Yukimizake From Japan, joined Mar 2004, 529 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1360 times:
From your respective countries which new sources do you see as most trustworthy and which ones the most extreme? (on both sides of the political spectrum). In Canada the Toronto Star is quite left wing, the National Broadcaster (the CBC) also to the left but to a lesser extent and the National Post is on the right.
'Opfer müssen gebracht werden (Sacrifices must be made)' - Otto Lilienthal
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
Funnily enough Sky News (part of News International like Faux News) is extremely impartial and a superb broadcaster of 24 hour news. The ads are irritating though, hence my BBC fetish.
I wouldn't wipe my arse on most of our newspapers, but the Independent is a halfway decent read. Forget the Guardian as that's the paper of smug trendies trying to be radicals, and the Daily (seigheil) Mail.
174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1326 times:
I don't really "trust" any of them as they are all have self interests (news sources are a business too)...so if I read enough about the same events, I can really get a good idea of what's going on. With that said however, I am a big fan of the NY Times... Very good coverage with out a lot of BS involved.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39425 posts, RR: 76 Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
At least when CBS has conservatives on there programs, they'll get someone who is at least intelligent enough to think on there feat and be able to have civil dialogue. When faux news has a token leftist, they are the wackiest uninformed individual who can't intelligently discuss the issue.
That's the best faux can do to get people to think there way.
CBS is professional while faux news is just sensationalism and bias.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 31 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1288 times:
Yeah Newark, nothing like a good left wing spin on things every once in a while. I dont see whats so funny about trusting CBS over FAUX though? Enlighten me....
It is not even about spin, it is about a news agency that has been found to have fabricated stories and made up evidence. That kind of negligent journalism should make you think twice about what they are reporting.
As for my sources of news, the NY Times is up there, as long as you tear out the last page or two. I also enjoy reading the WSJ, and the NY Post, although that is more like a tabloid, and not real news. All TV news channels have some sort of bias depending on who is on and what the story is on, and is generally less reliable in my opinion than many of the print media sources.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 31 Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
I had a feeling that would come up in this thread. Over 60 years of professioanlism and one mistake was made. Yet the circus over at faux news goes on every single day.
It wasn't a mistake, though. It was a deliberate attempt by the news staff to falsify evidence and create a story that would favor their own ideological beliefs. It doesn't matter how long they have acted professionally, they are now known to have falsified evidence, and it is hard to maintain that they still have credibility. It will be awhile before CBS regains trust with the American people, and that process can only start when Rather resigns in the near future.
Usairwys757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
Over 60 years of professioanlism and one mistake was made. Yet the circus over at faux news goes on every single day.
My point right there Superfly. One mistake and your ready to throw them to the dogs? I'm sorry if I dont get the feeling I'm being lied to when I watch Dan Rather report the nightly news. Besides, Dan Rather is perhaps the most professional anchor out there, who else do you see over on the frontlines in Iraq?
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 31 Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1255 times:
And you know this for sure? Or did the guys over at FAUX News feed that to you as well?
No, it was "fed" to me by those little-known news agencies such as ABC, NBC, NY Times, and CNN. All sources, biased both left and right, have said that it was no honest mistake, and that CBS went after this story knowing it was probably incorrect. And for what other reason would those so-called professional journalists fabricate a story like that against Bush, other than to hurt his reputation before the election?
SCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5246 posts, RR: 27 Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
Over 60 years of professioanlism and one mistake was made.
Remember 60 Minutes and "Unintended Acceleration"? 1986 "expose" of Audi automobiles alleged to be killing people - and then repairing themselves?
CBS' primary source on *that* gem of a story was a group called the "Audi Victims' Network"- headed up by Plaintiffs' Lawyers who were suing Audi!
They never bothered to seek or air any opinions of independent automotive engineers, any one of whom could have told them that what was alleged simply could not happen as described.
It was all hokum, of course, but thousands of people lost their jobs as dealers went bust, resale value of cars plummeted without justification. And (of course) when all the dust settled, Audi was fully exonerated in every single case.
From and after seeing that ludicrous excuse for reporting, CBS News' credibility has been dog meat with me.
As for who I trust?
None of them without independent verification, but...
...for depth of reporting and the credibility that goes with such depth, i most favor NPR (in the USA) and BBC.
Amazingly enough, just here lately, I have seen some remarkably good reporting out of Xinhua, as well, though I have not submitted them to adequate scrutiny to decide whether they are just rewriting the work of other services.
As for accuracy of reporting, I see Fox as being perfectly adequate (notwithstanding the protestations of many). Their depth (just like other major networks') is insufficient.
I also enjoy the occasional foray into the world of Deutsche Welle.
And, of course, there's the inimitable Naked News!
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
25 EZEIZA: No one should trust any news source 100% because a news report is made by people, therefore there is some level of subjectivity. i think that the more
26 MartinairYYZ: Who I DO NOT Trust: Any American News Whatsoever (yes, includes overseas US stations like CNN Int'l) Who I do Trust: Most European News, especially Eu
27 Newark777: Who I DO NOT Trust: Any American News Whatsoever (yes, includes overseas US stations like CNN Int'l) Who I do Trust: Most European News, especially Eu
28 CaptOveur: I jerk off to Al-Jazeera. Signed, Rsmith
29 Tbar220: U.S., I prefer NPR news (All Things Considered). International news I prefer the BBC, which I can hear on my local NPR station.
30 Banco: I agree with Whitehatter than Sky News is actually remarkably good, given that it's a sister station to Fox News. CNN is pretty dreadful in its domest
31 SLC1: I really don't trust any of them but here goes... NPR BBC SkyNews MSNBC C-SPAN and I agree with CNN International and the Daily Show, all things consi
32 UTA_flyinghigh: "Weekly World News" and "News of the World". Not to mention "Voici". UTA
33 707CMF: Info Pilote, aka 'la Gazette du parti' Pravda..; Cheers, 707