• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A story about the news and a list of sources for the war

Centrist

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Someone told me a story about people that only choose 1 source of news.

"Imagine we are in a room, we are blind and there is a statue there, the 1 source news person touches only one segment of the statue and thinks they have the full picture. It is best to go to different segments, this way we can get a better overall picture of what is happening, also sharing information from the different segments is important, if not -> we can end up thinking that one segment is the full picture/statue".

In times of war, information comes at a very fast speed. Western Sources are doing their best to verify what is coming from the Eastern European front. Multiple choices are needed to verify the information for integrity purposes.

European Sources that I use for the war (strictly for News ---> not analysis):

Spain: https://www.rtve.es/
Denmark: https://tv2.dk/
Greece: https://www.ekathimerini.com/
England: https://www.bbc.com/ https://news.sky.com/ https://www.theguardian.com/international
France: https://www.france24.com/en/ https://www.lefigaro.fr/
Netherlands: https://nos.nl/
Germany: https://www.ard.de/ https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097
Italy: https://www.rainews.it/
Romania: https://www.g4media.ro/
Sweden: https://www.svt.se/
Switzerland: https://www.blick.ch/
Turkey: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/

Others:
https://www.rferl.org/
https://www.euronews.com/

Ukrainian Sources (take it with a grain of salt)
https://kyivindependent.com/
https://t.me/nexta_live

Russian propaganda in English (take it with a lot of salt) ---> the place of work of many FSB agents. It gets hacked by Anonymous every hour so you will find titles changing all the time
https://sputniknews.com/

Also, the Telegram Social Media app is a great tool to follow what the Russian public is saying online.

For the sources above that are not in English (most of them), you can install google chrome and translate with one click, the video below shows you how to:



Happy Friday!
 
Last edited:
Centrist said:
Someone told me a story about people that only choose 1 source of news.
Click to expand...
Which sources is far more important than if it's one source. A dozen bad sources is far worse than one good source. Once you address that, more are good, your list is handy.
 
+1 on Sky News.

Best war coverage that I've seen. Excellent news outlet, ironically founded by Rupert Murdoch, who doesn't own the company anymore. No politics. Straight up news, which itself is refreshing. Interesting to see how the Brits live, as well.
 
 
Michael Cole said:
+1 on Sky News.

Best war coverage that I've seen. Excellent news outlet, ironically founded by Rupert Murdoch, who doesn't own the company anymore. No politics. Straight up news, which itself is refreshing. Interesting to see how the Brits live, as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, in my opinion -> the US had news too before Fox News and CNN realized they could make big money on division.

VIDEO below -> This was shared with me, the reporter was just there to ask questions and talk to the average person. It was like a duty, a calling. He did not become a propaganda spokesperson like Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon.

 
Centrist said:
Yes, in my opinion -> the US had news too before Fox News and CNN realized they could make big money on division.

VIDEO below -> This was shared with me, the reporter was just there to ask questions and talk to the average person. It was like a duty, a calling. He did not become a propaganda spokesperson like Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon.

Click to expand...

Long video. I caught the first 6 minutes. Brought back memories. I was in a first grade classroom at the time, and as a woman mentioned they closed city hall, they closed our school and sent us home.

I'm not familiar with the reporter.
 
Centrist said:
Yes, in my opinion -> the US had news too before Fox News and CNN realized they could make big money on division.
Click to expand...

Two points at least.

1. A less conspiratorial version of changes is that for decades, US television news was basically thirty minute summaries on three national networks, each very similar to the other and all designed for a 'one size fits all' audience of the whole country.

Here are a few actually relevant changes that happened:

- News going from 30 minute summaries to a 24 hour product needing to attract viewers.

- News going from a product designed as a non-revenue-producing public service done as an expense for a profit-making network, to a profit-generating business - something apparently triggered by the ratings of 60 Minutes

- Cable TV giving viewers more choices, so products could offer them a news channel designed for their preference instead of a one-size-fits-all design - which might be better or worse quality but was a big change

- The massive increase in the involvement of wealthy interests in dominating American politics, which included their going to war with 'news' outlets to influence their messages, including the funding of massive propaganda operations to demand being included in any news content - and offering news channels easy availability of 'talking head' experts who had an agenda

- The internet which took the change from 30 minute news to 24 hour news, and a couple additional channels, into massively personalized news 'products' that allowed for far more 'bubbles' for people tailored to them and designed for propaganda and manipulation, with others designed as higher quality.

