Good sources

[Termn8or]

Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?

 

[digitusmedius]

Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?

We do read and listen to them and they all spout demosntrable rightwing lies. Collectively they're known as the Rightwing Pukefunnel. Here's a challenge for you. Pick one of your most trusted source's recent article on Trump's handling of the covid-19 pandemic and let's go over it.

 

[bluesmoke]

Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?

All that you ask is determined at the time the evidence is provided to support what claim the poster is making, as is incumbent upon the poster of the claim in the order made. I've used data and information from both far-left and far-right sources. After the evidence is provided, it's the opposing debater's job to refute with countering evidence.

 

[Termn8or]

We do read and listen to them and they all spout demosntrable rightwing lies. Collectively they're known as the Rightwing Pukefunnel. Here's a challenge for you. Pick one of your most trusted source's recent article on Trump's handling of the covid-19 pandemic and let's go over it.

Babbling bulls*** and no answer.

Thanks for not playing.

 

[Termn8or]

All that you ask is determined at the time the evidence is provided to support what claim the poster is making, as is incumbent upon the poster of the claim in the order made. I've used data and information from both far-left and far-right sources. After the evidence is provided, it's the opposing debater's job to refute with countering evidence.

I'm only asking what people read and trust.

 

[mike2810]

Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?

My stance is all source and their articles should be checked and verified.

I read and view articles from multiple sources from all political leans.

One has to be able to know when an article goes from posting a fact to an editorial comment.

 

[digitusmedius]

Babbling bulls*** and no answer.

Thanks for not playing.

Look who's running away from having to stand by his bull****. Don't blame you for hightailing it, though. It was exactly what I expected. You people are nothing if not predictable.

 

[digitusmedius]

My stance is all source and their articles should be checked and verified.

I read and view articles from multiple sources from all political leans.

One has to be able to know when an article goes from posting a fact to an editorial comment.

I gave this one a chance to defend his premise and his predictable response was to throw a tantrum. It's always like this with this type. Press them even slightly and they completely lose their ****.

 

[digitusmedius]

I'm only asking what people read and trust.

And you couldn't even come up with an example of that for yourself when challenged.

 

[bluesmoke]

I'm only asking what people read and trust.

OK. Besides far L and R, I read everything inbtx, incl non-pol. I don't trust anything 100% because sometimes stuff just doesn't add up. What do you want, egg in your beer? Do your own dang homework. Figure it out for yourself. Jeez.

 

[Cardinal]

Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?

There are handful of decent sources, but the best rule of thumb is that if you use the NYTimes and WaPo, you're very unlikely to end up with egg on your face later.

 

[Slavister]

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

Stick to the ones in the middle 3 columns. Extra points for middle column sources.




source

 

[digitusmedius]

OK. Besides far L and R, I read everything inbtx, incl non-pol. I don't trust anything 100% because sometimes stuff just doesn't add up. What do you want, egg in your beer? Do your own dang homework. Figure it out for yourself. Jeez.

I think this one deluded himself into thinking he could put us on the spot and, of course, blew up in his face. They just aren't ever up to a real discussion.

 

[Cardinal]

Stick to the ones in the middle 3 columns. Extra points for middle column sources.


View attachment 67282921

source

That's fine, but you do take a small risk if you only stick to the ones in the center. USA Today, Bloomberg and NPR are fine, but their journalistic standards aren't as rigid as WaPo and NYTimes, which is a column to the left.

You want to be careful about bias, of course, but bias isn't everything.

 

[Condor060]

Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?

After over 10,000 post here on DP, I have come to the conclusion how the left rates media most of the time.

IF they don't like whats reported no matter what evidence is provided, its right wing propaganda.

But they will knowingly regurgitate CNN fake news as gospel even though CNN is the lowest rated cable news provider in the industry with ratings so low they fall under the cartoon channel and Nickelodeon.

I have had leftist posters on this site try and convince me the reason CNN has such a low viewer audience is because they sell steak compared to everyone else's hamburger. Thats how in the barrel the left is for any media that tells them what they want to hear.

Even when you provide a link to the WP or NYT that doesn't line up with what they want to hear, its an fake opinion piece from a right wing journalist posing as left.

