What news source do you trust the most?

[tinkerdorabelle]

I agree with this to a point, but you can't even pretend to have an informed opinion, if all your news comes from one of the heavily slanted/propaganda channels. You have a very one sided view that has a good chance of not even being true. If you don't check out other sources, you don't know, if it's accurate or not. Trusting one heavily slanted source shows you're not really interested in the truth. You're interested in propaganda that fits your agenda. (FWIW, all my references to "you" is a general you. It's not meant to accuse you specifically. I have no idea where you get your news.)

Case in point, when FIL passed away two years ago, I got an up close & personal experience with people who obviously were incapable of thinking for themselves. There was a continuous flow of people visiting us at MIL's house. I sat there for hours hearing the exact same conversation. I'm not even kidding. The large majority of people who came had the same few talking points that they kept bringing up. It got to the point, that I was struggling not to laugh. How many times can you hear the exact same discussion, without finding it humorous? It was like I was experiencing groundhog day over & over. It was obvious they were all watching the same news channel. If your conversation topics exist solely from what you have heard from one of the "propaganda" channels in the past few days, you can't even pretend to have an informed & open mind. If you've gotten to the point that every discussion brings you back to pushing the agenda of your preferred news source, you really need to seek out other news sources, so you don't sound so clueless & lack all credibility.

This very sadly is my world. I have people in my family, particularly my DH's family, who right now are not speaking to us or at least giving us the cold shoulder bc we finally had to confront the hateful crazy propaganda they spew NONSTOP, which we did nicely, intelligently and with facts. But it didn't matter. We must stand up to it also bc I've known these people (and many others, ones I've gone to school, neighbors, etc.) that are saying things that I am in absolute shock that they actually believe. Honestly I sometimes feel hopeless bc of the power and influence that these stations have. Then you top that off with social media, FB, etc. and it is a really serious issue that affects our very democracy. And we've always had differing political views in the past, I've known them for over 20 years, and we got along fine. When we have these infotainment news stations and even people in higher places (I will not name names) putting out really out there propaganda, and these infotainment stations put them on 24 hours a day, that is a SERIOUS SERIOUS issue. Yes I think one is worse, but what you put on as news all day or leave off in some cases, can influence people also. I really believe they should all go off the air bc they are divisive and do not differentiate between when they are putting on news, and when they are conjecturing or putting on opinion talk. Some don't believe science, and for them even "academia" now is used as a bad word. I cannot believe these people I know that I cared for and I never knew to talk like that before, and now I just cannot be around bc of the crazy, hate and insanity they are fed and spew daily. It must end.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

As I said, I am relaying my personal experience. I used to be conservative, in terms of economics, but then conservative took on a meaning I could no longer align with. So, I've been both, and my opinion still stands. The only people I know that only use one news source lean conservative. I don't know a single middle-of-the-roader or liberal who uses only one. And in my area, I'm friends with many who lean conservative (as is much of my family), so it's not like I only know people with opinions similar to mine. I'm sure someone living in a more progressive area might feel differently. Again, my personal experience.

And I shared my opinion based on MY experiences.

 

[CarolAnn856]

And I shared my opinion based on MY experiences.

Yup, I know!

 

[Gumbo4x4]

It doesn't have to be logical for people to believe it. They just want to be right, to listen to someone tell them what they think is correct and they are the smart ones.
I mentioned a hypothetical 5 legitimate news outlets having one story and 1 having a completely different take. The responses I got were the 5 were probably just parroting each other and use bad sources and the 1 was probably created to fill a void left by the other 5 because they are all biased (can't remember the exact wording). There's always an excuse.

No, the response you got was that the 5 COULD just be parroting the same bad info OR that it could be exactly what you assume.

The point was that while your premise seems logical & sensible, and probably works a great deal of the time, it isn’t 100% foolproof. And you insinuated that the 1 “alternate” view should be discounted entirely which seems like a reasonable “default”, but again it isn’t 100% foolproof.

 

[sunshinehighway]

No, the response you got was that the 5 COULD just be parroting the same bad info OR that it could be exactly what you assume.

The point was that while your premise seems logical & sensible, and probably works a great deal of the time, it isn’t 100% foolproof. And you insinuated that the 1 “alternate” view should be discounted entirely which seems like a reasonable “default”, but again it isn’t 100% foolproof.

It's the bolded that creates a problem for the reputation of the one. If the 1 has the bad information often enough, it stops being something people see as credible and worth considering when forming an opinion.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

IMO, what works a great deal of the time OUTSIDE the news business is going with 4 sources that agree vs. the one that disagrees. In news, I find this to be a largely irrelevant fact -- sadly.