These changes led to both far worse 'news' - the Fox/Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/talk radio/etc. figures on one side, and products better than the old network news with newer services such as 'The Intercept' and 'Vox' and shows such as Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes.

2. If you're equating Fox and CNN, you're wrong and not understanding the topic.

To summarize:

Technological changes made huge 'bubble' effects for news possible that weren't when news was designed for the whole country as its audience, with very limited time (but even THEN you had the same partisan attacks on it, like Spiro Agnews' infamous attacks and Nixon's enemies list, and before THAT you had things like CIA manipulation of the news, and before THAT you had news tycoons like Hearst and Luce).

And I'd say a far more key shift than you mention is when the public is made the TARGET of propaganda and manipulated by 'news', instead of being served by news.

And I'd suggest that some news outlets are misinformation, corrupted, exploitive both for their own benefit and influenced by corrupt interests, while other news outlets are very much about serving the public honestly. Both exist and any generalization treating them the same is false.
 
Craig234 said:
far worse than one good source
Click to expand...
-> but how do you reach a conclusion that is a good source?

I will give you my frame of mind ---> For example on major racial issues cases if you turn on:

a) Fox News/Breitbart ---> they tend to defend the police, so automatically the right-wing audience will think is a good source and dismiss anything in the defense of the other party.
b) CNN/The Daily Beast ---> they tend to defend the other party (minority individuals and groups) the left-wing audience will think is a good source and dismiss anything in the defense of the police.

For me, I don't consider either of them good or bad sources. I read them both with the idea in my head that they are trying to manipulate with a certain interest.

---> That opens the window to read in other parts like reason.com which is a libertarian magazine and go the New York Times. And the domino effect starts, to read more (left then right) especially when you are dealing with the emotional aspect that clouds reason.

In my opinion the more information and perspective ---> the more chances to maintain a pragmatic position.

100 % agree on ---> And I'd say a far more key shift than you mention is when the public is made the TARGET of propaganda and manipulated by 'news', instead of being served by news.

Don't agree with the generalization part when talking about media reporting. I still gave you the like. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Centrist said:
Don't agree with the generalization part, we all use different tools to stay balanced. I still give you the like. :cool:
Click to expand...

I think you approach the issue honestly, but might have a lot of ideology involved that would take a lot to try to help you debunk. I think a book would be needed to start to do much justice to this topic, and unfortunately without that book and hours of changing your views, the discussion devolves to 'uh huh' and 'nuh uh'.

For example, if I suggested you're half right - that you viewing the right-wing media as propaganda, but are wrong to view CNN as 'left propaganda' (unless you have a very distorted view, like how Russians would say claims of there being a war in Ukraine are 'western propaganda'), I suspect you would already be wanting to deny it. It's so much easier for a 'centrist' to equate 'both sides' - even if wrong.

As for your comment about more sources, I can repeat what I said, that quality is more important than quantity. One source that's correct is better than 50 sources all repeating the same lie.

It takes a lot to get a better idea about who is 'trying to tell the truth' and who is not - because propagandists are very good at lying to people that it's the OTHER guys who are the lying manipulators. Think of trump yelling 'FAKE NEWS' at honest media, calling them 'the enemy of the people'. If people fall for his lies, they think they have identified who is lying to them.

And there are different types of errors and misinformation. Things like propaganda to attack climate science are very corrupt. On the other hand, a story 'sympathetic' to one 'side' or view might be well-meaning but based on that view having hold in the public, such as can happen in your race example. Issues like race are very different motivations than issues like economic policy. But a person might view them as the same problems.
 
If one does not have time to check many sources, then just tune into FOX's coverage of the war in Ukraine.

One will be brought up-to-date on it.
 
Craig234 said:
For example, if I suggested you're half right - that you viewing the right-wing media as propaganda, but are wrong to view CNN as 'left propaganda' (unless you have a very distorted view)
Click to expand...
No Craig, I have real-life experience passed from generations and family struggles. Let me tell you a quick story about where I come from.

One day, the fascists came to my home country. Do you think they placed a magic spell on people to turn them into fascists right away? Only someone with superficial thinking can believe that.

No, they recruited from

right-wing nationalistic religious thinking people. They were not extreme for a few months/years then slowly they started listening to only one side and committed atrocities. Do I have to tell you the crimes of fascism or the horror stories of what the Legionaries movement did to the Jewish population and other minority groups?

