Which news sources do you trust?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27821
Printed Date: February 01 2025 at 19:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Which news sources do you trust?
Posted By: crimson thing
Subject: Which news sources do you trust?
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 12:00
|
Which primary news sources do you guys generally trust (they all make mistakes sometimes) to keep you accurately informed on national & international affairs? And maybe you can name any you think are particularly full of sh+t....
(Apologies to non-UK & non-US peeps for the parochial choices - I had to limit the choices somehow  .....and please don't all cynically tick "none of the above"......unless you really mean it...... )------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 12:12
| Ok, I ticked "my own country's newspapers and websites", but the issue of trust is a delicate one indeed. As a matter of fact, I very rarely buy newspapers, though I regularly read the news (more than once a day too) on the website of one of the major Italian dailies, "La Repubblica" (which is rather left-wing, though by no means extremist). I can't say I trust it blindly, though, as news can be easily manipulated, especially in a rather delicate situation like that of Italy. |
Posted By: Logos
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 12:21
Fox TV is in there, wtf? 
|
Posted By: Asyte2c00
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 12:22
| Fox News, I would watch BBC news but dont get it where I live |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 12:56
....it certainly doesn't help when the Prime Minister (as was) owns so much of the media..... ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Ghost Rider wrote:Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 12:59
*feels severely sick at the very mention of the Poison Dwarf*  |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 13:02
|
I don't realy "trust" anything like that inherently, but I only ever check CNN and BBC and I wouldn't say I believe one perticular organization more than the other. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 13:40
|
Because I am an editor on a socio-political blog, I end up reading or viewing quite a variety of media sources. Since none of them is without its corporate-driven agenda (i.e., news as entertainment, news as political machine, etc.), one needs to "read between the lines" of any media outlet, and to get "both sides" - i.e., the "liberal" and "conservative" (as well as the middle) - of any story. In this regard, I trust TV media least of all, though I will occasionally check CNN and BBC (and NY1 for local news). Online I check cnn.com, among others. Of the printed media, I trust The New York Times as the most accurate "liberal" voice and the The New York Post (generally a truly despicable paper) as an accurate "conservative voice." As for FOX (TV, print, online), it is the neocon voice, so it is valuable if you want to know where the Bush-Cheney-Rove agenda is going.
I also read the generally conservative Foreign Affairs (the publication of the globalization-focused Council on Foreign Relations, and one of the most "intelligent" publications in the world, even if I disagree with it much of the time) and the generally liberal Harper's (another wonderfully "intelligent" publication). I also like Tikkun (a primarily Jewish magazine that has a solid handle on “spiritually progressive” issues regarding the confluence of religion - all faiths - and politics) and The Christian Science Monitor which, despite its name, is a very fair-minded, even-handed publication with some of the most solid reporting anywhere. I also like some of the alternative news sources, both “real world” and Internet. Democracy Now is darn good (both TV and Web), as are Truthout and AlterNet. As a member of the 9/11 truth movement, I also monitor some of the better sites, including NY911truth and Prison Planet (one of Alex Jones’ sites). Peace. |
Posted By: Fusionman
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 14:11
|
It depends on what kind of news you're talking about. If it's just things that are national CNN is definitely a trustable source. Generally they aren't bias and they give the facts as they know them with some interpretation that can be easily ignored.