I love when they demand a link to your claim and 100% of the time without fail they will dismiss it as a right wing rag. Guaranteed.

Not to mention if you post something like actual FBI stats on crime you are a racist. If you try and discuss what happened during the civil war or anything about secession you become a racist just by DISCUSSING the historical events that took place so I have learned up front, just how biased they have become. Tunnel visioned extremist with no desire to hear anything that isn't anti what ever they are interested in for a majority of leftist posters on this site.

It just is what it is.

 

[dairyair]

Believe 1/2 of what you see and none of what you hear/read.

 

[digitusmedius]

Stick to the ones in the middle 3 columns. Extra points for middle column sources.


View attachment 67282921

source

That's a pretty sophomoric way of reducing the media to arbitrary categories. Right off the bat we see the NYT Opinion in the far left column. This is the page that recently printed Tom Cotton's call to turn this country into a federal police state. If there'd been a column for Bothsiderism that's where the NYT OpEd page would go--something for everyone so we can't be pigeon holed and then, of course, some site like this pigeon holes them anyway. In fact, it's ridiculous to use the opinion pages of either end of the spectrum to classify the media for its news coverage. Of course Fox News opinion is going to be far right but FoxNews Online should also be there while Fox on Cable could properly be put in the Lean Right column. Also, why WSJ online only? WSJ's print version is a very good source of facts as opposed to its OpEd which is a sewer of rightwing garbage and clearly belongs in the far right column.

In short, this sites categorization reveals its own biases while it attempts, and fails, to make itself an arbiter of news validity.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

what do you folks consider to be good sources?

Do the sources hammer the "orange man bad!" rhetoric? Well, THOSE are the only ones to trust.

 

[Slavister]

That's fine, but you do take a small risk if you only stick to the ones in the center. USA Today, Bloomberg and NPR are fine, but their journalistic standards aren't as rigid as WaPo and NYTimes, which is a column to the left.

You want to be careful about bias, of course, but bias isn't everything.

Very true. I agree that NYT and Washington Post are first-class sources as well thanks to their journalistic standards.

Both are rated as HIGH for accuracy.







This is vs. say Washington Times rated Mixed for accuracy

That's a pretty sophomoric way of reducing the media to arbitrary categories. Right off the bat we see the NYT Opinion in the far left column. This is the page that recently printed Tom Cotton's call to turn this country into a federal police state. If there'd been a column for Bothsiderism that's where the NYT OpEd page would go--something for everyone so we can't be pigeon holed and then, of course, some site like this pigeon holes them anyway. In fact, it's ridiculous to use the opinion pages of either end of the spectrum to classify the media for its news coverage. Of course Fox News opinion is going to be far right but FoxNews Online should also be there while Fox on Cable could properly be put in the Lean Right column. Also, why WSJ online only? WSJ's print version is a very good source of facts as opposed to its OpEd which is a sewer of rightwing garbage and clearly belongs in the far right column.

In short, this sites categorization reveals its own biases while it attempts, and fails, to make itself an arbiter of news validity.

If you read the text in the original picture I posted, it says it only evaluated online content. Nothing else. Hope that explains why they did not include not-online material.

NYT opinion is definitely to the left overall, not "everything"... even if they publish right-wing opinion sometimes.

Regarding rest - that might also just reflect your own biases rather than them being "wrong".

 

[Cardinal]

Very true. I agree that NYT and Washington Post are first-class sources as well thanks to their journalistic standards.

Both are rated as HIGH for accuracy.

View attachment 67282922

View attachment 67282923



This is vs. say Washington Times rated Mixed for accuracy

View attachment 67282924

Technically, I don't need the Media Bias rating to know that WaPo and Nytimes are first rate. And that's because I can't remember the last time the central claims in their articles ended up being wrong.

 

[Termn8or]

There are handful of decent sources, but the best rule of thumb is that if you use the NYTimes and WaPo, you're very unlikely to end up with egg on your face later.

You're kidding.

Both are biased to the point of being corrupt.

I read the headlines in the WashPost daily and assume the opposite.

Both papers carried over two years of garbage about the fake Russian Collusion Hoax and never apologized.

Just the tip of a huge Fake News icerberg.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?