Now, do you know what happened Craig?

Some of the SAME individuals that wore the SS stripes went to the changeroom and came out with a Red Uniform. They were working for the Soviets now. They decided to listen to the other side only. This movement was embraced by moderates, in the name of equality + socialists, Marxists etc. Do I have to tell you the crimes of communism in the name of atheism and equality?

and in some countries, it goes opposite. First communism -> after fascism. Some are slower than others.

It always reminded me of the entropic (entropy) concept in physics.
*relating to or characterized by a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration:
*a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

As for the sensitive issues, you are talking to an immigrant that came to Canada understanding only a few words of English, and from a country that is not viewed too well in the West.

---> Precisely because I know how hard it was to struggle, I know how some very smart people can't wait for you to fail so they can make money from your temporary failures.
 
Last edited:
TheParser said:
If one does not have time to check many sources, then just tune into FOX's coverage of the war in Ukraine.

One will be brought up-to-date on it.
Click to expand...
LOL Good one.
 
Centrist said:
No Craig, I have real-life experience passed from generations and family struggles. Let me tell you a quick story about where I come from.

One day, the fascists came to my home country. Do you think they placed a magic spell on people to turn them into fascists right away? Only someone with superficial thinking can believe that.

No, they recruited from

right-wing nationalistic religious thinking people. They were not extreme for a few months/years then slowly they started listening to only one side and committed atrocities. Do I have to tell you the crimes of fascism or the horror stories of what the Legionaries movement did to the Jewish population and other minority groups?

Now, do you know what happened Craig?

Some of the SAME individuals that wore the SS stripes went to the changeroom and came out with a Red Uniform. They were working for the Soviets now. They decided to listen to the other side only. This movement was embraced by moderates, in the name of equality + socialists, Marxists etc. Do I have to tell you the crimes of communism in the name of atheism and equality?

and in some countries, it goes opposite. First communism -> after fascism. Some are slower than others.

It always reminded me of the entropic (entropy) concept in physics.
*relating to or characterized by a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration:
*a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

As for the sensitive issues, you are talking to an immigrant that came to Canada understanding only a few words of English, and from a country that is not viewed too well in the West.

---> Precisely because I know how hard it was to struggle, I know how some very smart people can't wait for you to fail so they can make money from your temporary failures.
Click to expand...
A whole lot there; I highlighted the key fact. Something many people don't understand. Everybody today is an elite ivory tower dwelling entitled...victim...yep, victims who have never known struggle.

Anyway, this is interesting. Lets compare CNN and Sky News with MBFC.

CNN

left10.png

MBFCMixed.png


continued...
 
...continued

Sky News

leastbiased021.png

MBFCHigh.png



The difference in watching the two is palpable, so I need no MBFC evaluation, but here the difference is graphically clear. Of course, as you argue, one would never know this if only watching CNN. (Or basing their news sources on partisanship.)
 
Craig234 said:
Which sources is far more important than if it's one source. A dozen bad sources is far worse than one good source. Once you address that, more are good, your list is handy.
Click to expand...


One good news source is not good, they can slip in manipulated news and you will never know.

The NYT had reports working with the US government to promote the US invasion of Iraq. Had a person only used the NYT they would have believed the US narrative of the war

Multiple good sources are needed, and truly different, not just rehashed articles from the same original source,

International news, no major US news source is reliable, they all follow the US government lead, until their credibility would be lost
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
One good news source is not good, they can slip in manipulated news and you will never know.

The NYT had reports working with the US government to promote the US invasion of Iraq. Had a person only used the NYT they would have believed the US narrative of the war

Multiple good sources are needed, and truly different, not just rehashed articles from the same original source,

International news, no major US news source is reliable, they all follow the US government lead, until their credibility would be lost
Click to expand...
You're missing the point, so badly I'm not sure it's worth bothering discussing.
 
Centrist said:
No Craig, I have real-life experience passed from generations and family struggles. Let me tell you a quick story about where I come from.
Click to expand...

Of course I don't disagree with any of your history you posted, but it has nothing to do with my post.
 
An analysis posted by one of the sources above:

NATO's red lines: How far will the West go in support of Ukraine? • FRANCE 24 English

from France24
*France 24 is a French state-owned international news television network based in Paris. Its channels broadcast in French, English, Arabic, and Spanish and are aimed at the overseas market. Based in the Paris suburb of Issy-les-Moulineaux, the service started on 6 December 2006.