When it comes to foreign affairs there is no news source that is really any better than any other...and that is not because they are using propaganda. It's because governments leak false information and keep so many things hushed that there's no real source for facts. So all they can do is see what they want to see (in a sense). That's why the same "Facts" on two different stations have different conclusions. If you want the REAL facts...give up. Recently the NY Times printed an article that elaborately explained how the US Government was tracking terrorists through these off-shore bank accounts. These facts that got out compromised security; so there becomes the question. "How important is it really to know?" The government surely has no vendetta against its people and if you feel so YOU are actually the downfall...or will be the root cause. Every powerful government fails because the people don't trust it; even though through history it has always been proven that the government generally was falsely accused. Read history to get a good feel for todays problems...it does repeat itself as it is today. Hell...go back as recently as Nixon. Nixon was basically innocent; his only crime was trying to not lose public faith. It was proven that he wasn't bugging anyone for reasons that he was accused for; but rather in an anti-terrorist unit. There was no knowledge of a Democrats headquarters...which AGAIN compromised security causing the terrorists to become knowledgable. You people out there think being in the know gives you power, but you never can find all the facts to actually build the true story. So what's the point in trying to find all the facts; when it only leads to false assumptions? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 17:33
I am as ignorant as possible regarding politics  ------------- 
|
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 17:49
|
BBC seems to be fairly unbiased, as far as that goes with news programs, but I can only get it on radio here. NPR (National Public Radio) is fairly good too, but frankly they end up using a lot of BBC's World Service reports since theirs are pretty limited outside the U.S.
I agree with maani that pretty much all news sources are inherently biased, either from a corporate slant, a political one, religious, or some combination of the three. It's amazing how one can read a simple news story, then surf around on-line sources, watch television, listen to the radio, or wander down to Barnes & Noble and read several different newspapers, and get completely different accounts of the 'facts'. I would say that besides Fox (which doesn't even qualify as news), the local American news stations are probably the worst source of accurate reporting about anything beyond their city borders. A true shame for a country that supposedly esposes 'free press'. ------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging." Albert Camus |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 18:17
|
CNN- why not ------------- |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 18:23
|
....well, I had to include Fox....even though I personally think anything owned by Murdoch (which includes broadsheet & tabloids here in the UK, as well as Sky TV & Fox) too closely follows his personal agenda.... ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: xtopher
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 18:43
Wow, Maani, this is awesome! Thank you so much for this. There really is an art to getting the kind of "unbiased" information you desire. It's important to keep in mind that all news sources are not the same. Personally, I believe it is the job of the journalist to make things known. The western world is (hopefully still) a democracy, and if there is an important issue for people to know, the responsible journalist brings it to the public. The media is an important deterrent to the government; it keeps the government from doing just whatever they want without consent from the people. This is why I can never trust anything from Fox News (well, among other reasons); they don't so much keep the radical conservative regime in check so much as they defend everything the regime does and go on the offensive against everything that stands in the regime's way. That's not responsible journalism; that's propaganda. However, there is always a conflict of interest in that the media is a business, not just a free service for the people. So even if the pure journalism ethos is to provide pure, accurate information, each corporation must sitll look out for its best interests. Often that includes an unbalanced approach and scare tactics for the sake of ratings, despite the fact that these approaches may not always accurately reflect the truth. This is why I can never watch news on TV; I just get tired of the product being rammed down my throat. Another alternative for the American audience is National Public Radio. Also, Google News gives a selection of articles for each story from a wide variety of news sources—so you can see for yourself how the approach is different from each source. ------------- 
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 20:06
|
I picked "non of the above-I cant be arsed".
Maybe that should have been Progarchives, as if their is a really series national or international storie, generally someone would have created a thread for it were links to several sites reporting it will show up eventually and I'll get a lot of infromed debate from many angles presenting many "facts" that at least give you plenty to think about.
Probably not the best idea but its what I do ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 20:13
|
As this country has a recent history related to dictatorship, tortures and stuff like that, I can notice that, when a convicted ex military is released for "good behaviour" (they have a special prison, how difficult is to behave when you have cable TV and your own bed and no risk of ending up having sex in a way that is unusual for you), that same week, tv news present us with a new national sports heroe. Everybody pays attention to the sports news, and the ex military is released with few information about it. The teachers of this country have a very hard conflict with the actual administration. A whiler ago, they protested with a movilization. On the news, we heard every word from our minister of education. When the teachers spokes person was explainig the otehr side of the conflict, the tv journalist voiced over him, so that version came to us as an abstract. I don't believe news at all. They are very manipulated. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 27 2006 at 23:18
|
Fusionman:
The NYT report on terrorist banking did not "compromise security," and this has been proven now by various sources, both left and right. Just as the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 was completely debunked by both the left and right, by the 9/11 Commission Report - and now by the President himself - the alleged security compromise as a result of the publication of the Times report was non-existent, and both sides knew that when the accusations started getting tossed around.
