Credible News Sources

[temporal1]

So will you be banning Fox? What distinguishes Fox from MSNBC and CNN?
What are the criteria? Who decides, and how?

It is true that most News outlets are biased and sometimes they get things wrong. What distinguishes Fox from MSNBC and CNN? There are plenty of differences. MSNBC and CNN promote and are very biased when it comes to Abortion rights, (the annihilation of the unborn), they promote the mutilation of sexually confused children, promote the sexual grooming of children from the trans community, denigrate Christians and Bible believing people constantly, etc. They portray Christians as ignorant, backwards, and from another planet. And if they aren’t portraying Christians as ignorant and backwards, they are portraying them as dangerous and a threat to society. An example would be Jen Psaki from MSNBC when she proclaimed that the new GOP speaker, Mike Johnson, should ‘scare’ everyone because he’s a ‘Christian Fundamentalist’. Then denigrated him because he reads the Bible. You won't see any of that on Fox, as far as I know.

The moderators are right in not allowing these news outlets on the forum.

Posted to Robert:
.. It's your forum and your rules, ..

It is, and there should be gratitude for that.
MD-MN, warts+all, has carried on for lots of years, while untold numbers of other attempts at all manner discussion forums have fallen flat.

There have been numbers of attempts to spin off MD-MN, directly, indirectly, also to accomodate sensitive ones seeking a more purist format: nothing compares. The young experimenting creators did not expect MD to last a year.

MN chugs along.

Accepting the subjective nature of a private discussion forum, not expecting the ideal, or perfect, may be the best path.
(That is, if the motive is anything less than destruction.)

Destruction is always ‘way easier than creation, building up, maintaining.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Szdfan]

What do you call an MSNBC and CNN ban on Mennonet? A good start.

I choose to look at it that way. Yes, I don't see any important credibility difference between them and Fox at all. But I figure banning the two of them doesn't hurt anything at all. Any banning is probably a good thing. Banning Fox and then allowing CNN and MSNBC would probably be better than allowing all three. Part of something, is better than all of nothing.

I'm asking for consistentcy to whatever standard is being applied here even though it's not clear what that standard is.

[Szdfan]

Be careful what you wish for.

I wish for consistentcy and transparency about decision-making in this one area of the forum. I think that's a pretty good thing to wish for.

[GaryK]

What do you call an MSNBC and CNN ban on Mennonet? A good start.

I choose to look at it that way. Yes, I don't see any important credibility difference between them and Fox at all. But I figure banning the two of them doesn't hurt anything at all. Any banning is probably a good thing. Banning Fox and then allowing CNN and MSNBC would probably be better than allowing all three. Part of something, is better than all of nothing.

I'm asking for consistentcy to whatever standard is being applied here even though it's not clear what that standard is.

There are two ways I could take this. Are you asking for Fox to be banned or for CNN and MSNBC to be allowed on the forum?

[Grace]

ChatGTP is a tool and it depends on how you use it. Some of my students want to use AI to crank out papers without having to write them and pass it off as their own work. That's not thinking for yourself.

Using AI as a way to brainstorm or as a jumping off point for your own thinking is still thinking for yourself.

In the same way, just repeating some media narrative you've heard without critically thinking about whether it's true or not is not thinking for yourself.

Using a media source as a way to brainstorm or as a jumping off point for your own thinking is no different than using AI.

Repeating some media narrative is no different than repeating the narrative collected from AI,without critically thinking about whether it's true or not.

Many times I will do some research on a subject being discussed, to make sure it is correct info,then write up my thoughtss, in my wordss, relating to the search I did. Sometimes I don't get it 100% right, because the information might have been incomplete or biased, but I try.

The bottom line is that someone that uses AI for information, has no right to tell others they need to think for themselves and not use certain media sources. Just saying.

[Szdfan]

What do you call an MSNBC and CNN ban on Mennonet? A good start.

I choose to look at it that way. Yes, I don't see any important credibility difference between them and Fox at all. But I figure banning the two of them doesn't hurt anything at all. Any banning is probably a good thing. Banning Fox and then allowing CNN and MSNBC would probably be better than allowing all three. Part of something, is better than all of nothing.

I'm asking for consistentcy to whatever standard is being applied here even though it's not clear what that standard is.

There are two ways I could take this. Are you asking for Fox to be banned or for CNN and MSNBC to be allowed on the forum?

I think either way would be preferable to the status quo. I'd also like a clear articulation of what the criteria are that lead to a media ban. How are these decisions made? Who is making these decisions? To me, the status quo feels arbitrary.

[GaryK]

I'm asking for consistentcy to whatever standard is being applied here even though it's not clear what that standard is.

There are two ways I could take this. Are you asking for Fox to be banned or for CNN and MSNBC to be allowed on the forum?

I think either way would be preferable to the status quo. I'd also like a clear articulation of what the criteria are that lead to a media ban. How are these decisions made? Who is making these decisions? To me, the status quo feels arbitrary.

Understood.

[temporal1]

To me, the status quo feels arbitrary.

Understood.

“Arbitrary” is a fine word!
Arbitrary is honest, and good for what ails ya.

Unlike the natural human state.

Isaiah 64:6
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/64-6.htm

[Bootstrap]

I'm asking for consistency to whatever standard is being applied here even though it's not clear what that standard is.

There are two ways I could take this. Are you asking for Fox to be banned or for CNN and MSNBC to be allowed on the forum?

I think either makes sense - perhaps banning all political videos would be another option to consider.

Currently, videos are allowed for only one of the Big Three cable news stations. And the ones that offer rebuttals to Fox stories are specifically forbidden. I can't think of another reason that only one of these is not allowed. It would be equally bad to allow CNN and MSNBC but ban Fox. If you allow one, you want to be able to hear the other side of the story as they play off of each other.

All three are terribly worldly. All three are sensationalistic. Fox has been caught red-handed saying they intentionally lie to their users in order to tell them what they want to hear and boost ratings.

[Grace]

All three are terribly worldly. All three are sensationalistic.

That may true. But not all three promote demonic agenda's concerning Abortion rights, (the annihilation of the unborn), nor do all three promote the mutilation of sexually confused children, promote the sexual grooming of children from the trans community, and denigrate Christians and Bible believing people regularly.