 
I've been using BBC and Reuters for Ukraine war news. Reuters focuses mostly on the economic aspects of the war (sanctions and shortages and the like).
 
Centrist said:
...right-wing nationalistic religious thinking people. They were not extreme for a few months/years then slowly they started listening to only one side and committed atrocities. Do I have to tell you the crimes of fascism or the horror stories of what the Legionaries movement did to the Jewish population and other minority groups?

Now, do you know what happened Craig?

Some of the SAME individuals that wore the SS stripes went to the changeroom and came out with a Red Uniform. They were working for the Soviets now. They decided to listen to the other side only. This movement was embraced by moderates, in the name of equality + socialists, Marxists etc. Do I have to tell you the crimes of communism in the name of atheism and equality?...
Click to expand...
What I find fascinating is while most see the far right's fascism and the far left's communism as opposites, they're opposite sides of the exact same thing. They may have different goals, but history shows both end up as authoritarian governments. Both put severe restrictions on freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to a trial by jury and everything else they deem necessary for their narrowly-defined “common good”...
 
SoCal said:
What I find fascinating is while most see the far right's fascism and the far left's communism as opposites, they're opposite sides of the exact same thing. They may have different goals, but history shows both end up as authoritarian governments. Both put severe restrictions on freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to a trial by jury and everything else they deem necessary for their narrowly-defined “common good”...
Click to expand...
A lot of people think of the political spectrum as a line.

I think of it as a sphere. They are not opposite, they are closest to each other.

People with extreme political views that favor authoritarianism — whether they are on the far left or the far right — have surprisingly similar behaviors and psychological characteristics, a new study finds.

https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/09/esc_left_wing_authoritarians_psychology/campus.html
 
SoCal said:
What I find fascinating is while most see the far right's fascism and the far left's communism as opposites, they're opposite sides of the exact same thing. They may have different goals, but history shows both end up as authoritarian governments. Both put severe restrictions on freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to a trial by jury and everything else they deem necessary for their narrowly-defined “common good”...
Click to expand...
Yes, in the end they are remarkably similar. But the road is different and the experience is different. Communism nationalizes resources and businesses. Fascism supports private businesses and corporations.
 
An analysis posted by one of the sources above:

What does Russia's strategic shift mean for the further course of the war in Ukraine? | DW News

from Deutsche Welle
*Deutsche Welle, sometimes abbreviated to DW, is a German public, state-owned international broadcaster funded by the German federal tax budget.

 
Centrist said:
Yes, in my opinion -> the US had news too before Fox News and CNN realized they could make big money on division.

VIDEO below -> This was shared with me, the reporter was just there to ask questions and talk to the average person. It was like a duty, a calling. He did not become a propaganda spokesperson like Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon.

Click to expand...

Don Lemon should not be associated with entertainer Tucker Carlson. Why do that?

Don Lemon is a black, gay, broadcast journalist who grew up in Louisiana. Which irrelevant wedge issues bankrolled by wealthiest
G.O.P. political donors to attract votes sufficient to protect wealthiest G.O.P. donors from tax increases and from a responsibly funded IRS, does Don Lemon or other CNN broadcasters push on their viewers?

en.wikipedia.org

Critical race theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
"..Advocates of such bans argue that CRT is anti-American, villainizes white people, and indoctrinates children.[23] Advocates of such bans have been accused of misrepresenting the tenets and importance of CRT and of having the goal of broadly silencing discussions of racism, equality, social justice, and the history of race.[24][25] "

Fox News Mentioned 'Critical Race Theory' 1300 Times Since ...​

https://www.businessinsider.com › Politics
Jun 15, 2021 — Fox News has mentioned 'critical race theory' nearly 1300 times since March, according to watchdog study. Jake Lahut. Jun 15, 2021, 8:33 AM.

Critical race theory exposed in detail in new documentary ...​

https://www.foxnews.com › lifestyle › critical-race-theory...
Mar 12, 2022 — In recent times, critical race theory (CRT) has come under increasing ... Fox News Digital spoke with a producer of the documentary, ...


THIS IS THE FIRE | Kirkus Reviews​

https://www.kirkusreviews.com › don-lemon › this-is-th...
Mar 16, 2021 — The well-known, forthright news anchor astutely diagnoses our nation's greatest malady. Readers who only know Lemon from his high-profile ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom