Being mindful of our specific news sources.

Post Reply New Topic

Anybody mindful how we receive our news- that is what specific news-sources do we refer to when conveying current events, findings, tidbits, etc.?

It's best to focus on reliable news-sources e.g., MSNBC, PBS when conveying news in order to avoid confusion, and outright lies.

I think that in order to be properly informed you have to look at a variety of sources perceived to have different biases, and stick with written articles over broadcast. The reason I say written is that you have the time and documentation to look hard at the precise word choices, sources, etc. I am not afraid to admit I skew liberal, so I find it important to intentionally challenge myself to see past my instincts. I favor the Washington Post and New York Times, but keep Yahoo News pinned for citing a broader variety of sources (albeit more often biased ones), and try to read WSJ pieces frequently, as well as some Fox. I do like PBS for its in-depth analysis, but can't shy away from the fact the reporters favor stories with a liberal appeal. I like to check in with people like Ben Shapiro to see what they are saying, because despite his obvious bias and tendency to be overly surgical with the information and nuance he avoids (he isn't without his own agenda), he is incredibly smart. I've been known to reword news searches just to include articles I would not otherwise see; precise word choices are incredibly important to what comes up when you search. MSNBC I avoid because it sits too far on the left bias side of the bias charts, and it rarely provides any useful depth. I don't need news sources that only echo the surface of what I want to think.

It is important to understand how word choices, phrasing and visuals affect our perception of what we read if we are going to have any hope of removing bias from our understanding. As easy example is how the BLM protests were protests in the left and moderate news, but riots in the right bias news. I saw photos attached to articles that did not come from the event being reported on, including at least one that was from a different country altogether. I try to not even look at any two sentence political quips that fill my Facebook feed, as they are always misleading. And I do my best to wait for all the facts to emerge before reaching conclusions about any mob activities; the who was there is too large a political pawn, but arrest records and court proceedings will eventually give a stronger and more accurate sense.

A lot of people say they are being mindful, but promote as the answer news sources that are widely known to have bias. If anyone is looking for a broadcast outlet to be their primary, I do not believe they are being as mindful as they hope to be. Visual media is far too manipulative.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 20 Aug 2021, 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I only trust real patriots like Turd Coyles or Patriot Pete.

Alternatively, use a site such as https://ground.news, which allows you to see what is being reported on a given subject from all sides [1], allowing you to see not just what each side wants their audience to know, but equally important, what they don't want their audience to know about...

And there's nothing better than looking for source material (footage of full interviews, copies of original documents, etc.) where possible, rather than relying on someone else to direct your views on a subject...

[1] The "alignment" of left\right for media sources there is based on 3rd party site:"ad fontes media", "All Sides", and "Media Bias/Fact Check" sites, not evaluated themselves... It was interesting to see that "CNN" and "MSNBC" are almost as biased towards the "left" as "Fox news" is to the "right"...

Addressing your specific caution, you need to seperate "current events" from "opinion articles" and "investigative reports".

With current events there is often a rush to get the story to the public (so you often hear a news outlet claiming they are first with the news). In this respect some breaking news looks pretty similar regardless of the news source because its just breaking.

As time goes on the filtration process may start to take shape as investigations behind the news start to take place. Investigations for some news stories there is greater effort made and more time spent (for example Fox news will spend more time interviewing people on stories that undermine the democrat party like Hunter Biden's personal life or fake news like CRT which isn't actually taught in high-schools but they run with this story because they know they audience base loves this stuff which is good for their advertisers.

Opinion pieces are where individual editorials/journalists might show a specific bias but often these are difficult to extricate from the news outlet. For example I used to read the "Australian" newspaper and their columns might be written by journalists with a specific right/left wing slant. I stopped reading it after Phillip Adams stopped contributing to the publication but occasionally might have a quick glance at the higher education supplement.

While nobody disputes Fox/Sky/Murdoch or Brietbart's crudentials as right wing propaganda, it's a little more tricky with the other sources you labelled as "left". Both CNN and MSNBC engage in business journalism and their emphasis on supporting the free market is quite apparent. Many business journalists are more sympathetic governments that engage in free market policies conducive to big business which tends to favour the moderate right wing.

Secondly the moderate/democrat voter in America is comparable in terms of their attitude to the free market and social policy to our average Australian conservative voter (small "L" Liberals).

I think most media companies strive for a balance whether it be newsprint, online or TV. Not out of the goodness of their heart, but because they broaden their audience base which increases sales + advertising revenue.

