Credible News Sources

[temporal1]

Page 13 / Dec 5, 2016:

I hope I am not repeating someone else's talking points as I will admit I have not read all 13 pages of this thread but here are my thoughts on the subject, especially in light of the recent elections.

I must say that it is almost laughable for just about any of the mainline news sources to claim to be credible right now. They have exposed their bias in a shameless way and right now I for one am actually enjoying watching them running scared.

I would of had no problem with any of them declaring a preference in the election.
But they went far beyond that. They were openly rooting for a winner.
In several of the debates they broke rules and very definitely showed favoritism for the left.
It was so obvious it was almost pathetic.

I never thought I would say it but Fox News almost looked balanced compared to most of the others and Fox News is not balanced.

So let me make a prediction of what you are in for over the next four years.
The left leaning media will be acting like an injured bull.
They will be throwing any resemblance of non bias media out the window and will be lashing out at the new establishment in Washington in ways like you have never seen before.
And it will probably be effective.
The constant anger that they will stir up will eventually be effective in rising up a backlash that will be impossible for the present government to effectively placate.

How do I know this? I have seen it happen every time the right gains any type of a foothold in politics here in Canada.
But I suspect anything I have ever seen will be minor compared to what is about to happen.

Based on what I have read in this thread I know some of you will disagree but all I can say is that may only show that the media has already got to you with their bias.
I would suggest that you really look at what has just happened with an open mind.

The crying, and anguish and just outright anger and bewilderment by most of the media should tell you just how strong the bias has been.
And you really need to ask yourself whether they are sources that you can even begin to trust in the future.
I might add that a very small minority of them have admitted that what they did was totally wrong and that they are at least partly responsible in an indirect way for Trump's election.
The dumb, uneducated public saw through them.

The question is, Are we going to let us continually be duped by the likes of these or can we learn a lesson from this and start to be a bit more critical in our thinking?
Or are we going to go to the opposite extreme and allow all those right and left wing conspiracy type Youtube sites become our primary source for news. I hope not because they are even less reliable.

I have concluded that the best one can do at this point is get as broad a view point as possible.
Always try hard to find where a writer's bias is because there always is one and then read it or watch it in that light.

And finally.
Recognize that while we live in this world and so to a certain extent we must know what is happening around us in order to function:
in the end they (the world) can not touch us in the areas that really matter.
Providing of course that we keep our primary focus on the King of Kings.

appleman’s prediction is proving to be an understatement.
he had Canada’s experience as comparison, i have seen what has unfolded since Illinois voters “dared” to elect a Republican governor. unrelenting “injured bull” tactics.

not of “fringe elements!” - whackos ..
by their highest “leadership.” those should be 2 very different categories. they are not.

[temporal1]

Refreshing.
Credible News Sources are discussed in DanZ’s thread:

Situational Ethics!?!
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1255

maybe Signtist will stop by to add a word (somewhere) on forum.

[Dan Z]

This was probably said already, but credible sources of news can be measured in different ways:

• 1) One can measure credibility by asking "is the approach to news as balanced and unbiased as possible." This seems important when one is relying on a news source as one's mainstay for news. For example, if a person chooses unashamedly left-leaning Huffington Post, or unashamedly right leaning Breitbart News as their primary provider of news, they will likely come out of the experience with an unbalanced and non-credible view of reality.
  
  2) One can also measure credibility by whether or not the source uses objectively high standards of scholarship and sourcing in its reporting, regardless of bias. In this case the key is the trustworthiness of the reporting, not it's bias. This recognizes that all sides of the spectrum deserve to have a credible and thoughtful voice, and it also assumes the reader will take responsibility for finding their own balance by selecting good reporting from various points of view.

[JimFoxvog]

I saw an updated version of the chart.
Seems reasonably fair to me. You might learn something in the lower half, but I think it would be wise to double check anything you haven't heard from the sources higher in the chart.

[Robert]

Time neutral? I doubt that. NBC is not neutral either.

[Valerie]

Time neutral? I doubt that. NBC is not neutral either.

Me thinks the chart has it's own bias, can't be trusted any more than the media-

[Dan Z]

Time neutral? I doubt that. NBC is not neutral either.

Me thinks the chart has it's own bias, can't be trusted any more than the media-

That probably depends on the rigor of their methodology - relative to your opinion at least.

Reading a bit behind the scenes it seems the chart's author is fairly rigorous in her measurements and methodology, analyzing stories based on three fairly standardized criteria, and measuring the stories sentence by sentence for both leaning and veracity. That being said, the process does sound a bit arbitrary and individualized (as opposed to a panel or group effort) to me - but nevertheless the result of a serious good-faith effort.

[Bootstrap]

Seems reasonably fair to me. You might learn something in the lower half, but I think it would be wise to double check anything you haven't heard from the sources higher in the chart.

Interesting - this is the first chart I have seen that clearly places what I read in one place. I read mostly the layers called "Fact Reporting" and "Complex Analysis". The top layer, "Original Fact Reporting", has a lot of first takes on the news before the facts settle down, I generally prefer to wait just a little.

If you want a quick read, Axios and The Hill are great resources, one leaning a little left, one leaning a little right. For complex analysis, I find it helpful to read widely across the "Complex Analysis" layer and the "Fact Reporting" resources that border on this layer.

[Valerie]

Time neutral? I doubt that. NBC is not neutral either.

Me thinks the chart has it's own bias, can't be trusted any more than the media-

That probably depends on the rigor of their methodology - relative to your opinion at least.

Reading a bit behind the scenes it seems the chart's author is fairly rigorous in her measurements and methodology, analyzing stories based on three fairly standardized criteria, and measuring the stories sentence by sentence for both leaning and veracity. That being said, the process does sound a bit arbitrary and individualized (as opposed to a panel or group effort) to me - but nevertheless the result of a serious good-faith effort.

I am not sure I would agree with a bias as being a 'good faith' effort Dan- there were a couple opinions in this that immediately caused me to see a bias and so would dismiss the effort- I see it as a particular kind of propaganda in itself.

[Dan Z]

Me thinks the chart has it's own bias, can't be trusted any more than the media-

That probably depends on the rigor of their methodology - relative to your opinion at least.

Reading a bit behind the scenes it seems the chart's author is fairly rigorous in her measurements and methodology, analyzing stories based on three fairly standardized criteria, and measuring the stories sentence by sentence for both leaning and veracity. That being said, the process does sound a bit arbitrary and individualized (as opposed to a panel or group effort) to me - but nevertheless the result of a serious good-faith effort.

I am not sure I would agree with a bias as being a 'good faith' effort Dan- there were a couple opinions in this that immediately caused me to see a bias and so would dismiss the effort- I see it as a particular kind of propaganda in itself.

I just looked at it in a broad-brush sense. Which opinions do you see most propoganda-like?