Is The Guardian Trustworthy, and other sources

I have been on ATS quite some time now and continually see comments like, your source is fake news. I will surely admit that many sites I have been lead toward are blatantly obvious crank sources of information but I have begun to wonder about all of the so-called mainstream sources not commonly mentioned. You know? The usual CNN's and such.
I followed a link to the Guardian telling a story of Indonesian cave art and at the end was a solicitation for donations.

www.theguardian.com...

I wanted to see if I would actually support them so I read the entire solicitation taking note of one section I wanted to reread so I went back to the top to reread this.

America faces an epic choice... … in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behavior. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage. It will be defining year and we’re asking for your help as we prepare for 2020. Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020.

Is this simply more brainwashing from the Guardian and a tell-tail indication of their political bias? No source can be trusted these days. I wanted to trust the Guardian but because of this little-seen and comprehended few paragraphs of pleadings, I cant do it.

Is there just one source of truth we can depend on? I wonder! Then again, no I don't. Ill just not trust any of them.

The boldface is mine for emphasis.


Are they accepting Soros monies? I wonder!

a reply to: CharlesT

No newspaper or media source is unbiased, some reporters try to be and to report only on the fact's but news directors have to make it entertaining for the public, most of these news sources are also privately owned usually by corporate entity's and they have there own political and societal management agenda's which is often why they got into the newspaper and other media business to begin with anyway.

In the UK an organization did once try to create a totally unbiased relate only the fact's newspaper but it flopped so they ended up having to make The Independent more entertaining and as for it's objectivity I am afraid it was all downhill from there.

Originally as well as a propaganda device for use in wartime, with ties to the intelligence services etc the BBC was once laudable for being mostly honest and mostly unbiased but sadly those day's are also long gone and today the BBC is riddled with political bias and agenda, has lost it's way as far as other moral issues are concerned and is looking set to end up being privatized sooner or later if the government of the UK stays under the control of the Tory's.

Being a Brit I have to try to juggle the truth on some issues by switching between BBC, Sky, ITV and even RT news as the different approaches and opinion's can be enlightening and while you have to expect ALL of these sources to be biased and far from independent you can still sometime's once you have listened to multiple angles on a story come to a perhaps more informed opinion as a result.

Remember though Information is power and so the general public will never have it all or indeed NEVER have the unabridged truth as we should have.

The guardian is regarded by some as a center left leaning newspaper when it comes to it's political bias but it is usually a highly regarded tabloid.

a reply to: LABTECH767
Yes I think I understand the top 10 pretty well myself. I watch one all the time or I should say it is on the TV for racket, as I live alone now. I even realize the one I stay on appears bias in the opposite so I don't trust it either.
Some of ATS members postings that are used for validation is more in line with what I was referring to. There are just so many of them no one can know them all so at some point, out of frustration, I just quit trusting any of them.

I suspect this is probably a militia website somewhere.
THESE 12 Republicans Are Being Financed By George Soros. This is SERIOUS.
www.angrypatriotmovement.com...

I hope I don't get investigated by the FBI because of this. I'm too old to be in a militia and besides, I'm retired and loving it.

I think it's gotten to the point where if it's on a screen, any screen anywhere, it can't be trusted.

a reply to: Admitted
If I could take my social security checks with me I would wish I was retired to the 1800's. Be a Doc, or Chester on Gunsmoke.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Admitted
If I could take my social security checks with me I would wish I was retired to the 1800's. Be a Doc, or Chester on Gunsmoke.

What part of the Wild West would you retire to. Would you be a farmer or a store merchant? Seriously interested.

Kind regards,

Bally

It's all very post post modern, but yeah, the larger news orgs are trustworthy-esque.

Descriptive words can "bias" the story, but bias doesn't mean it's factually inaccurate.

To illustrate, a typical incident could be relayed as:
"At the back of the podium partially hidden under the flag of the U.S.A., the President grabbed the foreign dignitary by her crotch and, through the open mike, was heard to whisper "how much is hourly parking?"

