That's a complex question, so I'll give a nuanced (if lengthy) answer.
So, are their news sources that I trust? Yes, but none without consideration or question. I like online media the most right now, because at the moment I think they are the furthest from the most corrupting sources of news bias, namely corporate money, DC partisan politics, and a culture of shoddy journalism that's come about since the "24 hour news cycle." My go-to news sources right now are Democracy Now!, TYT Politics, The Young Turks, Secular Talk, and I listen to a lot of differing sides on issues (including right libertarians, etc). As for online text media, I read The Intercept, occasionally In These Times and Jacobin for far-left stuff, and then a smattering of different commentators. I listen to none of these groups daily, usually, but by the end of the week I've usually read or watched most of what they have to say. The reason there's not a conservative commentator there is because I literally haven't found one that I respect enough not to constantly lie to me. There's a few conservatives I know who are thoughtful enough to merit listening to their commentary, but in general they just don't seem to talk about issues that I think merit my attention. If you can rectify this in any way, and you know of a serious, thoughtful commentator from the conservative viewpoint, I'd be happy to listen to them.
(edited for length. My apologies)
Your post was incredibly well thought out and nuanced as promised.
Thank you.
I am pre-disposed to agree with any thoughts that are in support of individual liberty, smaller government, honoring commitments, limiting the reach and impact of bullying and challenging the deceitful. These are probably common mind sets to favor and that is where the trouble starts.
In abortion, as an example, is the fetus a person and potentially endowed with unalienable rights or is it simply a tissue mass incapable that is not alive? That definition frames the debate. BOTH sides are probably in agreement that individual rights are paramount, that the government should not dictate the actions of individuals and that the arguments are loaded with deceit. So, comes politics.
I do not routinely dig as deeply into events and news as you seem to. I use the most available outlets and like to compare the styles. Using the satellite radio to switch between about 4 outlets of varying views allowed some very good entertainment. Switching back and forth between FOX and CNN was especially rewarding from an amusement standpoint. Same story, but the roles of devil and angel were reversed between Hillary and Trump. For me, high comedy.
Especially rewarding is the team members on the two outlets that have changed teams. Alisyn Camerota, having recently changed from FOX to CNN, had also miraculously changed cheer leader uniforms from Republican to Democrat. Again, high comedy. There are several on air talent types on these outlets that have changed. All "passion for sale" proponents of the party line of the current paycheck provider.
All of that said, there are some stories that beg for greater clarity. You mentioned Benghazi. CNN was firmly in favor of protecting the Obama team's stories on the topic. FOX was firmly in favor of attacking that party line.
What FACTS did they agree on? There were diplomats on site. There was a violent incident that resulted in the death of the diplomats. It occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. There was a US Presidential election campaign in progress
From these facts, what else might we infer?
The diplomats on site were assigned there by the Department of State. The area was very unstable. The facility provided for the diplomats was not sufficiently secured given the situation. Any help that might have been sent to provide fast and overwhelming force was not sent. The date of 9/11 was not interpreted as a "flash point" for the local residents by the DOS planners.
Also obvious to any impartial viewer were these two bits: ANYTHING presented by either campaign was probably not going to be the absolute truth. The White House Staff was a part of the Obama Campaign.
Simply by listening to what all of the news outlets agree on as fact is a good place to start. Also asking, if this is true, what else must be true?
In the immediate aftermath of this event, I was posting on this board, I think, and was outraged that the diplomats were there
and unprotected and left to die with no effort at help from outside the area.
Again, just asking, "If this is true, what else must be true?" answers lots of questions on the reporting.
My views are probably not as nuanced and well presented as yours. I do greatly appreciate reading your thoughts.