No one is dismissing your sources out of hand. You are being dismissed as unbiased. When you do cite your posts the citation is invariably a right wing outlet know for bias in their reporting, yet you try to palm them off as neutral; that's what's being "dismissed".

Admittedly it's hard to find unbiased sources, but it's not hard to prove an attempt at neutral bias on your own part. But you can make no such attempt because it's obvious that you burry your nose in every right and far right source you can find.

I read a lot of books that get multi-star reviews for fact and honesty; at least I try to. I Don't follow what you refer to as MSM so much as I do a lot of independent research. How do I know they're good; I don't always that's why I read multiple books and articles and try to draw an honest conclusion. I've done this since I was a young man, not just on political subjects but in general. I would go to a library find something I was interested in and start reading that whole section of the library. True, a lot of the books didn't get fully read if they didn't suit me; but I looked at every one and at lest gave it a shot. IMHO, that's how you become educated. I also have two Bachelor's degrees. Which isn't that big of a deal because when I was in school computer science was so top loaded with math it only took an extra class or two to get a minor in mathematics; but it does get me bragging rights.

When I'm posting I google up sources that prove my point(s), it's not hard to do. I'm not fair about it, I prove my point; it's your job to prove yours. But I do try to choose neutral citations so I don't look like a biased toady.

Here's an example of your obvious bias:

You're kidding.

Both are biased to the point of being corrupt.

I read the headlines in the WashPost daily and assume the opposite.

Both papers carried over two years of garbage about the fake Russian Collusion Hoax and never apologized.

Just the tip of a huge Fake News icerberg.

The red, in your own words proves your propensity to prejudge what you read.

 

[digitusmedius]

After over 10,000 post here on DP, I have come to the conclusion how the left rates media most of the time.

IF they don't like whats reported no matter what evidence is provided, its right wing propaganda.

But they will knowingly regurgitate CNN fake news as gospel even though CNN is the lowest rated cable news provider in the industry with ratings so low they fall under the cartoon channel and Nickelodeon.

I have had leftist posters on this site try and convince me the reason CNN has such a low viewer audience is because they sell steak compared to everyone else's hamburger. Thats how in the barrel the left is for any media that tells them what they want to hear.

Even when you provide a link to the WP or NYT that doesn't line up with what they want to hear, its an fake opinion piece from a right wing journalist posing as left.

I love when they demand a link to your claim and 100% of the time without fail they will dismiss it as a right wing rag. Guaranteed.

Not to mention if you post something like actual FBI stats on crime you are a racist. If you try and discuss what happened during the civil war or anything about secession you become a racist just by DISCUSSING the historical events that took place so I have learned up front, just how biased they have become. Tunnel visioned extremist with no desire to hear anything that isn't anti what ever they are interested in for a majority of leftist posters on this site.

It just is what it is.

Standard rightwing whining and cant is what that is.

 

[Termn8or]

After over 10,000 post here on DP, I have come to the conclusion how the left rates media most of the time.

IF they don't like whats reported no matter what evidence is provided, its right wing propaganda.

But they will knowingly regurgitate CNN fake news as gospel even though CNN is the lowest rated cable news provider in the industry with ratings so low they fall under the cartoon channel and Nickelodeon.

I have had leftist posters on this site try and convince me the reason CNN has such a low viewer audience is because they sell steak compared to everyone else's hamburger. Thats how in the barrel the left is for any media that tells them what they want to hear.

Even when you provide a link to the WP or NYT that doesn't line up with what they want to hear, its an fake opinion piece from a right wing journalist posing as left.

I love when they demand a link to your claim and 100% of the time without fail they will dismiss it as a right wing rag. Guaranteed.

Not to mention if you post something like actual FBI stats on crime you are a racist. If you try and discuss what happened during the civil war or anything about secession you become a racist just by DISCUSSING the historical events that took place so I have learned up front, just how biased they have become. Tunnel visioned extremist with no desire to hear anything that isn't anti what ever they are interested in for a majority of leftist posters on this site.

It just is what it is.

I have literally decades of experience trying to get liberals to see that water is wet, to look at important factual information.

Almost always in vain.

Then they accuse us of spreading "propaganda.":lol:

 

[Termn8or]

Standard rightwing whining and cant is what that is.

You didn't list your sources.

Thanks for not playing.