So, what or who do you consider as a "credible" news source, and why?

Sky News because they're unbiased, don't put their own opinions into a piece unless it's the political editor Adam Boulton arguing with a politician if he thinks what they said is wrong and because not only are they amongst the first in the world to break news, they have immensely talented and courageous journalists such as Holly Williams and Alex Crawford who put their lives on the line for the masses to get news.

Alex was even the first person in Tripoli riding along filming the rebels when they got the Libyan capital back from Gaddafi supporters. She juggles that kind of dangerous work with raising kids so hats off to her.

reply to post by curious7

She juggles that kind of dangerous work with raising kids so hats off to her.

That's absolutely foolish. To raise your kids on the front line of a civil war, you would have thought someone with her educational background, would leave the kids t home!!

Only joking.

I'm not so sure about Sky, it's a murdoch station. Definately more bias towards the Government than the opposition. It's bound to happen, our Governments are lobbied continuously and these outlets hold all the cards. When I say outlets, I obviously mean the person who owns such outlets.

I checkout all the BigBoys, like CNN, Fox,MSNBC, BBC etc, just to compare their varying shades of BS. RT is the only one I could even slightly trust, and even then I wonder who might be behind them and what their real agenda could be. At least they ask the questions other channels deliberately avoid bringing up.

Al Jazeera is in my opinion, a propaganda network for the US. It may have started with good intentions (or not), but today it reeks of shill.Based in Qatar last time I checked.

I do not believe a word from any British newspaper. And I doubt if any of the US ones have much veracity to them.

C-Span is pretty straight up, albeit selectively ommissive.

Any news media has to base it's lies on a framework of truth. Thus by comparing all of them you can spot the common, if somewhat anaemic,truths behind the many different veneers of fabrication, propaganda and diversion.

Also, by identifying the media's lies and the methodology behind them, it becomes easier and easier to separate wheat from chaff. From thereon, it's is down to critical thinkiing and comparison of notes with sites like ATS and even Youtube videos and certain blogs.

Despite all this I feel woefully uninformed, but at least not as misinformed.

Anyone, really anyone, other than Fox, brainless mouthpiece of the Republicans, where the self righteous interviewers have more to say than the interviewees. This station really must have money behind it because it has little valid content. CNN and BBC do it for me.