List of Reliable Sources and Unreliable Sources for News

Reliable:
-
-
-
-
-

Unreliable:
-CNN.com
-AP
-WSJ.com
-Foxnews.com
-msnbc
-Yahoo.com
-news.google.com
-nytimes.com
-abcnews.go.com

The MOST UNRELIABLE:
TELEGRAPH.CO.UK
GUARDIAN.CO.UK

^ DO NOT USE THOSE TWO SOURCES ESPECIALLY.





The point is this guys, news nowadays is tabloid-yellow journalism-bs. It's less accurate than fantasizing about global destruction. You will NEVER know the reality unless you have a good back ground of history and saw the event FIRSTHAND.

reply to post by die_another_day


I happen to agree. You shouldn;t put your trust in any media outlet and instead, you should look at them all as p5ropaganda mills. The worse thing that I see with the media today, is punditry. the very idea of punditry is to allow someone else to do the thinking for you. It has no other purpose, what so ever.

By not trusting any media source, you will eventually relearn to think on your own and you should be more steadfast in your convictions. You should always research something further before coming to a conclusion on it, period.

With that being said, it's so much what the media does tell you, as it is with what they don't tell you. It's what they keep from you that is the biggest problem. Knowing that, there are some more credible sources than others, such as RT and the more "indie" outlets. However, patronizing these services, channels, papers or sites, still does not excuse researching on your own and not falling victim to pundits.


--airspoon

It is impossible to have a news service that does not have a spin or bias. However, just because the news isn't neutral in opinion doesn't make it unreliable. In fact it makes it more reliable because the viewer already knows what to expect.

This is why you have to learn the science of cross-referencing.

If news sources of multiple perspectives point to the same thing, it's safe to assume that it's true.

Wait.

What about the comic strips in those publications? Can I read them?
Is Marmaduke ok, or just Spiderman?

What about the classifieds?
Can I read those with your approval?

How about these? Can I read these, or do you disapprove of them too?

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by die_another_day

 

I happen to agree. You shouldn;t put your trust in any media outlet and instead, you should look at them all as p5ropaganda mills. The worse thing that I see with the media today, is punditry. the very idea of punditry is to allow someone else to do the thinking for you. It has no other purpose, what so ever.


You have started a lot of threads and linked many of news sources. correct??
--airspoon

reply to post by makeitso


If you're gonna use Marmaduke as a source then yes, I will criticize you.

haaretz

THE WORST!

Debka

NOT ANY BETTER!

well I'm lil torn on this one.
While I see your point,
if no news sources were reliable
what sources would we use
for ATS Headlines????

While I agree a degree of common
sense is required and needed to sort thru
the BS to the point that we train
ourselves with a BS detector.

I find myself looking at news in a whole
different way than I use to. Most of it
is in a way that is detrimental to rational
logic.

While I tend to agree that we need to read
the news with skepticism, I don't think we
can dump ALL the news entirely especially
if that news comes from multiple news sources.
Sometimes, they do tell the truth ....
if you can avoid the spin.

reply to post by die_another_day


LOL
But Spidermans OK? Gotcha.

How about the other 13,000 links I posted.
Will you vet all of them and let us know which ones are ok with your politics too?
You know, so that we are sure to only post approved news, just like in the Russia.

Poisoning the Wells is a well known logical fallacy, and logical fallacies are questionable means of argument. A source, by definition, is merely a point of origin. Regardless of the source, either the data being reported is valid or it isn't. Attacking the source is pointless. The fact of the matter is that the term "yellow journalism" was coined in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century to describe the circulation battle between Joseph Pulitzer and his newspaper The New York World, and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal. Both Pulitzer and Hearst are credited, and/or blamed by numerous historians of drawing the United States into the Spanish American War with their sensationalized news of events surrounding the build up to that war, which leads yet to another concern regarding reliability and that is with historians.

The reliability factor regarding information is not a problem solely with news, and there are numerous historians from the past, and more recently, that have offered up as fact, dubious claims, colored by personal agenda, and done so in the name of science, albeit soft science.

Even so, when Pulitzer and Hearst were battling each other over circulation, both papers were as inclined to report credible news as they were to report sensationalistic news in order to sell their newspapers. "If it bleeds it leads" has been an axiom of newspaper editors for over a century, and besides reporting credible news, newspapers have to concern themselves with selling their papers as well.

There is a fairy tale perception that at one time there were news sources that were purely credible, and there were news anchors such as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, the latter being hailed as "the most trusted man in America". However, during the Tet Offensive, Cronkite reported the demise of the American effort in Viet Nam, even though later historical accounts tell quite a different story. Where Cronkite presented the Tet Offensive as a defeat for the American's, the reality was that even though the American military was caught by surprise by this attack, the Viet Cong were soundly defeated, and the ability of the American military to mobilize after this surprise attack was remarkably impressive. Even so, Cronkite's reporting marked a turning point in the American public's perception of that conflict, prompting President Lyndon Johnson to have reportedly said; "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

The time frame in which the Tet Offensive was reported is considered to be that fairy tale time when news could be trusted, and later when "Woodstein" the undercover reporting team of Bob Woodward, and Carl Bernstein reported on the Watergate Scandal, much of their undercover work hinged on the unnamed source of "Deepthroat", ushering in the age of unnamed sources as "reliable" news sources, and that time period also belongs in this fantasy of trusted news sources era.

Pulitzer, Hearst, Murrow, Cronkite, Woodward, and Bernstein are all news people who have offered up many credible news stories in their careers, and have also offered up, some times, news stories that were less than credible. They were, and are human, after all. If a news story is credible, it makes no different which news source the credible news comes from, it is still credible. Conversely, if there is such a thing as a reliable news source, this is no guarantee that everything they report will be credible news.

What we should be careful about is lazily attributing pejoratives to news sources we don't like or trust. There is nothing at all wrong in taking a suspicious view of any news source, but there is most assuredly something wrong with attacking the news reported from that source simply because they are viewed as untrustworthy. Even the boy who cried wolf, eventually reported a credible news story of wolf, and when he did, the towns people suffered form their own lazy perceptions of the source, instead of doing what is always necessary, which is to verify the data.

That pretty much leaves just PressTV and Al-Jazeera. Which seem to be the favorites of most ATS folks anyway.

Seems people take anything they print as gospel, along with anything Alex Jones spews forth.

reply to post by bourbon2nite


I'm not saying that everything in the media is a lie, only that it can't be trusted. Furthermore, it's not really what the media is telling us that we have to worry about, it's what they aren't telling us that we should worry about. Many people believe that if it isn;t reported on the nightly news, it didn't happen or isn;t happening and this is the very definition of ignorance.

While in years past, people were controlled with swords, cannons and standing armies, in our current times, people are controlled through the flow of information. We live in the information age, which is why it is more important than ever that we learn to think on our own and verify the information before them. Not only that, but seek out the information that is being censored or ignored. In the age of the sword, information didn't matter so much, as the sword was there to keep them in line, thus people learned the art of weilding a sword to ensure their well-being. For us, on the other hand, parsing and disseminating information is what we need to know to improve or maintain our well-being, as it is information and not the sword, that controls our lives and shackles us to our rulers.

Posting a story and linking a source to said story is completely irrelevant to whether or not the media is credible as a whole or serving the purpose for what we believe it is intended, especially when citing that story for your own backed up and well-researched beliefs.

--airspoon