Republicans: what do you use for a REALIABLE source of news?

[CheeseMonster]

• I have been told I can't trust ANY news station or website, because they're all fake and biased.
• I have also been told I can't trust individuals, because they are lying and biased too.
• I also have been told not to trust what I personally see and experience, because I'm only one person, I'm biased, and I don't have the whole picture.

So how am I supposed to GET the whole picture? What do YOU use for information? How do you make sure YOU'RE not biased?

This whole thing feels just like a bunch of gaslighting to try and make me not believe any other source than just whatever you say. If there really is some actual way to tell between real and fake news, between biased and unbiased people, and there is some actually reliable source for new information — can someone please TELL ME what it is? You don't like people being misinformed, so HELP ME avoid it and find trustworthy sources instead!

Don't just "give a man a fish" by telling me WHAT you believe. Can you "teach a man to fish" by telling me HOW you LEARNED what you believe? Please and thank you...

[D_Bone_Steak]

MMMM not really a republican here... I just so happen to agree with them at the moment. You know... Tim Pool, Sargon of Akkad type stuff, shoe on Head, Asmondgold... I'm choosing sides based on the internet culture war.

But... I find myself aligning with Republicans lately... I get my news from all sources... I even watch CNN even I do nothing but rip on them for being dumbasses.

I do my own research so... I am my own source. It's complicated. I imagine 12 years from now it might switch back to the Dems being more reasonable... we'll find out.

[CheeseMonster]

That's what I'm asking, how do you do your own research? Is it by looking at all the different sources instead of just one, and then determining what is true out of that by... how exactly? Or even how generally?

[D_Bone_Steak]

Oh yeah, I can run through my process. I get told something like "Trump is keeping kids in cages" (This is a real but old claim that I'll use as my primary example), I'll first run it through my thinking meat of 'classical logic.' This is recognizing bullshit basically or fallacies of logic --->Band Wagon, Strawman, Appeals to Emotion/authority, Red Herring, False Equivalence, ad hominem, et cetera.

Since this is a left-wing claim, first I'm going to read their claim and and figure out why they're making it. Look for written articles. The trick is to skip the headline and the opinions... and go to the end (last few paragraphs) where they usually admit the truth. Oh, Obama created the cages and Trump just never changed to something else. Oh, there are reasons to separate the kids from the "parents." Oh... this... oh that and so on. Now do the same with the right wing news or just skip to search.
Don't use google, yahoo, et cetera... it's heavily left-wing and bias. I'll use Grok AI because it gives me the sources attached as links... Perfect for the "were's your source" bros. Chat GPT has a left wing bias so avoid that AI. 'x. ai' is perfect because there is no bias.

[D_Bone_Steak]

After that you can argue with who is making the claim, but at that point, you'll probably just want to call them retarded and move on.

[CheeseMonster]

Okay so I'm following up until the part where you read the end of articles to see what they "admit." How do you know that the end of the article is true, and that that source can be trusted? And if the end can, how do you know the beginning cannot? I am familiar with fallacies and how to tell whether an argument is sound or not, I actually enjoy breaking down and steelmanning arguments to test them. What I'm having trouble is is finding sources that I can trust to verify whether the premises of an argument are true or not. If the written article could be biased and fake news, how can I tell which parts (if any) are lies and which are the truth?

[D_Bone_Steak]

Well, see in order to avoid a court case for defamation, you do have to admit the truth in your reporting. It's experience that tells me to look at the back of their article to save some time... that's where they usually divulge facts they don't like. Basically they have a narrative set up at the front with the headline and the first half of their article. Don't ever buy the narrative... even if you agree... look deeper. Look in the back where they're avoiding legal accountability and hope the mid-wits won't keep reading to.

The basic rule with sources...3 of them saying the same thing and everything lines up... it's pretty credible. You can actually defend yourself in a court of law with that much evidence even if you're dead wrong. This is why I like Grok, because it gives me the sources and then I can check them out myself. I can provide my sources. I can tell you where they came from. This doesn't work out so well when you are the source though... I'm going to hit enter on this and explain that.