The biased version might read:
"The fat, oily president pulled a boner with an open microphone last night at the Haitian Embassy in D.C.
President _______ sleazed after the married ambassadress, Dr Tamarind Florid, cornering her behind the flag of the formerly respected U.S.A. and when he thought he was hidden from respectable view, clamped onto her crotch and slurred out, "how much is hourly parking?" for all to hear in its amplified horror.

It wouldn't be incorrect, just... slanted. But boy, the team sports would be so dull if the information was relayed with no bias. Most people would go back to wrestling.

I don't watch TV. The Guardian is my go to site to stay informed on which topics the MSM are pushing and how. Whenever I feel they are laying on their agenda a bit too thick I check other news sources. Every news source has a bias. I don't expect to find the truth in any single one of them but checking severall sources can give an idea of just how far apart the goal posts are so to say.

For anything Putin/Russia I will also check RT or Sputnik. I know they will feed me their own bs narrative but it does make for a more complete picture. The more contradictory the opposing narratives are the more likely I am to do additional, deeper digging.

For most topics it is often enough to search the keywords and compare the news headlines from different sources. Whenever I come across a new source and am unsure what their angle is and how trustworthy they are I look them up on MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK. I am pretty sure they have their own agenda but it's a start.

For what it is the Guardian is a pretty good news source. Use it, but don't rely on it alone and as with any news source be aware of their bias.

a reply to: CharlesT
The Guardian has always been well-known as the newspaper of the left-wing establishment. It's been described as the "house journal" of the BBC (because vacancies are advertised there). So it will be predictably left-wing in iis approach, just as the Daily Telegraph will be predictably Conservatve.

Most MSM tabloids hold as much credibility as the Express as far as I'm concerned, American ones included.

It seems independent media is the safer option to me, and you still have to be extra careful there too.

Thanks I'm depressed now 😐
👍🏻

a reply to: CharlesT

I don't trust the all of the news. You cant trust google unless you are looking to buy something. I see times are changing. It is happening slowly. There is way to much bias. It is a my way or the highway world. You almost have to be there in order to see what the truth really is. And then question that.

Oh God The Guardian is one of THE WORST sources ever.

Biased and not a journalist in sight.

Decades ago it was almost acceptable but now.... psh what a complete and utter rag of b******s.

i am niether agreeing or disagreeing with anyone - on the grundian`s " trustworthyness "

i has an opinion - but i shall keep it to my self

as i want to ask the question :

which UK newspaper do you trust most often // have the greatest trust in ?

i would [ for my sanity - be tempted to add the caveat " broadsheets only " - but screw it - lets see which tabloids our UK members trust too ]

in 2014, Obama reauthorized the NDAA.

Within the bill, there was added language that lifted the ban on domestic propaganda that had been in place since the '50-'60s.

Literally, for the last 5 years, anything and everything you read or see in regards to the news is questionable at best, outright false at worst.

Believe nobody.

a reply to: ignorant_ape
I don't see any difference between broadsheets or tabloids nowadays.

In fact, the roles are reversing.

a reply to: bally001
I thought it was all contained in my comment. Dodge City, Kansas with Doc, Chester, Matt and Kittie. All in the Long Branch Saloon having a beer. I would be Louie, one of the old men on dead-pecker bench in front of the saloon.

a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex
You present a pretty good strategy and advice. Anyone would be well served by it.

a reply to: ignorant_ape
Yes, this is an international problem. I tend to believe foreign sources more than I do the domestic sources here in the states. But I try to take all of them with a dose of skepticism.

a reply to: and14263

Oh God The Guardian is one of THE WORST sources ever. Biased and not a journalist in sight. Decades ago it was almost acceptable but now.... psh what a complete and utter rag of b******s.

And that is a biased view.

Factually incorrect and biased itself.

"The worst" ... on what scale?

No visible journalists? I doubt that.

A B***ch rag? Subjective.

I would guess an opinion going in, as The Guardian has been written about with bias. Likely because of their progressive editorials and anti-establishment stance. They had the guts (subjective bias) to publish Snowden's "treasonous" information but my own bias liked that as I was taught to dislike the society painted in Orwell.

Really, people should read bias from the "other team" to form a more balanced, and true, view. Sadly, it takes effort not to be a programmed automaton as we are reliant on second hand information ... and effort is SO last century.