Objective vetting of political topics

[EvMetro]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

If you are not able to accurately articulate why righties claim that the election was stolen, yet you can clearly articulate why lefties think it was not, then you have not "objectively" evaluated the situation. This is not about if the election was stolen or not, it is simply about doing an "objective" analysis of the topic. Evaluating the topic using only sources that satisfy your bias and ignoring sources that you don't tell you what you want to hear is not objective vetting at all.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

The media industry as a whole has earned my distrust. I have to vet EVERYTHING I read or hear before I can commit it to my perception of the political landscape. I also insist on studying what sources of opposing political bias have to say when I vet my info.

Thats cool.

NPR has been on the air for 50 years. AP has been around since 1846.

I'm comfortable with them as my two primary news sources. WSJ is good. Forbes is good. Reuters is good. ABC, NBC, CBS...I let them report and take it at face value....but I look for confirmation with others.

And I say this with no animosity toward what you just wrote.... I can't imagine any value that Russia Today could deliver. I think--this is my opinion--that the kook sites on the right and the left (Daily KOs, Mother Jones) live to satisfy a feedback loop. They know their audience and feed them stories they know they will love.

NPR was my thing for years. I was a lefty well into my adult life, and I remember listening to NPR for years of commuting. "Morning edition", and "all things considered", lol, I was hooked on NPR. I remember feeling enlightened and smug as I listened to Aaron Copeland music dubbed into my favorite news. I had no reason to look elsewhere for better news. This was all before I finally started waking up. I woke up slowly, I felt like Neo in "The Matrix" as I began to see the world for the first time...

Yeah...you started a thread comparing riots a few weeks back if memory serves. You completely ignored the right wing riots in Charlottesville and only cited the 1/6 riots. You may want to go back to sleep if this is your version of having "woken up".

That thread was only meant to archive riots in two lists, and I requested that the community here name riots for each list. It was not about 1/6, and anybody could name riots for each list. Take this up on that thread and we can go deeper.

 

[Moonglow]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

If you are not able to accurately articulate why righties claim that the election was stolen, yet you can clearly articulate why lefties think it was not, then you have not "objectively" evaluated the situation. This is not about if the election was stolen or not, it is simply about doing an "objective" analysis of the topic. Evaluating the topic using only sources that satisfy your bias and ignoring sources that you don't tell you what you want to hear is not objective vetting at all.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

The media industry as a whole has earned my distrust. I have to vet EVERYTHING I read or hear before I can commit it to my perception of the political landscape. I also insist on studying what sources of opposing political bias have to say when I vet my info.

Thats cool.

NPR has been on the air for 50 years. AP has been around since 1846.

I'm comfortable with them as my two primary news sources. WSJ is good. Forbes is good. Reuters is good. ABC, NBC, CBS...I let them report and take it at face value....but I look for confirmation with others.

And I say this with no animosity toward what you just wrote.... I can't imagine any value that Russia Today could deliver. I think--this is my opinion--that the kook sites on the right and the left (Daily KOs, Mother Jones) live to satisfy a feedback loop. They know their audience and feed them stories they know they will love.

NPR was my thing for years. I was a lefty well into my adult life, and I remember listening to NPR for years of commuting. "Morning edition", and "all things considered", lol, I was hooked on NPR. I remember feeling enlightened and smug as I listened to Aaron Copeland music dubbed into my favorite news. I had no reason to look elsewhere for better news. This was all before I finally started waking up. I woke up slowly, I felt like Neo in "The Matrix" as I began to see the world for the first time...

I worked for NPR in NW Arkansas at the University of Arkansass and never did I only listen to NPR but to any news radio station, I tried to listen to Rush in 1990 but figured out he was nothing but propaganda.

 

[EvMetro]

Objectively, you're a tiny minded "conservative"
Subjectively, you're rather unpleasant and undoubtedly make for bad company in any social situation.

there you go my tiny minded miserable little twit.

You still have not demonstrated that you even know the difference between subjective and objective. You should get a handle on these two things, before posting on a thread like this.

.

You might want to cut that poster a bit of slack, as they continue grappling with self-awareness issues.
One of those folks that should just be thankful breathing is on auto-pilot.

.​

Indeed. I think he may just be a spam bot program anyway.

 

[BlackSand]

I worked for NPR in NW Arkansas at the University of Arkansass and never did I only listen to NPR but to any news radio station, I tried to listen to Rush in 1990 but figured out he was nothing but propaganda.

.

I stopped listening to NPR when they did a segment with then Attorney General Eric Holder.
He was explaining that the best way to address Criminal Justice Reform in regards to racial discrimination,
Was to stop weighing the drugs when they busted minorities.

That isn't News ... That is an attempt to circumvent the Laws passed by Congress, by neglecting to measure what the law requires
Thus avoiding the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing requirements.

They were just selling bullshit ...

.​

 

[EvMetro]

It is clear from reading this thread that lefties do not objectively vet their news stories and political topics, and that leftism is based upon subjective agenda. On that note, I do in fact subjectively resent lefties, but what I am saying above is based only on the content of this thread. When I objectively scan through it, I am mostly finding lefties who are posting subjective content. I am finding that lefties are limiting media to sources that are aligned with their own bias. Worse yet, they think this is objective vetting.

 

[ClaireH]

I worked for NPR in NW Arkansas at the University of Arkansass and never did I only listen to NPR but to any news radio station, I tried to listen to Rush in 1990 but figured out he was nothing but propaganda.

.

I stopped listening to NPR when they did a segment with then Attorney General Eric Holder.
He was explaining that the best way to address Criminal Justice Reform in regards to racial discrimination,
Was to stop weighing the drugs when they busted minorities.

That isn't News ... That is an attempt to circumvent the Laws passed by Congress, by neglecting to measure what the law requires
Thus avoiding the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing requirements.

They were just selling bullshit ...

.​

I am a former listener of NPR as well. I still can pull up the voices of those specific show hosts in my mind’s eye… or would that be my mind’s ear… anyway… The format began changing with their guest selection and format with most of them leaning left…some stronger than others but depended on the host and topic. A balanced network has both conservative and liberal viewpoints and I would imagine that’s a hard goal if you’re going for truth above politics. A network will never satisfy all viewers or listeners, regardless of what they do. I just was aware that NPR went left on most agenda-topics and I stopped listening.

I like Al Jazeera a lot better than anything I’ve found within the states on the national scale. There are many good US journalists, but they are not on any prime time political show…keyword being show.

 

[EvMetro]

I am a former listener of NPR as well. I still can pull up the voices of those specific show hosts in my mind’s eye

I have found that the absolute truth is not available to us, so the best we can hope for is to triangulate the "most likely" truth from a broad range of sources. Broad range meaning any sources from fringe right to fringe left. I don't believe or trust any of them, but I do study them and get my puzzle pieces from them. Often, I find that I get valuable clues from sources that don't align with my own bias.

Nice job articulating the mental picture of past voices. Classy.

 

[ClaireH]

I am a former listener of NPR as well. I still can pull up the voices of those specific show hosts in my mind’s eye

I have found that the absolute truth is not available to us, so the best we can hope for is to triangulate the "most likely" truth from a broad range of sources. Broad range meaning any sources from fringe right to fringe left. I don't believe or trust any of them, but I do study them and get my puzzle pieces from them. Often, I find that I get valuable clues from sources that don't align with my own bias.

You know, after considering what’s been mentioned on this thread about checking out the wares of far-left and far-right political promoters, it sounds like a good idea. Maybe I’ll try 10 minutes max to preserve functioning brain cells, and to gauge “how far they take it”. Since I already have the opinion (based on watching them before) that they are basically paid salesmen who promote a specific political agenda, listening and not filtered listening will be a challenge.

 

[BlackSand]

You know, after considering what’s been mentioned on this thread about checking out the wares of far-left and far-right political promoters, it sounds like a good idea. Maybe I’ll try 10 minutes max to preserve functioning brain cells, and to gauge “how far they take it”. Since I already have the opinion (based on watching them before) that they are basically paid salesmen who promote a specific political agenda, listening and not filtered listening will be a challenge.

.

Hey ... When you do that, try to find people that aren't just arguing policy decisions by current politicians under current situations.
Most of that crap is just bait one way or another.

Find people that are willing to say they are providing commentary.
Especially ones that work harder at drawing correlations between reality, results and principles.

It is always easier to point out what hasn't, or doesn't work, than it is to find what does.
If someone is steady promising you a miracle cure, they are full of shit, and selling you snake oil.

Major news outlets of all persuasions will even go as far as publishing a poll that says 75% of Americans support or believe their bullshit ...
Like that is a point worth making.

.​

 

[candycorn]

It is clear from reading this thread that lefties do not objectively vet their news stories and political topics, and that leftism is based upon subjective agenda. On that note, I do in fact subjectively resent lefties, but what I am saying above is based only on the content of this thread. When I objectively scan through it, I am mostly finding lefties who are posting subjective content. I am finding that lefties are limiting media to sources that are aligned with their own bias. Worse yet, they think this is objective vetting.

It is a fact that every court threw out the Big Lie
It is a fact there have not been mass arrests as a result of the Big Lie.
It is a fact that all jurisdictions have certified their election results in spite of the Big Lie.
It is a fact that Trump is the only one who claims to be a victim and fostered the Big Lie.

Any news outlet still propagating the Big Lie is not doing so based on any facts. It's been 7 months now.... where are the court filings....where are the arrests...where are any elections being overturned....where are the others who were cheated; why aren't they up in arms as well?

 

[candycorn]

It is clear from reading this thread that lefties do not objectively vet their news stories and political topics, and that leftism is based upon subjective agenda. On that note, I do in fact subjectively resent lefties, but what I am saying above is based only on the content of this thread. When I objectively scan through it, I am mostly finding lefties who are posting subjective content. I am finding that lefties are limiting media to sources that are aligned with their own bias. Worse yet, they think this is objective vetting.

Just as a point of reference, when you have posted something in the past year or so, how often have you cited NPR as a source?

 

[candycorn]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

It means I want to see the source documentation, and I want to hear a variety of opinions and analyses from people on both/all sides of the discussion.

Okay..

Did Trump win the 2020 election? Source your response.

You have read both sides right? You do know that all 50 states certified the results. That there have been (and will be) no outsized arrests for voter fraud. You do know that every court challenge failed in every jurisdiction--red states included. You do know that the re-counts only confirmed Biden's victory.
And you do know that of the 8,000 or so losers on Election Day, only your blob is complaining about election fraud.

So show us how you can, after supposedly taking in all of the different sources....you can still say your blob was cheated.

I'm sure you'll have some snarky response that will have nothing to do with the challenge before you.

If you are not able to accurately articulate why righties claim that the election was stolen, yet you can clearly articulate why lefties think it was not, then you have not "objectively" evaluated the situation. This is not about if the election was stolen or not, it is simply about doing an "objective" analysis of the topic. Evaluating the topic using only sources that satisfy your bias and ignoring sources that you don't tell you what you want to hear is not objective vetting at all.

And here we go...

What sources are telling you the election was stolen?
What sources are telling you the election was not stolen?

Seventeen intel agencies told us that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. How many intel agencies (not to mention the DOJ) were willing to carry Trump's water on his baseless claims? None.

I can't articulate why righties think the election is stolen....It makes zero sense. There is no evidence of the massive theft; there are no massive amounts of arrests. At this point..if you were to engage...you'd spin every conspiracy theory there is about how every cop is corrupt, every judge is corrupt, every election official is corrupt....even the Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) and his hand picked FBI director and AG were corrupt too. Every single person is corrupt! And then of course... Every court case across multiple jurisdictions was thrown out. The allegations were laughable in every possible way. For example...why have someone doctor the ballots or run them through the machine thousands of times when...in another conspiracy theory about the election, the Dominion machines could just change the vote tallies? Righties had ballots from North Korea being dumped off in New England.

Remember the story about the US Army seizing servers in Berlin giving air time to this ridiculous charge....
.
OANN had the same story but have since taken it down.

Several right wing kook sites have apologized for their allegations during the early days of the Big Lie.

The same ones who are propagating the lie about Trump winning the election. So when you do your survey of sources and their credibility....surely you must take the airing of nonsense stories into account...right? I mean <sarcasm> you don't believe them because you WANT TO BELIEVE THEM....right?

Yeah...

NPR and AP have published some things that didn't turn out to be true. But they issue a retraction and a correction. The right wing kook sites have to be sued before they apologize.

It looks like you may be trying to get away from discussing objective vetting, and are instead presenting a subjective analysis of the stolen election topic.

Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

It looks like you may be dodging the question I asked you.

When a news source repeatedly gives voice to the Big Lie...does it hurt their credibility or not?

No. The have no credibility in the first place. They all have political agenda.

I agree.

Now...did they earn having "no credibility" or is this just the baseline "nobody has any credibility" position?

The media industry as a whole has earned my distrust. I have to vet EVERYTHING I read or hear before I can commit it to my perception of the political landscape. I also insist on studying what sources of opposing political bias have to say when I vet my info.

Thats cool.

NPR has been on the air for 50 years. AP has been around since 1846.

I'm comfortable with them as my two primary news sources. WSJ is good. Forbes is good. Reuters is good. ABC, NBC, CBS...I let them report and take it at face value....but I look for confirmation with others.

And I say this with no animosity toward what you just wrote.... I can't imagine any value that Russia Today could deliver. I think--this is my opinion--that the kook sites on the right and the left (Daily KOs, Mother Jones) live to satisfy a feedback loop. They know their audience and feed them stories they know they will love.

NPR was my thing for years. I was a lefty well into my adult life, and I remember listening to NPR for years of commuting. "Morning edition", and "all things considered", lol, I was hooked on NPR. I remember feeling enlightened and smug as I listened to Aaron Copeland music dubbed into my favorite news. I had no reason to look elsewhere for better news. This was all before I finally started waking up. I woke up slowly, I felt like Neo in "The Matrix" as I began to see the world for the first time...

Yeah...you started a thread comparing riots a few weeks back if memory serves. You completely ignored the right wing riots in Charlottesville and only cited the 1/6 riots. You may want to go back to sleep if this is your version of having "woken up".

That thread was only meant to archive riots in two lists, and I requested that the community here name riots for each list. It was not about 1/6, and anybody could name riots for each list. Take this up on that thread and we can go deeper.

Nice dodge.

 

[ClaireH]

You know, after considering what’s been mentioned on this thread about checking out the wares of far-left and far-right political promoters, it sounds like a good idea. Maybe I’ll try 10 minutes max to preserve functioning brain cells, and to gauge “how far they take it”. Since I already have the opinion (based on watching them before) that they are basically paid salesmen who promote a specific political agenda, listening and not filtered listening will be a challenge.

.

Hey ... When you do that, try to find people that aren't just arguing policy decisions by current politicians under current situations.
Most of that crap is just bait one way or another.

Find people that are willing to say they are providing commentary.
Especially ones that work harder at drawing correlations between reality, results and principles.

It is always easier to point out what hasn't, or doesn't work, than it is to find what does.
If someone is steady promising you a miracle cure, they are full of shit, and selling you snake oil.

They will even go as far as publishing a poll that says 75% of Americans believe their bullshit ...
Like that is a point worth making.

.​

That is a most astute observation about how LSM frequently brings up some obscure poll finding telling the audience that it’s “proof” that a majority of people back whatever agenda they’re promoting . Political polls are completely bogus, although some exit polls seem to have merit which explains why they are stopping those. Skilled polsters know how to word their questions, to select a specific audience, to limit geographic location, age groups etc. It’s even a possibility that all polled could work for same company, in order to obtain the results they want.

Related side note: I’m still waiting for ever-calculating Hillary to publicly declare “Hey, did you guys forget about 2016? I was the real winner because the polls proved it! Now, where’s my crown!?” Lmao Hillary

 

[ClaireH]

I am a former listener of NPR as well. I still can pull up the voices of those specific show hosts in my mind’s eye

I have found that the absolute truth is not available to us, so the best we can hope for is to triangulate the "most likely" truth from a broad range of sources. Broad range meaning any sources from fringe right to fringe left. I don't believe or trust any of them, but I do study them and get my puzzle pieces from them. Often, I find that I get valuable clues from sources that don't align with my own bias.

Nice job articulating the mental picture of past voices. Classy.

I really liked that Science Friday show. Also, as you mentioned, All Things Considered was another engaging piece at one time. Driving to and from work- NPR. I would eat lunch in my car just to hear the programming. Like you, I was an NPR junkie! Lol

I’m going to check about NPR’s past transfer of ownership and the like. I guess it could be a case of the audience members with the deepest pockets pulling the cart instead of the program directors and owner. Hard to determine without evidence of changing captains.

 

[BlackSand]

That is a most astute observation about how LSM frequently brings up some obscure poll finding telling the audience that it’s “proof” that a majority of people back whatever agenda they’re promoting . Political polls are completely bogus, although some exit polls seem to have merit which explains why they are stopping those. Skilled polsters know how to word their questions, to select a specific audience, to limit geographic location, age groups etc. It’s even a possibility that all polled could work for same company, in order to obtain the results they want.

Related side note: I’m still waiting for ever-calculating Hillary to publicly declare “Hey, did you guys forget about 2016? I was the real winner because the polls proved it! Now, where’s my crown!?” Lmao Hillary

.

Yeah ... But they don't even have to lie, corrupt the process, or produce false results.

Them publishing a poll that says 75% of Americans think it is a good idea to cut your arm off ...
Does absolutely nothing towards indicating a reason why it would be a good idea to actually cut it off.

Listen to what they say ... Not what they want you to hear ...

.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is clear from reading this thread that lefties do not objectively vet their news stories and political topics, and that leftism is based upon subjective agenda. On that note, I do in fact subjectively resent lefties, but what I am saying above is based only on the content of this thread. When I objectively scan through it, I am mostly finding lefties who are posting subjective content. I am finding that lefties are limiting media to sources that are aligned with their own bias. Worse yet, they think this is objective vetting.

Just as a point of reference, when you have posted something in the past year or so, how often have you cited NPR as a source?

Just as a point of reference, when have you EVER cited any right-wing source, Cornhole?

 

[candycorn]

It is clear from reading this thread that lefties do not objectively vet their news stories and political topics, and that leftism is based upon subjective agenda. On that note, I do in fact subjectively resent lefties, but what I am saying above is based only on the content of this thread. When I objectively scan through it, I am mostly finding lefties who are posting subjective content. I am finding that lefties are limiting media to sources that are aligned with their own bias. Worse yet, they think this is objective vetting.

Just as a point of reference, when you have posted something in the past year or so, how often have you cited NPR as a source?

Just as a point of reference, when have you EVER cited any right-wing source, Cornhole?

Sure...

Prager Institute:

Mississippi Governor Declares April as Confederate Heritage Month

He's from NYC. That does not make a lot of sense. BUT, this does.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[NightFox]

It is clear from reading this thread that lefties do not objectively vet their news stories and political topics, and that leftism is based upon subjective agenda. On that note, I do in fact subjectively resent lefties, but what I am saying above is based only on the content of this thread. When I objectively scan through it, I am mostly finding lefties who are posting subjective content. I am finding that lefties are limiting media to sources that are aligned with their own bias. Worse yet, they think this is objective vetting.

Just as a point of reference, when you have posted something in the past year or so, how often have you cited NPR as a source?

Just as a point of reference, when have you EVER cited any right-wing source, Cornhole?

How do you tell the difference? Is it any outlet that publishes opinions that you don’t agree with is <insert opposite “wing” here>? Or is it strictly by reputation? Is there a list somewhere that you reference?

 

[Dadoalex]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

In news stories I look for a fair even handed coverage of both sides of an issue. In many cases you can tell just by the article title if it is a liberal or conservative hit piece if not by that you can read a few sentences or a paragrapgh and figure out if the writer has a bias one way or the other. It is getting harder and harder to find objective news anymore as so many reporters/journalist have picked a side and the agenda they want to push and don't even make a pretense of being objective anymore.

God that is the truth.
NPR really is about the only place anymore where you actually get unbiased reporting.
it is a shame that you have to collect the same information from 3-4-5 different sites to be sure you have the actual factual story.

One of the other big problems is the bluring of the line between opinion and actual reporting. We have talk show host and opinion people being passed as reporters and people who are suppossed to be actual reporters passing of their opinions as actaul facts and reporting.

True but as long as people are willing to watch without filters, not much can be done.

 

[HappyJoy]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

No, instead we cancel sports that upset our feelz.

Could be a better topic but right out of the gate you're being subjective rather than objective.