Where does one find "real news "?

[Timmy]

there was this lady at the last trump rally. She's being interviewed by the news and goes off how she doesn't believe the news "cause it's all fake ".

Really ? She's on the news? Should I not believe she exists ? If she watches herself on the newscast does she think "that's not me!!!"

These people remind of of those who don't believe in medicine .

My question : where DO they get their news!? Not from time tested /trusted news orgs. Then what's left?

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

There is no single source, but, generally, stay away from the mainstream news. Reuters is decent. For any one story, read multiple articles and watch multiple YouTube videos about it to get a complete picture.

 

[Timmy]

There is no single source, but, generally, stay away from the mainstream news. Reuters is decent. For any one story, read multiple articles and watch multiple YouTube videos about it to get a complete picture.

I agree. Get it from all over .

But Reuters is not msm? How do u figure ?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Source material is often available. Read them and make your own conclusions when they are available.

For example, the travel ban stay from the 9th Circuit Court. The court did not say that travel bans are unconstitutional for POTUS. They argued that it would hurt tech companies if their foreign national coders who were on vacation back home had to go through a 90 day travel ban.

 

[Toro]

CNN

 

[fncceo]

All news organisations are biased towards a particular agenda. Entertainment news such as cable and network news are biased in favour of higher ratings.sensationalism. State-sponsored news organisations (such as RBT, BBC, PBS) also have state-sponsored agendas. The Penny Saver is biased to attract readers who are scared of Craigslist.

This isn't a new phenomenon, all news has always been biased for as long as it has existed.

 

[ColonelAngus]

All news organisations are biased towards a particular agenda. Entertainment news such as cable and network news are biased in favour of higher ratings.sensationalism. State-sponsored news organisations (such as RBT, BBC, PBS) also have agendas. The Penny Saver is biased to attract readers who are scared of Craigslist.

This isn't a new phenomenon, all news has always been biased for as long as it has existed.

You seem to have a hidden agenda.

But seriously, this is largely true and very unfortunate.

 

[fncceo]

All news organisations are biased towards a particular agenda. Entertainment news such as cable and network news are biased in favour of higher ratings.sensationalism. State-sponsored news organisations (such as RBT, BBC, PBS) also have agendas. The Penny Saver is biased to attract readers who are scared of Craigslist.

This isn't a new phenomenon, all news has always been biased for as long as it has existed.

You seem to have a hidden agenda.

But seriously, this is largely true and very unfortunate.

Of course I have an agenda ... but it mostly involves unmarried women just a few years younger than myself and isn't particularly germane to current events.

 

[Wyatt earp]

there was this lady at the last trump rally. She's being interviewed by the news and goes off how she doesn't believe the news "cause it's all fake ".

Really ? She's on the news? Should I not believe she exists ? If she watches herself on the newscast does she think "that's not me!!!"

These people remind of of those who don't believe in medicine .

My question : where DO they get their news!? Not from time tested /trusted news orgs. Then what's left?

Whats time tested / trusted news organizations?

.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

There is no single source, but, generally, stay away from the mainstream news. Reuters is decent. For any one story, read multiple articles and watch multiple YouTube videos about it to get a complete picture.

I agree. Get it from all over .

But Reuters is not msm? How do u figure ?

They're MSM, but they're the least biased, IMO. Not that they don't have any bias at all.

 

[fncceo]

this is largely true and very unfortunate.

This is no more unfortunate than the color of the sky being blue(ish). It is what it is. If we surrender too much of our critical thinking to ANY authority we deserve what happens to us. Never take anything at face-value except mother's love (and then make sure you get the b*tch on tape).

 

[Dale Smith]

There is no single source, but, generally, stay away from the mainstream news. Reuters is decent. For any one story, read multiple articles and watch multiple YouTube videos about it to get a complete picture.

I agree. Get it from all over .

But Reuters is not msm? How do u figure ?

They're MSM, but they're the least biased, IMO. Not that they don't have any bias at all.

