News source tribalism

Just a note to compare the Medias. How many of you are aware that the current Senate/CIA squabble is about "TORTURE" investigations. The media just keeps referring to it as a controversy. That would be a good place to get a read on what your favorite Media are projecting, or not.

Smeagol said:

Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?

Click to expand...

I try to use primary sources when they matter, and it's always good to try to verify sources too. But I don't have much use for those who insta-dismiss a source because of their own walled-in bias. They're intellectual lightweights, and their comments--"Well, its the Nation" (which I cited a few days ago) or "It's WND" or fill-in-the-blank--only interrupt potentially good threads and sometimes derail them.

Sometimes, the "opposition's" sourcing is excellent, and intellectual rigor really does require you to look at all the facts available, even when they don't fit your own pet narrative. So use sources that you've independently verified when you can, and just ignore those who are predictably and dismissively going bleat about your sourcing without even checking it out for themselves.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I agree and I think for the most part the BBC World Service and Al Jazeera English are excellent news sources. I am a big NPR listener myself, and routinely change my mind on issues based upon what I hear on an NPR program.

Click to expand...

I'm not really a radio person. I'd have to agree that NPR is an excellent source of news...but I dislike the website's layout. Lol

Robbie Loucks said:

I'm not really a radio person. I'd have to agree that NPR is an excellent source of news...but I dislike the website's layout. Lol

Click to expand...

Yeah I can't say I am a big fan of the website layout either. I read most of my news anymore on aggregators like Google News and Flipboard.

I tend to use multiple sources against each other to find a middle ground of bias that carries more truth.

I will often then search online sources to verify.

Smeagol said:

Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from and for major stories/issues I try to exclusively use generally respected outlets as far as the accuracy of their content and information is concerned like the BBC, Guardian, CNN, WSJ, etc. There are few claims I dismiss out of hand based on the source, I think people fantastically overestimate how much outright falsity is in the media, it's almost always mere perspective. The only thing I've noticed is that Fox, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent CNN seem willing to report more information when it comes to foreign policy issues/stories with far less/less reliable sources. This can simultaneously make them seem more sensationalistic but on occasion they beat competitors to the punch.

Now if you post something from RT, PressTV, Al-Alam, 'Global Research' (lol), or something like that then you should expect to see it heavily scrutinized if not outright dismissed because their reputations are so awful.