VOA, which I occasionally do. However, most of the time I find it most informing to read reports which conflict with my assumptions.

BLB68
September 24, 2013, 07:01 PM
You can't find honest responsible news reporting from the big commercial US sources about shootings, firearms, or RKBA. This has gotten so bad that Jon Stewart lampooned/lambasted CNN and other networks and NPR put out a guide for consumers.


Stewart has been jumping on the anti bandwagon hard with half-baked "facts" himself since Sandyhook. He doesn't get to cast any stones there.

gondorian
September 24, 2013, 07:01 PM
It was my opinion that Al Jerk Around was already pro Radical Islam.

They may be, but Al-Jazeera English has noticeably become less Islamic and more liberal in the last few years and they become more pro profit than they are pro radical Islam. A large percent of the current reporters and writers for Al-Jazeera english are westerners.

Bruno2
September 24, 2013, 08:53 PM
I just saw major news outlets report that the Navy Yard shooter used an AR 15.I believe that was debunked into an 870 and a couple of pistols. I am still not sure what the New Haven shooter used. I heard claims of the AR being used and then I heard claims that the AR was found in the trunk of the car. I am convinced they are going to claim that an AR was used in every shooting rather it was or not just to villainies it.

I hate to say it , but we need something like Al Jazeera US. Something needs to set an example of how the news is reported.

Cee Zee
September 24, 2013, 09:01 PM
However, most of the time I find it most informing to read reports which conflict with my assumptions.

I like reading the truth instead of opinion. I know what their opinions are already and I have no real need to hear them repeated. I know there is too much opinion disguised as news in the channels I mentioned but you don't see facts distorted like you do in the MSM which includes the Times and the BBC. Again the BBC admitted to doing this. That wacky Muslim news outlet has a totally distorted view of everything. There are scant few facts there. You will see a lot of propaganda.

I'd like to point out an example of their propaganda here. In a report about the Kansas U. professor who said the children of NRA members should be murdered Al Jerkzea saw fit to include a comment from an obscure blog which stated in part, " In general, a board of regents has no business evaluating the public comments of anyone on public policy matters..." Of course there is no such freedom in the Muslim world at all and people often lose their head over comments that go against the Muslim line. That makes their comment propaganda because they are insinuating that they support more freedom for professors to make outrageous comments about killing children. What they actually support is the killing of American children in any fashion and of any political connection. It is blatant propaganda in fact. I have no use for it.

Brin
September 24, 2013, 10:28 PM
I get all my news from Blogs like www.hotair.com www.americanthinker.com www.breitbart.com :evil:

X-Rap
September 24, 2013, 11:51 PM
I read Drudge, Daily Caller, Blaze, and the Huffington Post. Between all of those I feel I can make a fair Judgement of a news story.

Solo
September 25, 2013, 10:12 AM
Rule of Acquisition 190: Hear all, trust nothing.

HexHead
September 25, 2013, 10:33 AM
The inaccuracies and distortions of the MSM isn't nearly as harmful as what's propagated by social media like Facebook and Twitter.

qwert65
September 25, 2013, 10:37 AM
I read CNN and Fox News what they agree on 100% is what I consider news everything else on both sites is propaganda

Sam1911
September 25, 2013, 10:41 AM
The inaccuracies and distortions of the MSM isn't nearly as harmful as what's propagated by social media like Facebook and Twitter.
Now that's an interesting comment. The one good thing about social media is access to/by all. Whereas it is very difficult to get your/our own version of truth out through main stream/old model news outlets, we all could be spreading our own version of truth through social media. While it isn't exactly a level playing field, it is a lot closer to one than us trying to compete with broadcast news.

There's a lot of dumb noise out there, but that's democracy for you.

The Bushmaster
September 25, 2013, 11:09 AM
Old addage...
Believe nothing of what you hear...
Believe very little of what you read...
And only half of what you see...

Sol
September 25, 2013, 11:22 AM
Al jazeera was bought by an American company I can't recall what one.

For accurate news you have to be there and witness it for yourself.

Sam Cade
September 25, 2013, 11:46 AM
Al jazeera was bought by an American company I can't recall what one.

Al-Jazeera remains a Qatari owned organization but they have recently launched a specific US American targeted channel.


http://america.aljazeera.com/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Media_Network

Sam1911
September 25, 2013, 11:46 AM
For accurate news you have to be there and witness it for yourself.

Based on what we now know about memory and the mind, especially during traumatic events, that's a HORRIBLY flawed source for factual information!


...Yeah, you literally can't trust what you (think you) see.

twofifty
September 25, 2013, 01:24 PM
Can't stand these media expressions:

"Breaking News"

and in an earnest concerned tone: "...so that it never happens anymore".

rem44m
September 25, 2013, 01:44 PM
Like a few others, I literally stopped watching ALL news. I have weather on my phone and any gun news I get from THR or emails from Pro gun groups. Occasionally when I find something out from THR or Co-workers I look the news story up myself but that's it.

My perception of the world and the people in it got significantly better and more positive after I stopped watching the news.

So my point here is, no news outlet is "honest" and in my eyes no news is good news ;)

Tom609
September 25, 2013, 04:12 PM
I just got this email and thought it might help sort things out...


