a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport
Brava! Well put.
Personally, I use sources that:
1) are upfront about their 'funding sources' be they private (always questionable), advertising revenues, public funded.
2) are edited by professional and trained by professional journalists - not PR people, lobbiests, or 'dumb blonds'.
3) have links to their sources that are not self-referential. Or use only 'agenda-driven' sources.
4) require more then one reliable source to print.
5) keep 'speculation' and opinion out of 'news' ... Who, What, When, Where, How -- no why whatsoever.
4) have history of excellence and professionalism.
A good measure of any given piece is whether or not differing opinions are acknowledged for validity and addressed. If a piece only doesn't address
problems, and questions, it's usually a propoganda piece.
It's very hard in this digital age to find good sources - so I tend to stick to basics - to people and organizations that have a solid track
For instance - I would never quote Brietbart as a source and stopped using Huffington Post as one when I discovered that HuffPo was founded not only
by Arianna Huffington but Andrew Brietbart as well (and I 'speculate' that was the source of the money). For your information - Ariann Huffington was
married to Michael Huffington a California 'rightist' that overturn 'people's will' by throwing mountains of money at the Grey Davis recall which
Arnold Swartzenager took advance of... love the integrity of Republicans. Not that democrats are any better.
There are people that I trust to do their homework. And outlets.
One more time, I ask the ATS community. What are your reliable, well sourced and vetted, and professional news outlets on the right? I've been
asking this question for years without valid response.
The Heritage Foundation is not source with integrity nor is Brietbart. Both have clear agenda that are driven by - big money and big business.
edit on 27-2-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)