Which news source do you trust?

[KoolKolt]

 

[pknopp]

I didn't even know the Weather Channel was considered a news source.

 

[KoolKolt]

This is a good reason why not to trust the weather channel. And cuz they just always get it wrong.

 

[Mac1958]

Am I the only one who giggled when I saw "The Weather Channel"?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One of the best was left off the list -- The Christian Science Monitor. It strikes me as one of the most objective and least partisan News outlets out there. It reports on the news using actual journalistic standards rather than seeing itself as an instrument for partisan propaganda.

 

[lg325]

Epoch times were left off the list. I found them a good source of news . They do give all sides of an issue. Their reporting on all the Covid vaccines and cures was really good. I pretty much fall in the U.S. Adult Citizen Category.

 

[Ringel05]

Babylon Bee and the Onion..........

 

[rightwinger]

I only trust what is on USMB

 

[KoolKolt]

Am I the only one who giggled when I saw "The Weather Channel"?

Just be a farmer and then you’ll know what we’re talking about…lol

 

[schmidlap]

Am I the only one who giggled when I saw "The Weather Channel"?

Trump®Weather had many in hysterics!

 

[jwoodie]

I don't "trust" any of the above. I merely listen to the "facts" they represent and evaluate them based on how they are presented and who corroborates them. I also note when pertinent facts are omitted or otherwise misrepresented. For example, I am not impressed by showing pictures of the same apartment building in Ukraine being hit by the same errant missile a thousand times a day. In addition, I generally assume the opposite of what proven serial liars say, particularly when they are saying it in unison.

 

[Anathema]

None. I do not intrinsically trust ANY media source. I require multiple, independent sources to corroborate anything before I’ll believe it.

 

[TheParser]

FOX, of course.

 

[Mac1958]

FOX, of course.

Do you ever wonder if you're getting the whole story, and an accurate representation of the other side of the argument?

 

[KoolKolt]

jwoodie and Anathema thats exactly what I do. I also tend to see how many people are pushing or even censoring a certain narrative to know if it’s something that I should look into. Anytime I hear about something being censored, I feel like there’s something to look into, since the establishment doesn’t like it. If it didn’t have some truth to it, why would they need to worry about “disinformation”?

 

[rightwinger]

FOX, of course.

Isn‘t that now the Putin News Network?

 

[TheParser]

Isn‘t that now the Putin News Network?

No.

It regularly shows the inhumanity of what that "human being" is doing to a neighboring nation.

 

[rightwinger]

No.

It regularly shows the inhumanity of what that "human being" is doing to a neighboring nation.

Fox hosts are

Pro Putin
Anti vaccine
Anti Masks
Don’t believe in Climate Change

 

[TheParser]

Do you ever wonder if you're getting the whole story, and an accurate representation of the other side of the argument?

Never!

Its slogan is "Fair & balanced."

Hear that old gentleman in the Oval Office has said some unkind words about FOX, but a lot of Americans are indebted to Mr. Murdoch for giving us a chance to hear the news that is not slanted toward the radical left.

Dang!

If it were not for FOX (& the Daily Mail), we would be as ignorant about domestic matters as are the Russians about what is happening in their country.

 

[TheParser]

Fox hosts are

Pro Putin
Anti vaccine
Anti Masks
Don’t believe in Climate Change

I am referring to their news shows.

Their talking heads are no more biased than the talking heads on MSNBC.