Clem and xtopher:
Thank you for your comments in support. I agree with Clem that U.S.-based news sources are possibly among the most unreliable in the world, and with both of you that the majority of news sources have, for the most part, become "tools" of the establishment rather than a "check and balance" against it. There is very little "real" journalism and reporting being done; it is all heavily editorialized and slanted. As xtopher points out, at least some, if not much, of such reporting ends up coming darn close to the line of propaganda, if not crossing it at times.
As the news (and entertainment) media agglomerate - with more and more outlets and sources being owned by fewer and fewer corporations, all of which are controlled by fewer and fewer people - the very idea of "responsible journalism" is becoming moot. Everything is agenda-driven, whether overtly (like Fox) or subtly, like so many other sources.
Like Clem says, a true shame.
Peace.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 28 2006 at 04:27
Good call indeed.
But news are always slanted by the philosophycal and economic bias pf the paper or TV.
Generally I prefer the national public servive than private TV chain stations. BBC or BRT or RTBF (last ones being Belgian TVs based on the BBCmodel) Generally Public Service TV is relatively unbiased.
Newspaper are different, I read Le Soir (on WE), Le Monde (two or three times a month), IHT (relatively neutral for a US paper) but I will not read what's in there for granted. >> neither for TVs
I do not trust radio for infos simply because they (most anyway) keep no archives and heard stuff there that I was never able to verify elsewhere. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: August 28 2006 at 04:31
"Should America attempt to save Nelson Mandela?" ------------- sig |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: August 28 2006 at 04:32
|
As for the topic itself, I am indifferent for what newspaper or news source I am reading, as long as I get the basic information necessary for me. I need facts, and I will make independant judgements myself. ------------- sig |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: August 28 2006 at 06:57
| The BBC for sure. Who else? |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 28 2006 at 09:36
|
I'm intrigued to know who ticked the "I have friends in high places" option..... ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 28 2006 at 10:04
more over by whom the friend in high place might be! ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: August 30 2006 at 02:37
|
fox news, so i can drool over shepard smith ------------- 
|
Posted By: Zac M
Date Posted: August 30 2006 at 02:43
|
SKY wrote the closing them for SKY TV ("Night Sky"), but I have no clue where that network is aired (best guess is UK or AUS...). (that was totally unrelated I know) I watch some of many networks (MSNBC, CNN, etc...) and then local news occasionally (usually on NBC). ------------- "Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste. It is a process of expression." -Merleau-Ponty |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: August 30 2006 at 02:55
|
I find myself watching BBC news & CNN often. When its a controversial subject I usually read diffrent sources and try to peice it together. I cant stand the "selling" of news, so I try not to watch much news on TV. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 30 2006 at 02:59
|
NONE...All have secret agendas
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: tardis
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 12:47
Trust no one...especially not the popular press!  And did you know the US just made a huge investement (we're talking millions of dollars here I think) towards media relations in Iraq? (CNN ring a bell, anyone?)Man, if they had CNN at the time of Vietnam, the war might have lasted longer! Keep a tight control on the flow of information, and you can keep anyone happy... |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 17:10
trust me, you don't want to know why not...
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 17:27
The BBC and my country's CBC (TV, radio, web) are the ones I trust most -- though any reporting arguably has a least some type or degree of 'bias."  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 17:34
That, and the ever-reliable Weekly World News, of course!
Wonder what the bat boy, Bush's alien pal and bigfoot are up to now....