[D_Bone_Steak]

So, remember the Hunter Biden Laptop... well I made friends on 4 chan and they hacked his phone which gave them access to his tablet also. We already had everything on his laptop and it was obvious all the shady shit he and his Dad were doing. It took 6 hours for me to download his laptop, phone, and tablet. But I had it and knew the truth about a lot of shit when so many believed it was Russian disinformation. This is where it gets dangerous. If I get caught with that shit... Biden would have me in prison. He won the election, he had the power and he was using it. That's when shit gets real and I had to STFU because I have a wife and kids and like like my life of not working and just trolling the internet. So basically I knew what was going on, but I couldn't speak or put myself out there like that. If you want a summery of what the Bidens were doing... they're extorting Ukraine for money. They take the money off the top and shuffle it through shit like Hunter's art... that somehow gets bought for ridiculous amounts of money. My retarded kid makes better art with crayons. They get rich... and all from the energy sector. That pipeline runs through Ukraine and magically the other one through the ocean to Germany got blown up... wonder how that happened? End of explanation.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Use Grok AI and then check out the sources yourself. I didn't have this tool during Bush and it was just as dangerous then.

[CheeseMonster]

Okay that makes sense, thanks for explaining. I hadn't thought about the legal aspects you can take into account.

[DrPepper12]

The Economist & BBC are primo providers. Always accurate & bias is in the opinion section where it belongs.

OAN, Breitbart, Drudge, podcasts, talk radio are all biased AGGREGATORS. They take AP or Reuters stories and send it through the "spin machine" and spit out propaganda.

Fox, WSJ & NY Post have their own "news" divisions but still spinit. WSJ is closest to accurate on the right.

MSNBC is too far left

PBS & NPR are accurate but they do to many stories of interest to Left.

WaPo & NYT still haven't figured out how to report on Trump, MAGA, etc accurately. They keep bending over backwards to "both sides" the indefensible, the lies, the cruelty, the ignorance of MAGA / Trump.

[CheeseMonster]

This is a very helpful layout, but I'm also/more wondering how you can tell which are biased or not. If I look through all these sources, would there be a clear common between all the accurate sources that differentiates them from all the more biased ones? If so, could you tell me what you've found that difference to be? I will look through anyway, but it would be helpful to have an idea what I'm looking for. Opinion stated completely separate from the facts is definitely a good sign of bias, but I know opinion can also heavily effect how the facts are told and even framed, and making an event sound neutral instead of good or bad can also be a sign of bias.

[DrPepper12]

Simply if you want to be informed, read widely from multiple sources. Then go to The Economist for the truth.

[CheeseMonster]

That's what I mean, how do you know the economist is the true one? Is it mainly that they don't add opinion in addition to the facts, and include more information than other sources?

[stupefy]

I'm politically an Independent. I do independent research/journalism, rather than relying on a media source to tell me what to think and what topics to focus on. I go to primary sources. I also scan certain forums where people do independent research/journalism to see what they have uncovered and evaluate their sources to determine if they have a valid point or if it needs more investigation if a particular topic interests me. Not only does legacy media lie and lie often about just about everything, they don't present "news" in a logical and substantiated way, they do it through what equates to opinion columns, and they steer the focus of viewers to topics that are distractions rather than focusing on what is actually important. I don't care what is truth or fact about distractions, I want to get to the important information and find out what I need to know.

[stupefy]

*truth or false

[CheeseMonster]

Primary sources, so things like interviews or statements with the people directly involved, evidence or official reports/studies that are made public, etc? That's very helpful, thank you. Could you give me the name of one of the forums you visit also? It would be helpful to be able to see how that works more.

[CheeseMonster]

I am concerned a lot of that may fall into "anecdotal" or "biased" depending on who the primary source is, but this is at least a good starting point.

[loveslongnails]

There is no such thing as "biased information"; it's either accurate and complete, or it's not, in which case it's "tainted information", which you might be referring to as biased. Getting 100% accurate and complete information is nearly impossible. You'd have to scour every news source you could find and hope they're "reporting" everything they have without filtering it in any way. Personally, I'll look at everything from Straight News to Reuters/AP to the BBC and Al Jazeera for worldwide news.

For US news, it's difficult to rely on anyone, though you can certainly discard in their entirety, extreme sources like Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart. You can discard a great deal of CNN, MSNBC and TV news outlets, and a good deal of NPR. That said, there are still a few individual reporters from certain networks that I would trust to a point, but none of them are among the first four I mentioned and only a very few from the rest.

[CheeseMonster]

Thank you for the recommendation, I'm wondering more importantly how to tell when information is accurate vs tainted. Whether it's just a few different articles about an event, or if it's every scrap of reporting available on the subject, how would you figure out which reports are giving the full and unaltered facts? I thought based on another person's answer that you may compare several sources and pick out what is the same between all of them, and that is more likely the true part. They didn't really agree with this, but is that a way you personally may use to figure out which parts are tainted or not?