Reuters and the Associated Press are owned by the Rothschilds so they only do enough unbiased journalism to maintain a reputation but I personally wouldn't trust them on huge stories and they are not into investigative journalism from what I have seen. Still, they are better than the lamestream media here by far.

 

[blackhawk]

The problem is the time tested /trusted news orgs aren't that anymore they have replaced real reporting with opinion and speculation passed off as real journalism about all you can do now is look at multiple sources to try and put together a full and accurate picture of a subject.

 

[fncceo]

They're MSM, but they're the least biased, IMO. Not that they don't have any bias at all.

Reuters and Associated Press (AP) are news agencies in that they don't present the news in some way, they sell news to news presenters. They sell news to both Fox News and MSNBC who present it in a way that best fits their particular agenda.

That being said, even the news agencies are spectacularly wrong from time to time and have all been guilty of withholding or altering news based on the personal biases of the journalists.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

They're MSM, but they're the least biased, IMO. Not that they don't have any bias at all.

Reuters and Associated Press (AP) are news agencies in that they don't present the news in some way, they sell news to news presenters. They sell news to both Fox News and MSNBC who present it in a way that best fits their particular agenda.

That being said, even the news agencies are spectacularly wrong from time to time and have all been guilty of withholding or altering news based on the personal biases of the journalists.

Agreed. And I know there are biased journalists within the Associated Press and Reuters, but they're generally the first to break some of the big stories, especially overseas stories. But once those stories are out, YouTubers and other non-mainstream sources will generally flesh out the stories more by investigating.

 

[DGS49]

Real Clear Politics publishes multiple stories on the same basic news, so you can see widely different perspectives on basic events. BTW, rarely does any news outlet publish anything surprising. The old saying, "Where you stand depends on where you sit," is apropos.

 

[fncceo]

One of the big (and well-known) 'secrets' of all news organisations is that most of their 'reporters' are what are referred to in the industry as 'Stringers'. Stringers are non-affiliated journalists who do not work for any news organisation directly but independently sell their stories / leads to the them. Whenever there is Breaking News from some part of the world that it would seem unlikely that Main Stream News would have a fully staffed office, it's a near certainty that the story originated with a stringer.

Most politically-active groups and even states and their intelligence apparatus have their own agents operating as stringers who feed their versions of events to the news infrastructure when they feel the need to shape opinion.

Sometimes, in the rush to get news to air, the information they receive from stringers is less than critically assessed.

 

[Timmy]

Source material is often available. Read them and make your own conclusions when they are available.

For example, the travel ban stay from the 9th Circuit Court. The court did not say that travel bans are unconstitutional for POTUS. They argued that it would hurt tech companies if their foreign national coders who were on vacation back home had to go through a 90 day travel ban.

You should work for fake news wh that post!

 

[Dschrute3]

Uranus.

 

[Flopper]

There is no single source, but, generally, stay away from the mainstream news. Reuters is decent. For any one story, read multiple articles and watch multiple YouTube videos about it to get a complete picture.

I agree. Get it from all over .

But Reuters is not msm? How do u figure ?

As long as the news is coming from an organization that names it's sources and can be verified, it should be ok. Any story that does not name sources is always to be taken with a grain of salt. If the organization has multiple unnamed sources, that's better but still not as good as named sources. If a news organization prints retractions when they make mistakes that's an indication of a reputable news source. The junk web sites just ignore mistakes as if they never happened because they don't care if they are writing the truth. All they are concerned about is sensational headlines that generates hits on their websites that other sites will pick up. That's how they make money.

Lastly and most important, readers today must determine for themselves what is an opinion piece and what is factual news reporting. Before the internet it was pretty easy. Opinion pieces appeared on the editorial page. On the internet there is no editorial page so opinion and real news may be side by side and it's up to the reader to determine the difference.

I think it's very unfair to call an article that is clearly the writers opinion, false news. Most talk radio as well as a number of TV political commentaries are just stating opinions and are usually pretty one sided. Is that false news? No, because it's not news. It just someone's opinion. Often no better than yours or mine.