  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: tardis
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 17:36
|
lol @ the fat tourist!!!
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 17:44
Hey, they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true!
    !------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 21:19
"Should you change your highly disgusting signature?" -------------
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 21:23
| If you ever watched a BBC/European news network, then you'll understand how much a joke American news channels are. Even CNN sucks compared to the BBC. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 21:30
|
Honestly, I haven't found CNN to be too much trouble. I check BBC every now and then, but I don't pay attention to commentary/debate on any network/site. I just go for the news of the day, and don't pay attention to the subtle details which may indicate the authro is subversively liberal/conservatively biased. It doesn't matter to me. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: September 05 2006 at 22:13
|
I trust no one in the (mainstream) media, because they're all full of crap
------------- 
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 06 2006 at 01:07
Why does everyone love the BBC so much?  Even though I do watch BBC News on television, I actually find their radio coverage a lot better. However, Channel 4 News is the best in my opinion, in terms of television news. As for newspapers, I really don't read enough of them, but I do think The Guardian are generally the least biased of the lot, so I'd most likely read that. I've visited their website a few times as well and it's normally pretty thorough. I don't really trust the BBC Television News coverage all that much though. -------------   
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: September 06 2006 at 01:26
|
I don't trust any news agency. I always like CNN for it's an obvious propaganda tool for the US, always fun to see the wheater reports, they are ussualy about the weather in places the next day something happens ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: valravennz
Date Posted: September 06 2006 at 03:46
|
BBC News is probably the least biased of the major news networks but I also hold CNN in high regard as well. I watch these two particularly for important international events. Otherwise it is the local news channels which I watch on a daily basis.
------------- 
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: September 06 2006 at 03:58
| I watch news of all Finnish television networks + Euronews, the truth I think is near the average of this sources with different focuses. All of these sources ofcourse see the events from a viewpoint of a Western christian industrial world. |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 14:23
|
I am surprised no one mentioned NPR (National Public Radio). They lean a bit to the left, but they do strive for accuracy, and objectivity. CNN is also pretty fair. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: xtopher
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 15:57
I did! Way back on page 1. I also mentioned Google News, which doesn't write their own stories but which provides a selection of online articles from a wide range of different sources to give the viewer some perspective on different treatments to a story. -------------
|
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 16:04
|
To an extent I trust William Maher and his Real Time show on HBO. He has the best guests joining him for interviews, and a very colorful panel.
-------------  
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: September 09 2006 at 16:19
|
I tend not to bother with TV news these days - BBC Radio 4 and the World Service are my usual sources, along with The Guardian. They all have their agendas, but they're all sources which have irritated every government in my lifetime, labour and conservative, which means they're probably getting something right. Private Eye is also worth reading - there is serious content in there as well as satire.
When I lived in Japan I watched quite a lot of CNN and thought that it was OK, although some of the international reporting seemed a little one sided. I also enjoyed Fox News briefly, until I realised that it wasn't a clever satire but was actually meant to be taken seriously. ------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 10 2006 at 00:19
Sorry about that. I guess I didn't read your whole post the first time through. It's a shame that more people don't use this resource. I love the NPR news programs. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 10 2006 at 00:21
|
You're a wise man, Chris! BBC Radio 4 news and especially the Today Program are excellent and from what I've read of The Guardian, they're the best paper around in the UK. But BBC television news I don't trust so much, they're certainly not squeeky clean like people seem to think. -------------
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: September 10 2006 at 03:31
|
None, but if I see the same news in various media, I suspect there might be a hint of truth in it.
|
Posted By: yesfan88
Date Posted: September 24 2006 at 00:32
|
Of the choices, I picked BBC. I also frequently listen to NPR, but sometimes only for the jazz. ------------- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"- Evelyn Beatrice Hall |
Posted By: tardis
Date Posted: September 24 2006 at 00:42
|
I can't vote again, but if I could I would have to go for anonymous circulated emails...oh so trustworthy!
|