Conquer Club

... What universally qualifies as a valid source?

... Half of CC'ers hold the view that FOX News is right of Genghis Khan. Understandable, as the FOX network is the media home to major right-wing talkers.

... Half of CC'ers view MSNBC as equally off center left, with the major networks not far from there, with the BBC falling in line close behind.

... As for Newspapers... the NY Times and LA Times will be ridiculed as left-wing trash and I know some papers are seen here as right-wing political tabloids. But who the hell knows how biased the Rantoul Star of central Illinois might be? So would a small paper nobody's heard of qualify as a valid source?

... Blogs, obviously, are out, though I've linked to a few myself.

... Studies from think tanks are no good. Those always have rightist or leftist motives hidden in there someplace.

... Government papers? But the CBO docs I've linked to were laughed off as if they were the National Enquirer.

... So what's left?

...

Al Jazeera?

Canadian Broadcasting Corp? ( CBC )

You raise a very good question, as there is bias everywhere. Quoting a news service not does nothing for the credibility of the facts being reported. The above two I trust, but I still fact check and allow for some left leanings from the CBC.


J

Johnny Rockets wrote:
You raise a very good question, as there is bias everywhere. Quoting a news service not does nothing for the credibility of the facts being reported. The above two I trust, but I still fact check and allow for some left leanings from the CBC.


J

I agree completely. Never just anything and always double check your sources because everyone has a hidden agenda and a bias.

There are no easy answers in media bias. Even the so-called "liberal" networks like MSNBC skew to the right when it comes to their corporate owners.

You can usually get some good info on biases by checking SourceWatch.

I'd strongly recommend Al-Jazeera, as they even invite well-informed authors to write certain articles pertaining to the matter at hand. Of course, any author varies in bias, yet this is much better than any of the "experts" I've experienced from both FOX NEWS and MSNBC, and even CNN (which is surprisingly much better in Europe).

Al-Jazeera's very interesting. To overgeneralize, they typically hold a liberal view and obviously side or tend to ignore certain things when it comes to articles conerning Israeli-Palestinian issues, yet UNLIKE FOX NEWS and MSNBC, they actually report some very interesting and damaging yet true things about Israel. You can thank your easily persuaded and strongly biased American government in general for that, may as well lump in the arms manufactures and strongly Pro-Israeli interests groups and lobbyists.

Also, Al-Jazeera has been at times banned from Arab countries as well, which is a good indication that they don't regularly pan to just the Arabs (another gross generalization, but they're hard to avoid in this topic). An interesting side note: the US pressured the Iraqi government to ban Al-Jazeera temporarily from Iraq because most likely Al-Jazeera asks the right questions to the right people, and god forbid the Americans hear about it.

God Bless the Pentagon--I mean, the United States of America

Nobunaga wrote:... What universally qualifies as a valid source?

... Half of CC'ers hold the view that FOX News is right of Genghis Khan. Understandable, as the FOX network is the media home to major right-wing talkers.

... Half of CC'ers view MSNBC as equally off center left, with the major networks not far from there, with the BBC falling in line close behind.

... As for Newspapers... the NY Times and LA Times will be ridiculed as left-wing trash and I know some papers are seen here as right-wing political tabloids. But who the hell knows how biased the Rantoul Star of central Illinois might be? So would a small paper nobody's heard of qualify as a valid source?

... Blogs, obviously, are out, though I've linked to a few myself.

... Studies from think tanks are no good. Those always have rightist or leftist motives hidden in there someplace.

... Government papers? But the CBO docs I've linked to were laughed off as if they were the National Enquirer.

... So what's left?

...

Independent agencies constantly evaluate news sources.
For world news, the Christian Science Monitor used to be known as the most independent and reliable source.

For business news, at least in the US, the Walstreet Journal is (I believe) still considered the "best", though I don't really follow business news much, so there might be better ones right now.

NPR and the BBC are recognized world-wide as offering very thorough and generally unbiased coverage out there.