Does anyone blindly believe what they see and hear, these days?
I was under the impression the best way to handle things is to sort out the wheat from the chaff using one's own personal experience and critical thinking skills, and understanding one's limitations.
Making educated guesses is better than depending on others who have an agenda of their own, surely.

And it doesn't stop there.
One must keep an open mind as new information becomes apparent.
Also, one must modify one's beliefs based on that new information.
Many people jump to conclusions to service their own confirmation-bias/emotional needs.

In essence, one must embrace scientific methodology rather than adopt a narrative or indulge in groupthink, if one's priority is focused on discovering the Truth, surely.

This is why I find Sky News a useful tool.
They may have a right-wing bias, which I take into consideration, but they will give you information that the left of politics will often "Lie through omission".



Correct.
There have been so many cases where creative editing has disseminated purposeful disinformation.
The Sky News team have caught out the ABC innumerous times, hence, part of the vitriol against that news source.

To be clear, I don't agree with some of what I see on Sky News.
One example is where they were bagging Sutton for calling the Delta Virus "The Beast".
Well, guys, it is a sucking beast in terms of contagion and is spreading through Australia as a result.
This would not have happened with the Alpha variant.

Thanks for pointing this out. I had meant to but eventually realized I had already rambled enough in my response.

The answer is yes, especially people who think they’ve finally found the one reliable media source. Fans of Fox and OAN strike me as especially vulnerable, but anyone who isn’t aware MSNBC and CNN play a lot of left bias is being misled, as well, IMHO.

You can’t trust your own judgement, either, because we all have our own bias baked in. It is imperative to intentionally challenge your own assumptions and judgement.

No one with a life can possibly research everything, so one has to sort what matters from what doesn’t. Politicians know that if you can keep people obsessing over Hunter Biden, for example, they won’t take the time to read and think about what the latest voting “reform” (AKA suppression) law actually says. The real danger to our Democracy is in the later, but it just doesn’t attract the kind of attention salacious Hunter does.

Let me repeat something I wrote in my post above: I strongly believe that relying on any audio-visual media as a primary news source leaves you susceptible to biased influence. They have to give you a show in order to get ratings, and that is, by necessity, going to include emotional pull and exaggeration.

Oh, it's not me labelling them as left: It's independent sites that specialise in this area:
CNN:


Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

Source: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias

MSNBC:


Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/


Source: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/msnbc

in the west, as we know it, the big spin comes from the (formerly called) atlantists-- the nato-and the banking aka- militairy complex, ex in the eu most msm just copypaste the newyorktimes or other propaganda outlets,
the music and entertainment is completely and openly bought while un(esco) silently takes over city centers,
lets hide the people inside so they don't notice
ofcourse, the afgh moneylaundering program redistributed upward, as did the ukraine money mill, how do politicians get wealthy
all while taxevasion schemes are called "philantropy"

and your medical complex labels everything "toxic"


the new fashion of having no memory at all what could go wrong

@Brictoria

I think CNN and MSNBC are like a casanova who "play the field" so I have no dispute they play to left wing audiences because it brings in readership/ratings but they also have individual journalists who are popular with right wingers. hence my example of the Australian newspaper having columns by right wingers like Janet Albrechtson and Miranda Devine who fit in well with the Sky news journalists, and left wingers like Phillip Adams, Tim Soutphommasane etc).

Advertisers don't care who reads the papers, so long as their product/service gets viewed. That's why mainstream news try to be everything to everyone. The only openly progressive news comes from the Guardian or Vice.

Agreed.
Yes, there is nonsense on either side of the media, and yet I have encountered some on the left in particular, who simply can't conceive that simple self-evident Truth.

Hyperpartisanship is a major problem in American politics.
As an independent thinker I simply just have to vigorously shake my head at the lack of rational and objective thought.
I hope it doesn't fall off.



You are preaching to the choir, sister.
Logically, those who actively seek the truth, rather than servicing a narrative, would have a better prospect in finding it.



You do realise it is the left side of politics that is attacking freedom of expression the most, right?
That was a problem on this website, at one time, also.
Please refer to my previous comment about some American members wanting to ban non-Amerians from contributing to political discussion revolving around America.

After a lifetime of being mindraped, I am hard to influence these days, if I am allowed to think without harassment.
I am not a spring chicken any longer.
If you read my posts you will see I am more than capable of thinking for myself.
I, like Brictoria, have good critical thinking skills.
"Brictoria" is actually my second account. JOKE!

BTW, I believe these forums are the best mediums for those on the spectrum.