An Easy Guide to Newspapers

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country

3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but donít really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldnít mind running the
country, if they could find the time, and if they didnít have to leave Southern
California to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who arenít too sure whoís running the country and donít really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who donít care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.

10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who arenít sure if there is a
country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand
for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped, minority,
feminist, atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other
country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery
store.

12. The Denver Post is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.

9MMare
September 25, 2013, 04:21 PM
I've had to take trainings regarding bias and 'sensitive issues & the public' as a park ranger.

Every person and every media stream is biased. It's natural and unavoidable. You can recognize it, even in yourself. It's up to each person to examine a variety of perspectives and weigh them against known facts and observations.

The more you can leave your own agenda (bias) out of it, the more you will learn. THis doesnt mean you will change your mind (personally I think alot of people are afraid of learning things that might make them change their minds) but it will provide you with the most complete picture and you can make the most informed decision.

It's just silly to suck up info from sources that you are comfortable with. If nothing else, whatever happened to "know thine enemy?"

JustinJ
September 25, 2013, 04:59 PM
About 90% of all information given by humans is false. This is due to a variety of reasons.

Was the irony intentional?

BSA1
September 25, 2013, 06:31 PM
In response to the O.P.'s question The DRUDGE REPORT is good source. Matt Drudge is conservative enough to criticize Obama and his lackies so much that the Great American Caesar has called him out in public along with Limbaugh and Hannity.

BSA1
September 25, 2013, 06:38 PM
In regards to the media role in pushing America into war with Spain the movie ROUGH RIDERS, available on DVD, does a good job.

Sam1911
September 25, 2013, 06:49 PM
James Bradley's The Imperial Cruise (http://www.amazon.com/The-Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History/dp/B005OL86II)is probably a much better one, but few here would have the stomach for it. Very strong stuff, especially as most folks on "our" side of the aisle really believe that they LIKE T.R.

WALKERs210
September 25, 2013, 09:47 PM
Like Midwest, I quit watching TV news a loong time ago. It's the only practical thing I can do, deprive the stations of viewer numbers & hope their advertising revenue reflects it. I have been known to inform business's that I don't watch, for what good that does, but it costs me nothing.


I too have pretty much just watch local news and that is for the weather and scores of college football teams that follow. I have always made an attempt at being informed but with the MSM as it is now if they reported that the sky was blue I would have to get three other sources to believe them. On a local station you can write, call and make enough complaints that result in a particular news reported being discharge or pulled back in line (well it was a decent idea), if we want to get honest reporting about a loose cannon trying to take out as many people as possible one approach that will get results faster than crying and complaining to the station manager. Revenue is what allows these channels to stay on the air, I remember a few cases when the average citizen started writing an/or calling to the sponsor. If you hit their pocket book and I mean hard the sponsors will sit up and take notice.

RBid
September 25, 2013, 10:33 PM
I spend a lot of time on google news, checking out links from multiple sources and leanings on the same subjects. They collect links from a wide variety of sources, and I run searches on key topics to find even more.

For gun specific news, the gun wire is unparalleled. It compiles stories from all angles of the debate, small outlets, major outlets, etc. All of it.

barnbwt
September 25, 2013, 10:38 PM
...most folks on "our" side of the aisle really believe that they LIKE T.R.

Heh heh. True, that ;). A great testament to the effectiveness of media control/complicity is just how little anyone today knows about Taft other than that he was the fattest president (for another 3-7 years :p), and about TR other than the phrases "Rough Riders," "Big Stick," "Bully Pulpit," and the National Parks :evil:

"but he hunted bears for the good of the nation...:("

TCB

Sam1911
September 25, 2013, 10:40 PM
History does us a kindness by forgetting many things.

Steve CT
September 25, 2013, 10:54 PM
I watch/listen to some of it.

I trust very little of it.

The weather forecat is the most accurate of all of it, and the weather forecast is a crap shoot at best.

hang fire
September 26, 2013, 02:59 AM
I recently had a brush with the end game. 30 days in three hospitals and four major surgeries brought me around to what is really important, and text reading talking head pundits spewing their lies are not included.

X-Rap
September 26, 2013, 11:11 AM
Just look at the way current events are being portrayed by the various outlets, some praise a man while others do everything to destroy him. There is little doubt that most media is complicit in this conspiracy and it is becoming more evident with each story.

Sam1911
September 26, 2013, 11:18 AM
There is little doubt that most media is complicit in this conspiracy and it is becoming more evident with each story.

Conspiracy?

hso
September 26, 2013, 11:30 AM
Since we're starrting to wag a bit.

We can summarize this as -

Most MSM isn't accurate

Even the MSM is poking at the inaccuracies of the MSM

Some news sources outside the U.S. are more reliable than those within the U.S. on events in the U.S.

The internet is full of blogs, news outlets, and news aggigators that range from fantasy to factual and understanding the bias of each is important to understanding how factual they are.

Triangulate on the truth with different new sources that you know the bias of since a steady diet of just one won't provide what you need for a healthy understanding of the facts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Where To Get Honest New Reporting ??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!