One problem is that people have lost site of what "objective" really means. It does not mean simply listening to those who's voices you like, who say things that make you "feel good" or "make perfect sense". It also means listening closely to people with different opinions, considering their views and not just dismissing what you dislike out of hand.

This is extremely difficult in the 30-second blurbs put forward on most standard news today. Both BBC and NPR stand along on that account alone. NPR consistently offers detailed coverage, not simple blurbs.

Also, if you read through a lot of the "news evidence", it becomes apparent that the sources many people are really listening to and forming opinions from are not even the real news on, say, Fox, but on the talk shows that make no pretense to be real news. Then, people will look to Fox, (or MSNBC) for a handy link to support what they already think. A good part of the time, they don't even really read through (or take the time to understand) the links they post.

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is pretty much unassailable.

Aren't Reuters and the AP pretty well renowned for not putting spin in their reports -- just the straight facts.

The New York Times is biased, I'll agree (have any of you EVER seen an article even slightly critical of Google in their pages? I set up a tracker, and for awhile was collecting every article about Google or those in which it was even mentioned. They were always about how Google is the greatest thing in the world.

Yet when it comes to politics, I seem to recall as many critical words for the "left" as for the "right". And the Op-Ed page is nicely balanced between the sides. I think the main problem with the Times is that 75% of America is a really fucking stupid and can barely even read the goddamn McDonald's menu, let alone the best written newspaper in the USA.

Or, to put it politely, the Times is intimidating to people more accustomed to the bathroom stall style of writing one sees in USA Today. However, I am open minded. Someone start a thread highlighting all examples of bias in the NY Times. I'm curious to see what others come up with.

After all, I've given you some Glenn Beck gems... time to return the favor.

pimpdave wrote:Aren't Reuters and the AP pretty well renowned for not putting spin in their reports -- just the straight facts. .

Yer, I forgot about those. They just give the basic simple facts and report them from all their offices around the world. However, they do not really do much in depth analysis so they can only really be used as a basic source.

The group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting keeps a thorough list of biased reports from the NY Times (and others), and it's eye-opening. Their page on the NY Times is here.

the fact of the matter is every thing is biased. that's just how this world works and we will believe who we want.

If I might interject, I think anything that is peer-reviewed is universally acceptable until a later discovery proves otherwise.

AnarchoJesse wrote:If I might interject, I think anything that is peer-reviewed is universally acceptable until a later discovery proves otherwise.

Agreed, to a point, However, even then you have to be cautious. Journals of the Oil industry, for example are fairly notorious for their bias as are some chemical journals sponsored more by industry.

You almost have to know the specific field to know what is and is not accepted. This is one big reason why bias is so easily transmitted. It used to be that finding something in 5 sources meant it was not only likely true, but also "common information" not needing a citation. The internet, etc has pretty well thrown that standard in the wind.

One very big danger on the internet is that a site can LOOK perfectly credible, even perhaps mimic a truly credible site and be something completely biased or even nefarious (a pfishing site). We really need new standards of credibility when it comes to the internet.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'd strongly recommend Al-Jazeera, as they even invite well-informed authors to write certain articles pertaining to the matter at hand. Of course, any author varies in bias, yet this is much better than any of the "experts" I've experienced from both FOX NEWS and MSNBC, and even CNN (which is surprisingly much better in Europe).

Al-Jazeera's very interesting. To overgeneralize, they typically hold a liberal view and obviously side or tend to ignore certain things when it comes to articles conerning Israeli-Palestinian issues, yet UNLIKE FOX NEWS and MSNBC, they actually report some very interesting and damaging yet true things about Israel. You can thank your easily persuaded and strongly biased American government in general for that, may as well lump in the arms manufactures and strongly Pro-Israeli interests groups and lobbyists.

Also, Al-Jazeera has been at times banned from Arab countries as well, which is a good indication that they don't regularly pan to just the Arabs (another gross generalization, but they're hard to avoid in this topic). An interesting side note: the US pressured the Iraqi government to ban Al-Jazeera temporarily from Iraq because most likely Al-Jazeera asks the right questions to the right people, and god forbid the Americans hear about it.

