Can we agree on three sources ?

[soap box]

In the DP rules for the Breaking News forum it describes sources. I'll admit to an automatic suspicion of sources like Zerohedge or Rasmussen. This is offset somewhat by fellow members with an automatic rejection for the NYT , WAPO.

Could we find a convention of three sources we agree to not condemn?

Sometimes people attack the source. But we might skip that and get to the substance.

So if you quoted an article from AP, it wouldn't be a point for me to say the source is always crappy and nobody should ever believe that rag.

Of course, an idea among us would count on a good degree of consensus. Anyone could still link to anything within all rules. But some sources would be conventional. It might make finding a citation easier. Could we reduce the clutter when fellow members post to the source and not to the topic? Can we agree on three sources?

3 votes allowed, no one can see who. You may change. No results before voting. Two months.

 

[anatta]

all of them/none of them depending on the article and the accuracy.
Meaning it's ridiculous to throw out article depending on what website you find it.

Look at the story is it credible? then source it. If not then dont

 

[samiam5211]

If something is real, there will be many sources saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[AGENT J]

In the DP rules for the Breaking News forum it describes sources. I'll admit to an automatic suspicion of sources like Zerohedge or Rasmussen. This is offset somewhat by fellow members with an automatic rejection for the NYT , WAPO.

Could we find a convention of three sources we agree to not condemn?

Sometimes people attack the source. But we might skip that and get to the substance.

So if you quoted an article from AP, it wouldn't be a point for me to say the source is always crappy and nobody should ever believe that rag.

Of course, an idea among us would count on a good degree of consensus. Anyone could still link to anything within all rules. But some sources would be conventional. It might make finding a citation easier. Could we reduce the clutter when fellow members post to the source and not to the topic? Can we agree on three sources?

3 votes allowed, no one can see who. You may change. No results before voting. Two months.

source alone should never be a factor

yes some orgs like fox, epoch, newsmax, OAN, msnbc, have been so horrible i would NEVER quote them alone or take them seriously without other sources but at times they do just report the news

ap and reuters i trust in general but again id still look for more

 

[bongsaway]

Regardless of the source, if I see something that interests me on the news, I go to the internet to try to find out more about the story. I also watch documentaries on current issues.

With that said, it's pretty clear our two choices for prez are biden and trump, like it or not, even if trump is convicted of crimes. When I see trump on tv saying things like john mccain is a loser and he wants to back out of nato, it's him saying it, it's not a story someone made up. I don't want a dictator for a day like many republicans. So, say what you will about the news but only an idiot doesn't see the difference between trump and biden.

 

[humbolt]

Three is about right. Four is too many, and clearly two is insufficient. I prefer three who all report exactly the same thing. These immediately become popular talking points and narratives we can all believe in, while simultaneously making all other sources fringe elements that can’t be trusted.

 

[Helix]

Sources that come to mind : AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC, and The Guardian.

 

[TamleeB]

Just because a few news agencies report the “same” thing does not mean their reporting is necessarily factual. The majority of our media has an agenda, and that agenda is not always fact checking before they run with a story. Do your own research and dig deep. Don’t rely on any “network news” with an agenda to always give you facts. Many have been proven wrong in the past because they did not clearly wait until all the facts were presented and instead opted for sensationalism and ratings.

 

[Mycroft]

In the DP rules for the Breaking News forum it describes sources. I'll admit to an automatic suspicion of sources like Zerohedge or Rasmussen. This is offset somewhat by fellow members with an automatic rejection for the NYT , WAPO.

Could we find a convention of three sources we agree to not condemn?

Sometimes people attack the source. But we might skip that and get to the substance.

So if you quoted an article from AP, it wouldn't be a point for me to say the source is always crappy and nobody should ever believe that rag.

Of course, an idea among us would count on a good degree of consensus. Anyone could still link to anything within all rules. But some sources would be conventional. It might make finding a citation easier. Could we reduce the clutter when fellow members post to the source and not to the topic? Can we agree on three sources?

3 votes allowed, no one can see who. You may change. No results before voting. Two months.

I prefer not to idolize or shoot the messenger. Instead, I focus on the message.

 

[stealthycat]

no - news is biased in today's world, they play to their viewers, every one of them IMO

 

[Superfly]

Not great choices when we are looking for unbiased sources, which is what we should be looking for the find middle ground .

I chose AP and then other. The AP is usually pretty solid. After that, I try to stick with something like BBC or NPR. They are usually pretty unslanted either way.

 

[Superfly]

I prefer not to idolize or shoot the messenger. Instead, I focus on the message.

Even if the message is wrong, based on misinformation?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

The Economist, Foreign Affairs, and The Wall Street Journal

 

[gdgyva]

The Economist, Foreign Affairs, and The Wall Street Journal

Wall St Journal, Financial Times, AP

If it is worth knowing, those sources will tell me

 

[JRTurner]

I like AP, Reuters, BBC, and local news (radio on the commute to work) that keeps me updated on pretty much everything. I also like some quirky podcasts when I get a chance to listen--like "You're Wrong About" which is kind of like the old radio show "The Rest of the Story" that I loved back in the day. Yes, I like NPR, CSPAN and PBS as well, but those are more specific interests rather than browsing/random listening.

 

[Juin]

If something is real, there will be many sources saying pretty much the same thing.

Exactly!

 

[soap box]

I like AP, Reuters, BBC, and local news (radio on the commute to work) that keeps me updated on pretty much everything. I also like some quirky podcasts when I get a chance to listen--like "You're Wrong About" which is kind of like the old radio show "The Rest of the Story" that I loved back in the day. Yes, I like NPR, CSPAN and PBS as well, but those are more specific interests rather than browsing/random listening.

Yes , I remember Paul Harvey

 

[Lisa]

Associated Press/AP, UPI (United Press International)and Reuters.

NPR/PBS and BBC are in the next group of highly reliable sources.

 

[soap box]

Regardless of the source, if I see something that interests me on the news, I go to the internet to try to find out more about the story. I also watch documentaries on current issues.

With that said, it's pretty clear our two choices for prez are biden and trump, like it or not, even if trump is convicted of crimes. When I see trump on tv saying things like john mccain is a loser and he wants to back out of nato, it's him saying it, it's not a story someone made up.

it's him saying it,

That's key. Inside the quotation marks. Or direct evidence as words in a video or audio. That is mistaken often as a reply attacking the source but not mentioning what the president actually said before and after. It also means even a disreputable source can tell the truth sometimes.

I don't want a dictator for a day like many republicans. So, say what you will about the news but only an idiot doesn't see the difference between trump and biden.

 

[Allan]

Sources that come to mind : AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC, and The Guardian.

All good. I would add the Big 3 to your list - ABC, NBC, CBS.

 

[Helix]

All good. I would add the Big 3 to your list - ABC, NBC, CBS.

My 6:30 news was CBS, and then NBC. I might start watching again at some point.

 

[Linc]

All good. I would add the Big 3 to your list - ABC, NBC, CBS.

DP uses fox in Breaking News.
I appreciate the necessary moderation.

The times of India, Israel, Asia plus i24news and Politico have all been good.

I told my tRumpie brother to go to:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com

To see the back-and-forth.

 

[Parrish]

I prefer not to idolize or shoot the messenger. Instead, I focus on the message.

 

[Allan]

He is dismissed.

 

[soap box]

Lots of replies have been all over the three middle columns of this chart- but the Wall Street Journal is the same column as the Epoch Times???


Edit- This is not counting accuracy, just bias. The WSJ and ET are just as biased but one of them is believable.