Credible News Sources

[Bootstrap]

These sites are really helpful for assessing what the standard news sites report:

• http://fivethirtyeight.com - the best site I know for understanding election statistics
• http://www.snopes.com
• https://www.factcheck.org
• http://www.politifact.com

The bottom three have had their own level of discreditation through this election cycle. Each were found to be distorting facts and manipulating information to guide their "facts."

I would love to take that to a separate thread, benchmarking the fact checkers against the sources that claim to have debunked them. My impression is that for the most part, the fact checkers were much more accurate when I checked the facts.

Some sources would really rather not have to be accountable to the facts.

So even the fact checkers are biased.

And so are the critics of the fact checkers. Again, I'd love to do a careful apples-to-apples comparison. My impression really is that in general, the fact checkers are much more accurate than their critics.

[haithabu]

You pretty much have to do your own fact checking by comparing different sources. A "fact check" site is one of those sources and they are not infallible.

For example, one site I saw debunked the idea that there was anything sketchy about the Clinton Foundation, but my personal review of the Foundation's own financial statements and Form 990 threw up definite red flags.

The difference between my conclusions and the fact checker's lay in the depth of analysis.

The site contented itself with the observation that most of the Foundation's expenditures were reported as being for charitable activities and that therefore there was "nothing to see here".

But when I looked closer I saw that direct program spending (a subcategory of charitable expenditures) was a paltry 25% of that total and that 80% of all expenditures took place in the United States rather than on international development programs.

These programs were prominently featured in CF's annual report, but it was apparent that in monetary terms they were no more than a sideline. CF was evidently operating with a much more expansive definition of what constitutes charitable activity than by what most people would understand by the term.

Personally I go to aggregator sites like Realclear Politics which provide links to a range of articles which land on both sides of a given issue.

[temporal1]

You pretty much have to do your own fact checking by comparing different sources. A "fact check" site is one of those sources and they are not infallible.

For example, one site I saw debunked the idea that there was anything sketchy about the Clinton Foundation, but my personal review of the Foundation's own financial statements and Form 990 threw up definite red flags.

The difference between my conclusions and the fact checker's lay in the depth of analysis.

The site contented itself with the observation that most of the Foundation's expenditures were reported as being for charitable activities and that therefore there was "nothing to see here".

But when I looked closer I saw that direct program spending (a subcategory of charitable expenditures) was a paltry 25% of that total and that 80% of all expenditures took place in the United States rather than on international development programs.

These programs were prominently featured in CF's annual report, but it was apparent that in monetary terms they were no more than a sideline. CF was evidently operating with a much more expansive definition of what constitutes charitable activity than by what most people would understand by the term.

Personally I go to aggregator sites like Realclear Politics which provide links to a range of articles which land on both sides of a given issue.

yes.
i've read where Planned Parenthood compiles numbers of different services (services that are actually part of abortions performed) to make numbers appear that abortions are a much smaller part of their work than is questioned.

it's well known, manipulating numbers, labels, language, all contribute to twisting statistics.

many lawyers+politicians+activists seem to prefer dedicating their efforts to skewing appearances, rather than fixing anything. they love to make public claims. too often, all political theater, no substance. they take their paychecks, and call it a day.

but, right now, post-Trump election, if i were one who had followed all these reports, i would be pretty upset about being lied to. many really-really "believed."

there certainly is an appearance of deliberate lies; more than honest oversight.
shocking, but, it's much easier to accept for those not so-invested.

[Jazman]

many lawyers+politicians+activists seem to prefer dedicating their efforts to skewing appearances, rather than fixing anything. they love to make public claims. too often, all political theater, no substance. they take their paychecks, and call it a day.

Temp, I'm wondering if you would exempt any lawyers/politicians/activists from this broad description and who some of them might be? Because all interest groups and all sides of the political sphere have all of these on the payroll...

[Bootstrap]

they love to make public claims. too often, all political theater, no substance. they take their paychecks, and call it a day.

but, right now, post-Trump election, if i were one who had followed all these reports, i would be pretty upset about being lied to. many really-really "believed."

Temp, do you believe that Trump has lied significantly during the campaign? Do you believe that he has engaged in political theater, without substance? Trump now has his chance to figure out how exactly he plans to fulfill his promises, and I hope he is successful. He will be graded on his performance, not on more speeches and words.

If you compare Trump to credible news sources, I think it's really hard to argue that Trump was more credible. And it's pretty astonishing how much truly fake news showed up during this campaign, and the extent to which Trump supporters believed it. If you like, I could make lists of really interesting examples.

If you want to be the expert on who is telling the truth, you need to spend a lot of time comparing sources and carefully getting at the facts. Most of us don't have that time.

[temporal1]

many lawyers+politicians+activists seem to prefer dedicating their efforts to skewing appearances, rather than fixing anything. they love to make public claims. too often, all political theater, no substance. they take their paychecks, and call it a day.

Temp, I'm wondering if you would exempt any lawyers/politicians/activists from this broad description and who some of them might be? Because all interest groups and all sides of the political sphere have all of these on the payroll...

i live in an area that's "lawyer-rich." big state university law school nearby.

i used to work with a number of lawyers, and, when younger, i did a lot of typing for law students.
all lawyers are not created equally.

some actually have personal ethics, not accepting cases or types of law they "don't have the stomach for," as one lawyer (i know well, over years) described his inability and refusal to do divorce law.

some volunteer in their communities without becoming political or promoting themselves.
so, no, i do not, in fact, lump all together .. altho, i may not make it clear enough often enough that i believe there are some distinctions under the umbrella labels.

i suppose in similar ways Wayne in Maine has described, he might have used his engineering degree to gain great personal wealth, but, his conscience stood in the way. (Wayne, please correct if i've misspoken or overstepped.)

i know there are successful lawyers who do retain moral ethics. who do not accept any paycheck that might float before their eyes. i've met a number. i'm happy to be able to say.

i also understand the temptation of selling-out.
law school is expensive. those debts must be paid!

[Jazman]

This is sobering and sheds light on the ills of both partisan sides... NPR Reporter Tracked Down a Fake News Creator in the Suburbs Here's What They Learned
(I will admit to considering leaving the NPR part of that title out... because some of you see that and immediately write off their journalism...) Please look past that and read the article. I think it gives some insight into discerning bad, lying news sources.

And here's a part that will probably irritate a few of you...and you probably won't believe it... (But this is not the first source I've seen discussing this point: Statistically and via cold hard data facts (like the number of shares, views, etc that a machine/computer tabulates) - the right-leaning side of the political spectrum, especially recently, accepts and spreads completely made-up "news" stories more easily than other demographics)

When we were coming up with headlines it’s always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.

We’ve tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You’ll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

[temporal1]

This is sobering and sheds light on the ills of both partisan sides... NPR Reporter Tracked Down a Fake News Creator in the Suburbs Here's What They Learned
(I will admit to considering leaving the NPR part of that title out... because some of you see that and immediately write off their journalism...) Please look past that and read the article. I think it gives some insight into discerning bad, lying news sources.

And here's a part that will probably irritate a few of you...and you probably won't believe it... (But this is not the first source I've seen discussing this point: Statistically and via cold hard data facts (like the number of shares, views, etc that a machine/computer tabulates) - the right-leaning side of the political spectrum, especially recently, accepts and spreads completely made-up "news" stories more easily than other demographics)

When we were coming up with headlines it’s always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.

We’ve tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You’ll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

just think.
this could have been posted in the "Source bashing soap box" thread.
these two threads seem to get intertwined (more than i would have imagined.)

[temporal1]

This thread, Page 1 -

I have learned to trust theBlaze.
I read FoxNews, but know they will leave things out at times.

I also read all those facebook news stories that I just know are true.

i read theBlaze now+then. not frequently. don't know much about them (or others.) i first heard of them early-on, when i joined MD, Robert, you referred to them even then.

[ken_sylvania]

This is sobering and sheds light on the ills of both partisan sides... NPR Reporter Tracked Down a Fake News Creator in the Suburbs Here's What They Learned
(I will admit to considering leaving the NPR part of that title out... because some of you see that and immediately write off their journalism...) Please look past that and read the article. I think it gives some insight into discerning bad, lying news sources.

NYT had a similar story yesterday where they tracked down a fake news creator in Georgia. Quite interesting.

And here's a part that will probably irritate a few of you...and you probably won't believe it... (But this is not the first source I've seen discussing this point: Statistically and via cold hard data facts (like the number of shares, views, etc that a machine/computer tabulates) - the right-leaning side of the political spectrum, especially recently, accepts and spreads completely made-up "news" stories more easily than other demographics)

When we were coming up with headlines it’s always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.

We’ve tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You’ll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

Buzzfeed suggests a more nuanced view than NPR presents. An analysis by Craig Silverman found fake news to be a problem on both sides of the political spectrum. He concluded that the problem was worse on the right than on the left, but that both sides had an appetite for it.
One should also recognize that a major failure of the larger traditional news outlets is inaccurate analysis of the facts that they report. Depending which facts are highlighted, the narrative shifts. I'd say a failure to report relevant facts bad journalism just as much as publishing fake facts.
As Christians, we profess to hold a high esteem for the truth. To me, a part of that is making a reasonable effort to verify facts and sources before repeating them.