God Bless the Pentagon--I mean, the United States of America

Ironically enough, I have heard this mentioned on NPR.

I thought this thread was going to be about Heinz Tomato Ketchup, but realised that would be a Universally Accepted Sauce

MrBenn wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about Heinz Tomato Ketchup, but realised that would be a Universally Accepted Sauce

stick to the map section and leave the humour to the grown ups.

Pedronicus wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about Heinz Tomato Ketchup, but realised that would be a Universally Accepted Sauce

stick to the map section and leave the humour to the grown ups.

So you're an HP Sauce man then

*wonders what section I should stick to, as I found Benny-boy's post far and away the most enjoyable here*

Pedronicus wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about Heinz Tomato Ketchup, but realised that would be a Universally Accepted Sauce

stick to the map section and leave the humour to the grown ups.

FLAAAAAAAAME!!!!!!!!!

BAN HIM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Johnny Rockets wrote:Al Jazeera?

Canadian Broadcasting Corp? ( CBC )

You raise a very good question, as there is bias everywhere. Quoting a news service not does nothing for the credibility of the facts being reported. The above two I trust, but I still fact check and allow for some left leanings from the CBC.


J

lol I'm Canadian and even I don't trust the CBC, much less Al Jazeera. There is no universally accepted source because everyone and every organization has a bias whether they like to admit it or not.

Nobunaga wrote:... What universally qualifies as a valid source?

... Half of CC'ers hold the view that FOX News is right of Genghis Khan. Understandable, as the FOX network is the media home to major right-wing talkers.

... Half of CC'ers view MSNBC as equally off center left, with the major networks not far from there, with the BBC falling in line close behind.

... As for Newspapers... the NY Times and LA Times will be ridiculed as left-wing trash and I know some papers are seen here as right-wing political tabloids. But who the hell knows how biased the Rantoul Star of central Illinois might be? So would a small paper nobody's heard of qualify as a valid source?

... Blogs, obviously, are out, though I've linked to a few myself.

... Studies from think tanks are no good. Those always have rightist or leftist motives hidden in there someplace.

... Government papers? But the CBO docs I've linked to were laughed off as if they were the National Enquirer.

... So what's left?

...

Statistical surveys are usually pretty unbiased, most major news stations will work for non political news, politics, you kinda have to give both sides.

Nobunaga wrote:... What universally qualifies as a valid source?

... Half of CC'ers hold the view that FOX News is right of Genghis Khan. Understandable, as the FOX network is the media home to major right-wing talkers.

... Half of CC'ers view MSNBC as equally off center left, with the major networks not far from there, with the BBC falling in line close behind.

... As for Newspapers... the NY Times and LA Times will be ridiculed as left-wing trash and I know some papers are seen here as right-wing political tabloids. But who the hell knows how biased the Rantoul Star of central Illinois might be? So would a small paper nobody's heard of qualify as a valid source?

... Blogs, obviously, are out, though I've linked to a few myself.

... Studies from think tanks are no good. Those always have rightist or leftist motives hidden in there someplace.

... Government papers? But the CBO docs I've linked to were laughed off as if they were the National Enquirer.

... So what's left?

...

I say you have to keep an eye on it all, and read between the lines. news isnt news, its social programming. fox has the ball right now, thats all i have to say

Simple. Just listen to me, I'm always right.
Except about the goats behind the door thing.
Shut up about that.
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Ray Rider wrote:

Johnny Rockets wrote:Al Jazeera?

Canadian Broadcasting Corp? ( CBC )

You raise a very good question, as there is bias everywhere. Quoting a news service not does nothing for the credibility of the facts being reported. The above two I trust, but I still fact check and allow for some left leanings from the CBC.


J

lol I'm Canadian and even I don't trust the CBC, much less Al Jazeera. There is no universally accepted source because everyone and every organization has a bias whether they like to admit it or not.

So assuming you do actually pay attention to the world, which ones do you tune into?