• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

This is why Reading Widely Is Necessary

Loulit01 said:
You need a reason to read widely? I do it obsessively.
Click to expand...
Based on some of the crap news links we see posted here, with lies of omission and misleading headlines, I think the thread is good advice.

Which will probably be ignored by those who should heed it.
 
Last edited:
News papers are dead, so is prime time news media.

It is the people stuck in the past that keep both alive.
 
I like to read widely.

PressTV
Al Jazzera
Unz Review
Natural News
Telesur
RT
Sputnik
Yahoo
SOTT
Antiwar
GlobalResearch
Rense.com
Zerohedge

Youtube (Truthstream Media, Adapt 2030, Ice Age Farmer)

I'll even admit to reading CNN on the rare occasion.
 
With respect:

You're basing this on titles. I bet that none of those newspaper articles went deep enough. Reading shallow sources widely isn't good. Seeking sources with deeper analyses is much better.
 
JMB802 said:
Based on some of the crap news links we see posted here, with lies of omission and misleading headlines, I think the thread is good advice.

Which will probably be ignored by those who should heed it.
Click to expand...
That's why you read that headline and look for more context. Unless it is about Fauci lurking under beds or Biden having a bad hair day. Those aren't worth the effort.
 
jpn said:
Two ways of telling the same story:

View attachment 67399752
WSJ left, WaPo right.
Click to expand...
Absolutely Good OP Point!

Kudos!

Not that either headline is wrong or neccesarily intended to be biased they are just two different ways of looking at the same issue.

Exactly why I oft devour a super eclectic range of reporting on a topic, especially topics that really pique my interest, but I usually try to find at least one other perspective before I start commenting here on linked articles in OP's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
JMB802 said:
Based on some of the crap news links we see posted here, with lies of omission and misleading headlines, I think the thread is good advice.

Which will probably be ignored by those who should heed it.
Click to expand...
;)(y)

I will read Linked OP articles unless they are behind paywalls.

Then I usually find my own sources if it is an interesting topic to me.
.
Videos are another thing altogether, I hate posters who dump video links in their OP's without any outline. Especially those posters who dump video links of 10 minutes or more and no synopsis.

That sucks! So I will get annoying to such posters trying to find out what the video has to offer besides their insistence I watch it because they think I should.
 
It is always good to read from a number of sources on a topic of interest.

imo, most reporting today is more editorial and less "just the facts". Many sources have their political lean in their stories.

Read, check and verify.
 
mike2810 said:
It is always good to read from a number of sources on a topic of interest.

imo, most reporting today is more editorial and less "just the facts". Many sources have their political lean in their stories.

Read, check and verify.
Click to expand...
Yeah, some of us call that research. It's anathema to neo-conservatives.
 
It’s always best to go straight to the source. Why read somebody’s interpretation of some legislation when you can read the legislative text directly?
 
jpn said:
Yeah, WAY better to go down self-reinforcing Facebook rabbit holes...
Click to expand...
The thought never occurred to me to get news from facebook. Most likely since I long ago blocked such things with F.B.(FluffBusting)Purity.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but the internet offers more than social media and old style newspapers and prime time media. Back in the day, the networks and newspapers were basically your only choice. But that shipped sailed long ago.
 
FurriesRock said:
I like to read widely.

PressTV
Al Jazzera
Unz Review
Natural News
Telesur
RT
Sputnik
Yahoo
SOTT
Antiwar
GlobalResearch
Rense.com
Zerohedge

Youtube (Truthstream Media, Adapt 2030, Ice Age Farmer)

I'll even admit to reading CNN on the rare occasion.
Click to expand...
You made a list of some of the worst places to go.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The thought never occurred to me to get news from facebook. Most likely since I long ago blocked such things with F.B.(FluffBusting)Purity.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but the internet offers more than social media and old style newspapers and prime time media. Back in the day, the networks and newspapers were basically your only choice. But that shipped sailed long ago.
Click to expand...
Problem is y’all obviously can’t tell the difference between reality and narrative.

And as narrative is designed to fill you with the desired neurochemical response, you get addicted and follow that rabbit down every hole.

What you describe could be a good thing. Cynical application of manipulative techniques and technology made it the worst thing our nation has ever faced:

Millions of people living in a reality distinct to consumers of the sites you likely stand by vehemently.
 
Antiwar said:
With respect:
You're basing this on titles. I bet that none of those newspaper articles went deep enough. Reading shallow sources widely isn't good. Seeking sources with deeper analyses is much better.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that's possible. You'd have to read all three articles (all three require paid subscriptions and I don't subscribe to the WSJ) and then examine the policy itself in order to decide for yourself where you stand on it.

Most people don't have that much time or interest and thus rely on what is reported in their media of choice.

I just thought this was a good example of one policy, two perspectives.

The WaPo's take on it boils down to: "The proposed program for offshore drilling between 2023 and 2028 would ban exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. But by leaving the possibility for new drilling in parts of the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska, the announcement falls short of Biden’s campaign promise to end federal fossil fuel leasing for good."

I imagine the WSJ's spin is to emphasize the ban.

I found the NYT's take to be the most informative, starting out with the important point that "By law, the Department of the Interior is required to issue a plan for new oil and gas leases in federal waters every five years." They then examine the conflicting political pressures on the administration:

With the release of the plan, the Biden administration risks angering both the fossil fuel industry and environmental advocates.​
Oil industry leaders, who argue that more drilling in the United States is needed to bring down gas prices, have accused President Biden of limiting supply to the global marketplace.​
Yet with carbon emissions from oil, gas and coal climbing and intensifying the climate crisis, environmental activists argue that Mr. Biden must forbid new drilling.​
 
just trust fox news...



1656782576073.webp
 
FurriesRock said:
I like to read widely.

PressTV
Al Jazzera
Unz Review
Natural News
Telesur
RT
Sputnik
Yahoo
SOTT
Antiwar
GlobalResearch
Rense.com
Zerohedge

Youtube (Truthstream Media, Adapt 2030, Ice Age Farmer)

I'll even admit to reading CNN on the rare occasion.
Click to expand...
Wow, you read a lot of propaganda. Someone with as much free time on their hands as you would do better to go straight to source material instead of reading others’ takes on it, but I imagine you feel safer staying within propaganda bubbles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom