PEOPLE CONTROL

[Tom Dempsey]

Whichever it was got it wrong and a few seconds of fact checking would have addressed that deficit. This might also reinforce my contention that trusting network news for facts is done at the risk of the watcher and that a healthy skepticism should be cultivated by the viewer.

Unfortunately, network news and social media is how the majority are getting their news. And they believe everything.

So, where exactly would you recommend I go? There have been volumes, here, on MTJ, of criticism and scoffing at sources I have mentioned, so I am urged to ask that question. WHERE do you recommend and personally go for pristine, objective news and information?

Pick the two most diametrically opposed news outlets, listen to both, throw out what they don't agree on. It's sort of like mining silver from galena, there's a whole lot of lead, tin, rocks and assorted crap in there. But, somewhere in the pile are some nuggets. Also, replay whatever is said in your head in totality, if it doesn't pass the sniff test, either the news outlet or you is wrong.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Thanks, Tom. I appreciate your sharing your method.
Murph

[chuck]

I can't deal with the extreme opposites so I scan the middle of the road guys and then hop over to BBC and CBC to see what they are covering. An outsiders view can be very valuable. All stories have to have a point of view. If they didn't what would be the point? The real issues are disclosure. If you have an axe to grind, say so, up front. I have less issues with zealots that spout beliefs as facts than I do someone posing as "rational" that cherry picks data to match their point of view and ignores anything that doesn't.

Your biggest first question should be are looking for information or affirmation. If it's the former, then the source should not have any issue of identifying their sources and being open to vetting of that material. If they clam up/retreat into a shell (I am the Great and All Powerful OZ and how dare you question my words) you should be looking someplace else for you info.

Main thing is to evaluate the material with a critical eye. If you are on the internet, look for citations. I find it amazing that anyone will "buy" anything they found on the internet. There is almost not checking of this material. A healthy dose of skepticism is important.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

I can't deal with the extreme opposites so I scan the middle of the road guys and then hop over to BBC and CBC to see what they are covering. An outsiders view can be very valuable. All stories have to have a point of view. If they didn't what would be the point? The real issues are disclosure. If you have an axe to grind, say so, up front. I have less issues with zealots that spout beliefs as facts than I do someone posing as "rational" that cherry picks data to match their point of view and ignores anything that doesn't.

Your biggest first question should be are looking for information or affirmation. If it's the former, then the source should not have any issue of identifying their sources and being open to vetting of that material. If they clam up/retreat into a shell (I am the Great and All Powerful OZ and how dare you question my words) you should be looking someplace else for you info.

Main thing is to evaluate the material with a critical eye. If you are on the internet, look for citations. I find it amazing that anyone will "buy" anything they found on the internet. There is almost not checking of this material. A healthy dose of skepticism is important.

Thank you, Chuck. I was hoping to hear from you on this.
If you advise being skeptical about "buying anything found on the internet," and if that includes such sites such as Google and Wikipedia, and mentioning News channels on TV is ridiculed here in MTJ by a certain couple voices, where does one go for assurance that what one is repeating is worth the effort at all?
Thanks again for your input.
Murph

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.............where does one go for assurance that what one is repeating is worth the effort at all?

I don't think that there any single source anymore nor has one been available for quite some time....maybe for several decades now.

Your best bet, and I do agree with Chuck, is your skepticism and own internal judgement, and looking about for multiple viewpoints vs. just trusting any single one. I also like the BBC news,

[Roy]

Google News offers several sources for each story. I recommend them.

[HONDO74]

Google News offers several sources for each story. I recommend them.

Both Google and Yahoo link to other news organizations. They don't present any news themselves.

The following is my opinion and there will be those that disagree.
Google and Yahoo are both left leaning organizations and 90% of their links to political news are to left leaning news organizations.

They do give a token link to FOX once in a while.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Google News offers several sources for each story. I recommend them.

Both Google and Yahoo link to other news organizations. They don't present any news themselves.

I think that actually changed a few years ago for Yahoo. Much to my surprise there actually is a Yahoo News organization.

I have no idea about Google, but everyone wants to be in the news business to make money,

[up148]

I have less issues with zealots that spout beliefs as facts than I do someone posing as "rational" that cherry picks data to match their point of view and ignores anything that doesn't.

I totally agree and this is almost 100% what news organizations do today.

It's interesting to watch BBC, because they most often just present the story. Their "talking heads" might make a comment or too, but generally not trying to sway your thinking.

Whereas watching "PBS News Hour" , which follows an hour later in our area, they present the same story and then bring on so called "experts" that support the way they want you to interpret the story. If it wasn't so obvious and sad, it would be funny. The really good times are when the so called "experts" don't agree with or say what Judy wants them to say. You can see her seething underneath and she always directs the conversation in a nother direction.

BH

[HONDO74]

Google News offers several sources for each story. I recommend them.

Both Google and Yahoo link to other news organizations. They don't present any news themselves.

I think that actually changed a few years ago for Yahoo. Much to my surprise there actually is a Yahoo News organization.

I have no idea about Google, but everyone wants to be in the news business to make money,

Both sites say they are news. But everything links to other places. And all are dependent upon advertisers dollars

Yahoo News.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/

Google News.
https://news.google.com/news/?ned=us&gl=US&hl=en

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Both sites say they are news. But everything links to other places.

Well, maybe, maybe not - https://www.yahoo.com/author/michael-isikoff

And all are dependent upon advertisers dollars

All news organizations are dependent on advertiser's dollars

[chuck]

It's interesting to watch BBC, because they most often just present the story. Their "talking heads" might make a comment or too, but generally not trying to sway your thinking.

No, they have a fact check division within their own organization that will publish information counter to the original report and cite hard data to back that up.

All news organizations are dependent on advertiser's dollars

Other than PBS, they are commercial organizations. They are in business to MAKE MONEY. The epiphanous moment for me was when I realized the whole point of a news show, magazine, newspaper was to hold my attention between the ads. When the ads dry up the organization collapses.

My only issue with PBS NEWS is it's generally boring. That's probably because they just report the facts.

[Roy]

My only issue with PBS NEWS is it's generally boring. That's probably because they just report the facts.

Just the facts, ma'am.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Other than PBS, they are commercial organizations.

PBS does take advertising now and has sponsors, too. Got to pay that electric bill!

[up148]

Yeah, I've noticed way more advertising (sponsors) for the past decade. It's always short and quick before the show starts, but it's there and many larger corporations have joined in too.

I'm also very aware that PBS, at least "PBS World News Hour' seems to always have an agenda. As stated above, it's fun to watch Judy's agenda derail when some guest speakers just won't play ball.

BH