[loveslongnails]

You can never know if you're getting "ALL" the available information. That's just how it is.

[CheeseMonster]

But as far as what information is accurate, would you say that could be a good indicator?

[loveslongnails]

The best indicator for me is repeated accuracy, or a history of complete & accurate information from the same source (s), particularly an individual. It's not fool proof, as some have been great and then suddenly went off the deep end, in the past. You just have to keep digging and gather what you sift from the dirt.

[CheeseMonster]

No I mean what information is accurate, not what source provides accurate information (although that is also helpful thanks). Is the same information cited by several variety of sources a good indication that the information is accurate?

[loveslongnails]

Yes, but... you still have to be careful. False information can be given to a multitude of middle sources from a bad source.

[Surely]

In today’s world. You almost have to listen to multiple news sources. At least one left wing and one right wing. Then make your own determination.
With the editing of actual news clips to get the narrative that the news sources want. You need more than one source.

[CheeseMonster]

What I'm asking is how do you make that determination? Surely you can't just guess or hope, there must be some sort of reasoning behind it right?

[Surely]

@CheeseMonster. I find that Fox news usually plays the unedited version of a quote or speech. My wife hates Fox. She gets her news from the Nightly National news and from other major networks. Plus from her cell phone. She usually only knows the left side of the conversation.
I also like “Full Measure “ on CBS. She gives what I consider great coverage of current events!
Depends on which side of the fence you are on and what you want to believe.

[CheeseMonster]

So a station that shows full unedited clips is more accurate. That makes sense. Is that the same reason you consider full measure to have good coverage, or is there another way to cover news better as well?

[Surely]

Unedited clips allow you to make up your own mind. “Full Measure “ doesn’t seem to show partiality for political agendas.

[CheeseMonster]

How can you tell whether something shows partiality for political agendas? Do you listen to other sources and see which one presents more events as neutral rather than good or bad? Are there certain buzzwords to look out for? Or something else?

[Surely]

You have to satisfy your quest for truthfulness in the news. Multiple sources is usually better.

[CheeseMonster]

I can read all the information I want from many different news stations. That's not the problem. I want to know how you tell what out of all that is true information, and what is fake. I've got the unedited clips part, but even the clips themselves are often people speaking. If all I have is information with no way to tell whether it's true or not, then I have no real knowledge and no way to get any. I would really appreciate any suggestion or advice for how you can tell which news source is true and not fake.

[exitseven]

Thr NY Post has been the most complete news media source. I is not always accurate but I have found stories in the post that I could not find in my local rag sheet.

[CheeseMonster]

How do you know whether a story you read there is accurate or not? What do you check it against?

[exitseven]

I do not know for sure but I do know tht you can find out bout lot of things that you will not see in most other media outlets. There was a rape of a minor that occurred near where I live. It was not mentioned on any of the local papers or TV stations but it was in the NY Post.

[CheeseMonster]

But how do you know it was a true story if the NY Post isn't always accurate?

[exitseven]

Thee local cops said it was true.

[CheeseMonster]

You speak directly to a local cop any time you want to verify a story, and trust that they are always accurate? Okay.

[exitseven]

I used to sell police equipment so I know a lot of cops. I always get the dirt.

[CheeseMonster]

What would you recommend for someone who doesn't have any positive connections to local police? Is there any other way to find out if a story is true, especially any non-local story?

[exitseven]

The local police radio calls can be found online these days.

[CheeseMonster]

Okay, I'll look into that. Thanks.

[Dargil]

Is there such a thing? C-span is close.

[CheeseMonster]

How do you know that c-span is close?

[Dargil]

Why do you think they aren't?

[CheeseMonster]

I'm trying to learn from you. I dont know whether they are close or not, I want to know how you figured that out so that I can do the same and be able to tell which sources are more accurate/less biased without having to ask someone else to tell me every time.

[Dargil]

Not going to provide debate fodder. C-Span publishes unaltered video of government events.

[CheeseMonster]

Unaltered videos, okay. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Try world news for unbiased more accurate news

[CheeseMonster]

That's a good suggestion, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Newsweek, Forbes, WSJ.

[CheeseMonster]

How can you tell which sources like these you can trust?

[Opinion Owner]

At the bottom of each of their articles Newsweek has a "fairness meter" for users to rate their perception of the article's political bias. It is accompanied by the following statement: "Newsweek is committed to journalism that's factual and fair. Hold us accountable and submit your rating of this article on the meter." I respect that, and I find their articles are typically fair and balanced. Here's an example: www.newsweek.com/trump-responds-philadelphia-plane-crash-2024574

The below website also gives what I think is a pretty accurate picture of each outlet's bias. Fox and MSNBC fall right where you would expect them to.

my.lwv.org/.../how-reliable-your-news-source-understanding-media-bias-2022

[CheeseMonster]

HOW do you find their articles to be typically fair and balanced? That's what I'm asking. It's great that they let people rate their perceived fairness, but I want to know HOW people can rate fairness at all.

The same as the website rating: that's fine, but HOW is it determined? What MAKES something fair and balnaced? I looked at the fact checking tips list, and these were the only two points that had very concrete examples of how to evaluate a source. Do these tips sound right ro you, and is there anything important you would add?

"Is this written by a real person with a long history commenting on diverse topics" [more likely fact] "or a fictitious-person created by an internet troll who targets conspiracy theories - over and over and over?" [More likely to be fake]
"Where has the article been published? Can I find the same information from another source," [if yes more likely to be true, if no more likely to be fake]

[Opinion Owner]

I have spent a LOT of time reading "news" from sources on both sides of the political spectrum. I would suggest you do the same. It doesn't take long to recognize the biases and political / social agendas when you see them.

MSNBC and Fox are two great examples of biased "news" sources. The anti-Trump rhetoric on MSNBC is flagrant and overwhelming. The anti-Biden/Harris rhetoric at Fox was equally blatant during the run up to the election (and still is). If you read both equally, it's impossible not to recognize it. The authors' opinions and biases are impossible to miss.

At the same time, read the fact-based articles on Newsweek, which is clearly missing the opinions and biases so ubiquitous at MSNBC and Fox. You'll quickly develop a sense for what is real and what is rhetorical and pushing a political agenda.

[CheeseMonster]

So what you're looking for is mainly similarities between different news sources. The things that are the same across most or all are most likely true while the things only one or only one "side" says are more likely fake and biased. By frequenting various different sites you can find out quicker which parts of a story are being reported everywhere (likely true) and which parts are only being reported by a few (likely fake). Does that sound right?

[Opinion Owner]

I think you're overthinking this. I'm not saying you should frequent a bunch of different news sources to get your news. I'm saying you should do that to learn how to recognize bias, to discover which sources are biased in which direction, and to find one or two that you are confident are fair and balanced and then ignore all the rest.

[CheeseMonster]

I can't learn to recognize bias without first learning the difference between that and truth. I need at least some idea of HOW to recognize it. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask. Otherwise it's like trying to separate a bunch of dogs without knowing what you're separating them based on. I could end up splitting them into different breeds when I should have been looking at sex or something else instead. It's frustrating and unhelpful.

[Opinion Owner]

Like I said, you're way overthinking this. Sorry, but no one is going to educate you on how to educate yourself. Only you can do that.

[CheeseMonster]

I went to the site you gave, I read the list, i asked you if two specific guidelines were ones you used, and you didn't answer. You just said you can't "doesn't take long" to recognize. If that were true, then it should be simple enough to explain at least one guideline or marker you look for to tell whether something is fake or real news.

[Opinion Owner]

You're right, I should have been more specific. I should have said it doesn't take most people long to recognize. You are clearly not most people.

I've honestly never encountered someone who is so clueless that they expect someone else to spell out every last detail of something that is common sense to most people.

You can't be helped, so you either need to use the bread crumbs to figure it out for yourself, or resign yourself to the fact that you're going to go through life being utterly clueless about what is real versus what is fake. Best of luck, whichever path you choose.

I'm out. Bye now.

[CheeseMonster]

Even one detail would be fine. Can you say even one single detail to look for? Or can you confirm whether or not the ones I asked you about (2 specific details) are good ones to use? It's very easy to just say yes or no to that. I thought that would be easy and we would have been done hours ago.

[captain_voidwalker]

For starters trust your own 2 eyes.

[CheeseMonster]

Are you sure? I've been told several times that my personal experience doesn't count because I'm just one person and could be an exception.

[Anonymous]

Ground News

[CheeseMonster]

I already tried that and have been told all news journalism is biased and unreliable. Since ground news is only showing you different sources of that kind, wouldn't that make it useless for finding reliable information?

[Opinion Owner]

there's always common sense and watching the full context rather than edited clips

[beefcakebradybatson]

Anything Trump- approved !!!