Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

The solution to the major entertainment programs having a problem with accuracy are newspapers, with articles. Newspapers, online versions too, tend to have more thought put into them. This is counter-balanced by their being a huge number of them, many of poor quality, so to keep yourself informed you must make the rounds.

[zombie killer]

I can see you're going to keep asking until you get the answer you want, so I'll take it upon myself to help.

acyually, i will probably refute all you bring up ass well. ( yes, i am arguing both sides. thats what you do in LD)

[zombie killer]

Fox News is absolutely, 100% reliable.

that is complete and utter BS

[misko27]

For readabilities sake, please use proper punctuation and spelling. I am mindful of the difficulties involved, especially over the internet, but my ability to understand you is suffering.

Fox News is absolutely, 100% reliable.

that is complete and utter BS

You seem like you're just being contrary.

[My Name is Immaterial]

On a scale of reliability and respectability, I find that the New York Times is going to be your best bet.
Also, if the point of this is to win a debate, then quoting Fox News will win you no points.

[Bauglir]

The Washington Post is also good, I hear, but on no account should you listen to the New York Post or the Washington Times.

[kaijyuu]

If you want good news sources, I suggest public ones, like PBS or NPR.

Not perfect, but usually better.

[My Name is Immaterial]

If you want good news sources, I suggest public ones, like PBS or NPR.

Not perfect, but usually better.

I would have to agree, but they are occasionally accused of presenting liberally biased views (albeit from people like Fox News, so take that with a grain of salt).

[Darvi]

Not their fault reality has a liberal bias.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Not their fault reality has a liberal bias.

It's not me you need to convince of that. It's these people.

[Lagslayer]

I wonder how many of the liberals will realize in 20 years that they have become arch conservatives. How will they live with themselves?

[misko27]

I wonder how many of the liberals will realize in 20 years that they have become arch conservatives. How will they live with themselves?

20 years is a very very conservative estimate. I would think 80 would be fair, given the actual movement of positions through time. Plus, views can evolve and it stands to reason there is a eventual point where the world stops going ever left, we actually hit upon the middle, and everyone can sort themselves where they feel like.

[freeformschooler]

I wonder how many of the liberals will realize in 20 years that they have become arch conservatives. How will they live with themselves?

20 years is a very very conservative estimate. I would think 80 would be fair, given the actual movement of positions through time. Plus, views can evolve and it stands to reason there is a eventual point where the world stops going ever left, we actually hit upon the middle, and everyone can sort themselves where they feel like.

That will never happen because we, as Humans, must fight against that which is wronging us, and if nothing is wronging us, we will invent an injustice. Dirty welfare rats. Die cis scum.

The world will always be in motion, right or left or any other meaningless direction.

[Doomblade187]

If you want good news sources, I suggest public ones, like PBS or NPR.

Not perfect, but usually better.

I would have to agree, but they are occasionally accused of presenting liberally biased views (albeit from people like Fox News, so take that with a grain of salt).

Public news sources do have some bias, but that's because they're news sources (though there is the point that they get government money, so there's that too). There will always be some bias, it just varies in severity.

[alway]

is fox news about as reliable as CNN?

( i am asking for educational purposes only, in that i want to be educated on things)

Do you really want news? News you can trust? Because it doesn't exist.

So here's how you get it:
http://arstechnica.com/ -- tech news; things that will actually matter for the future
http://www.popsci.com/ -- tech & science news; mix of lowest common denominator and actually good stuff
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ -- world news; western bias
http://www.aljazeera.com/ -- world news; non-western/unconventional biases
http://www.cnn.com/ -- world/us news; corporate bias
http://www.nbcnews.com/ -- world/us news; corporate bias, but with a usually slightly better science section
http://www.npr.org/ -- world/us news; us bias

And that's how you get it. NEVER trust a single source. NEVER get your information from a single source, and definitely NEVER form an opinion based on one source. You want the real story? Find it on several of the above, and then find it on several other sources with entirely different biases, and there lies the point closest to the truth. You need to find the commonalities and find the differences; only then can you get to the core truth of the story and strip away the bias-driven spin. And typically, that point lies quite far away from any reporting with bets in the game for that particular story.

And if you can't be bothered to do that, you must simply accept the fact that you're being spoonfed whatever steaming turdpile benefits the CEO to report on.

And further, I would go beyond that, and say the news itself is only the lesser of the information to be gleaned. By doing this much more rigorous news-gathering routine (those are just most of the ones I use on a daily basis), you see the larger issue: perspective. You see where everyone is coming from, and what their points are based on.