There are too many examples to cite, and getting into those probably gets into politics in a way that is not acceptable on these boards. But over the years, there have been innumerable examples of the "5" being wrong... or ignoring a major story... or covering one particular story ad nauseam to the exclusion of other more important stories. Just because these sources -- that largely take cues for one or two newspapers -- agree does not mean they are accurate, does not mean they are focusing on the most important news stories, and most certainly does not mean that they offer anyone the full story on any topic -- certainly not in every case.

It's hard work to take in differing news sources on any topic that touches on politics -- takes a lot of energy and a willingness to constantly challenge one's presuppositions. In my experience, few people want to take that time or challenge themselves and their preconceptions. Very few. Fewer and fewer all the time with 24/7 news and social media.

The result is two teams that have lost the ability to actually communicate with one another. I've spoken with known political figures on both sides who agree with this statement -- lament it.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

It's the bolded that creates a problem for the reputation of the one. If the 1 has the bad information often enough, it stops being something people see as credible and worth considering when forming an opinion.

Fair enough.

 

[cabanafrau]

The biggest problem in American journalism today is that investigative journalism is virtually on life support. True investigative journalism is expensive. Journalism and the media isn't very different from a lot of other businesses and industries today where we no longer have such ready access to real craftsmanship and genuine materials due to cost, so a veneer, an imitation or a faux finish is brought forward as what's available to pick from most of the time. In this way journalism is no different than the construction industry, the textile industries, home furnishings and home goods industries, etc.

A free press, a critical press, a nosy press, a bright white light press is vital to democracy irrespective of political ideology. Anybody who simply listens to or reads through a news story without pausing to say, where did that information come from, how did the press get that information, do the "facts" being reported make logical sense in terms of other factual knowledge or prior experience I have, or even using one's own common sense deserves to be mislead by shiny beautiful talking heads who are paid big bucks because the networks believe their mere presence attracts eyeballs to reel in advertisers. I hope I live to see the day where the resources that are being devoted to the Kardashians or supposed royal feuds or keeping track of how many times each royal has worn an outfit in public can be refocused on truly important matters-- such as what really happened with the inflation of Tom Brady's footballs. IMO the 24-hour news cycle has essentially destroyed the vital free press in this country because the scramble to fill all those hours resulted in the discovery it was both cheaper and easier to focus on fluff and entertainment to enrapture the most eyeballs with much less effort.

 

[VandVsmama]

I don't trust any single news source. I read news from multiple sources that range from very liberal to very conservative. The speaking style of the NPR reporters, though, drives me bonkers.

 

[LSUmiss]

This very sadly is my world. I have people in my family, particularly my DH's family, who right now are not speaking to us or at least giving us the cold shoulder bc we finally had to confront the hateful crazy propaganda they spew NONSTOP, which we did nicely, intelligently and with facts. But it didn't matter. We must stand up to it also bc I've known these people (and many others, ones I've gone to school, neighbors, etc.) that are saying things that I am in absolute shock that they actually believe. Honestly I sometimes feel hopeless bc of the power and influence that these stations have. Then you top that off with social media, FB, etc. and it is a really serious issue that affects our very democracy. And we've always had differing political views in the past, I've known them for over 20 years, and we got along fine. When we have these infotainment news stations and even people in higher places (I will not name names) putting out really out there propaganda, and these infotainment stations put them on 24 hours a day, that is a SERIOUS SERIOUS issue. Yes I think one is worse, but what you put on as news all day or leave off in some cases, can influence people also. I really believe they should all go off the air bc they are divisive and do not differentiate between when they are putting on news, and when they are conjecturing or putting on opinion talk. Some don't believe science, and for them even "academia" now is used as a bad word. I cannot believe these people I know that I cared for and I never knew to talk like that before, and now I just cannot be around bc of the crazy, hate and insanity they are fed and spew daily. It must end.

Yes on the “academia” comment! I get that ppl want to believe in things they have personal experiences with, but now propaganda has pushed the idea that there are no experts & everything is a conspiracy. It seems we (collective we) used to believe/agree that some ppl had/have more knowledge that others based on their body of research or level of education. But, now everyone who has google is an expert. It’s disturbing b/c you can’t have a logical discussion with someone like that.

 

[rickybobby]

Yes on the “academia” comment! I get that ppl want to believe in things they have personal experiences with, but now propaganda has pushed the idea that there are no experts & everything is a conspiracy. It seems we (collective we) used to believe/agree that some ppl had/have more knowledge that others based on their body of research or level of education. But, now everyone who has google is an expert. It’s disturbing b/c you can’t have a logical discussion with someone like that.

I can certainly understand questioning "academia" because if you haven't noticed, they have shut down speech that does not agree with a particular ideology. No longer allowing for free debate, but instead, banning speakers, having riots to keep them away, etc.
I would love to get a little deeper into this, but I am sure the Moderators are keeping a close eye on these posts since it is borderline political.

 

[wgeo]

Oh wait - slightly a different take. But can we all agree that any "story" that is merely a compliation of tweets that people have made about an actual event should not be a story? I can't believe how many news segments are now just random people's tweets, and even news articles that the entire point is reposting people's tweets. Drives me crazy, and every stinking news source does it.

 

[Poohforyou]

Your first paragraph makes an interesting point. Fox News is the only conservative leaning news outlet, without it the news would be pretty biased the other way.

It isn't a news outlet, it's entertainment. To be a news outlet you actually have to report factual information.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Yes on the “academia” comment! I get that ppl want to believe in things they have personal experiences with, but now propaganda has pushed the idea that there are no experts & everything is a conspiracy. It seems we (collective we) used to believe/agree that some ppl had/have more knowledge that others based on their body of research or level of education. But, now everyone who has google is an expert. It’s disturbing b/c you can’t have a logical discussion with someone like that.

Problem with believing some people are experts in their fields are when it’s shown they don’t know everything in the field but almost demand blind obedience.
As an example, several years ago their was an oyster relay. They were relocating wild oysters from permanently closed areas to temporarily closed areas to be caught later. Several uneducated fishermen expressed concern over the location for them to be transplanted to, we were told that their experts (marine biologists and aquaculturists) have advised them and our concerns were irrelevant. Fast forward and exactly what we predicted happened, over 90% of the relocated oysters died. Their so called experts claim different but oysters cannot be transplanted to a sand bottom, they will get covered over from the tide. They waisted a lot of $$$$ on that fiasco.

 

[rickybobby]

It isn't a news outlet, it's entertainment. To be a news outlet you actually have to report factual information.

You are spouting an opinion. Let's compare notes. You give me your "factual news organization" and we can go back and forth, you tell me untruths Fox has put forth and I will show you untruths put out by your chosen news organization. Let's do it.

 

[Hikergirl]

 

[Poohforyou]

You are spouting an opinion. Let's compare notes. You give me your "factual news organization" and we can go back and forth, you tell me untruths Fox has put forth and I will show you untruths put out by your chosen news organization. Let's do it.

So you won't recognize that it isn't classified as a news outlet but rather an entertainment one?

 

[Hrhpd]

You are spouting an opinion. Let's compare notes. You give me your "factual news organization" and we can go back and forth, you tell me untruths Fox has put forth and I will show you untruths put out by your chosen news organization. Let's do it.

Several unbiased fact checking sources have fact checked many of the media outlets. Fox routinely scores particularly low on truthful statements. Analyzing statements for truth, fact check organizations seem to agree that Fox is the most egregious in reporting the truth. The studies have routinely shown that Fox statements are 39% true to half true and 61% mostly false to completely false with the largest group being the completely false. I won't link anything here because some of the statements analyzed are against the rules here. But you can google and see all the statements made by Fox that are blatantly false. They are concrete things that are easily fact checked like meetings, etc.

Everyone should fact check anything they hear on any station, read in the news, or hear from friends or relatives. The studies show that this is particularly true with Fox since 61% of the statements on the station have an element of untruth to it.

 

[LSUmiss]

Problem with believing some people are experts in their fields are when it’s shown they don’t know everything in the field but almost demand blind obedience.
As an example, several years ago their was an oyster relay. They were relocating wild oysters from permanently closed areas to temporarily closed areas to be caught later. Several uneducated fishermen expressed concern over the location for them to be transplanted to, we were told that their experts (marine biologists and aquaculturists) have advised them and our concerns were irrelevant. Fast forward and exactly what we predicted happened, over 90% of the relocated oysters died. Their so called experts claim different but oysters canno
be transplanted to a sand bottom, they will get covered over from the tide. They waisted a lot of $$$$ on that fiasco.

Without anymore info, I can agree that there may be isolated incidents like this. Although, I am skeptical to believe that this may be an oversimplification of what occurred. But to me, that’s the problem that too many ppl take an isolated incident that they have heard about as an excuse to discount any research that doesn’t fit their belief system.

 

[rickybobby]

So you won't recognize that it isn't classified as a news outlet but rather an entertainment one?

I think you may be mistaking Fox Entertainment for FOX News. They are separate entities. Fox Entertainment has the Simpsons Show, which is very anti-Fox News.