Reliable (and not-so reliable) news

[13788]

longtimelurker: Oookay - let's make this a 'return the threads to normal' posting.

A lot of times people from both sides of the political chasm have accused the other of using 'obviously biased' and 'unreliable' news sources.

Are there any truly independant sources of news that both sides would agree on?

What are the best resources for finding out factual information?

I don't think that this will be a quickly agreed-upon thing, but we may be able to avoid future arguments if we can agree on what is reliable without any background rumblings on other topics.

Personally (and I may be prejudiced) - I feel the most reliable will be scientific studies and history textbooks, although this isn't so useful with current events. I would have said the BBC as an apolitical organisation was also fairly reliable, but I have had my critics on that one already, so I'll let everyone else say what they think.

 

[Pecker]

The National Enquirer.

 

[13788]

Tender: well Pecker, inquiring minds *want* to know...
IS that where you got the idea for your new diet plan?

Tender

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: Actually, the Enquirer, as far as it goes, is pretty balanced....

Actually, in this country it's hard to find, I think. All of our media outlets are owned by businesses....

I like the CBC and BBC....

 

[13788]

da_blissmachine: The BBC was the best news service on earth for over 100 years. It entered new management a few years ago and has been consistently loosing credibility since. :'(

anything you can find in good sound and picture quality has probably been bought out by someone and is not reliable

Ironically, word of mouth may soon again be the best source of news and info

scientifially studies are good sources but I suggest reading only the study and interpreting it only yourself. often the interpretations published are one way or anothe rthe most extreme.

 

[13788]

da_blissmachine: forgot the CBC! pretty good. some NPR shows have good news and discussion and radiofindia.com does if your comp has a good enough connection and its not staticky enough and you understand HIndi

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=0#4 date=10/31/03 at 17:38:33]The BBC was the best news service on earth for over 100 years. It entered new management a few years ago and has been consistently loosing credibility since. :'([/quote]
Yea, the BBC pretty much throws factual reporting out the window for the sake of political bias. I wouldn't trust anything quoted from the BBC in a million years. I'd probably look for some links "proving" the illegitimacy of the BBC, but people would just question the credibility of my links, and we'd get caught in a circle.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=0#6 date=10/31/03 at 18:03:01]
Yea, the BBC pretty much throws factual reporting out the window for the sake of political bias.  I wouldn't trust anything quoted from the BBC in a million years.  I'd probably look for some links "proving" the illegitimacy of the BBC, but people would just question the credibility of my links, and we'd get caught in a circle.[/quote]

My nephew of five can see through those links dude...

You'd be presenting a midtermpaper of a frustrated undergraduate student...we'd quote leading newspapers and surveys...and the newspapers would lose cause theyre 'liberal'...yeah...we'd get caught in a circle...

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Screw you, man. I wouldn't liken the fucking Kay report to a undergraduate term paper. Actually go CHECK out the links I present, do some damn research on the sources. And yes, Kay isn't just a journalist, he was a UN INSPECTOR political bias or not. He reported what he saw. You will just question any link I give you because it threatens your little political bubble. Anything that might make it burst and reveal reality to you MUST be wrong, right?

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=0#8 date=11/01/03 at 03:54:28]Screw you, man.  I wouldn't liken the fucking Kay report to a undergraduate term paper.  Actually go CHECK out the links I present, do some damn research on the sources.  And yes, Kay isn't just a journalist, he was a UN INSPECTOR political bias or not.  He reported what he saw.  You will just question any link I give you because it threatens your little political bubble.  Anything that might make it burst and reveal reality to you MUST be wrong, right?[/quote]

As much as I like reveling in your rudeness, I have had enough of it.

i checked your links, they wouldnt open cause of all the spam that came along with it, so I dug up the report myself.

You said literally somewhere:
Where are the weapons now?  The recent Kay Report confirmed that he had an active, ongoing program of WMD, including nuclear weapons.  A great deal of evidence has been found to confirm this and was included in the Kay Report.  Unfortunately, no major stock of these weapons has been found.  Since we know he had them and Sadam gave no evidence of having destroyed them, what happened?


So, in sum, you claim as a fact that the Kay report mentioned an ¨active and ongoing program INCLUDING nuclear weapons.

Nice touch to mention INCLUDING nuclear weapons.

Now heres the actual Kay report quote:
Kay said evidence of a nuclear weapons program was the least solid.

"That's the program we know the least about and have the least confidence in saying what it meant," he said. "Clearly it does not look like an active, resurgent program based on what we have found so far."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/index.html


And saying ~political bias or not~ doesnt suddenly disqualify the argument simply cause you said it shouldnt. You are so full  of crap that you dont even know it. You claim this and that, but you even distort quotes from the actual people. Maybe you wanna take up Research 101 at your school, cause Drama you seem to be good enough at already.

 

[13788]

tracksuitboy: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=0#6 date=10/31/03 at 18:03:01]
Yea, the BBC pretty much throws factual reporting out the window for the sake of political bias.  I wouldn't trust anything quoted from the BBC in a million years.  I'd probably look for some links "proving" the illegitimacy of the BBC, but people would just question the credibility of my links, and we'd get caught in a circle.[/quote]

Gigs you seem to hate everyone who disagrees with you! I cannot comment on the news delivered by Fox, NBC, ABC because I don't hear it because I am not in the USA. So how can you comment on the BBC? Because of a few soundbites used on the American networks?

 

[13788]

tracksuitboy: Wow, when I joined this group I was under the impression that it was a support group for those with large dicks. It seems I was wrong. The most heated postings concern Bush and Iraq!

 

[13788]

Tender: well we *are* in the ect ect square...

heres where you chatty about whatever tickles your fancy that has nothing to do with your anatomy


i like it.

Tender

 

[13788]

AnonyMs: gigs... javier... boys, am I gonna have to set you both down in a corner until you cool off?

Chill a bit, okay guys?

On the other hand, if you can't say something nice about someone, come sit next to me....

 

[13788]

Tender: is it possible to sit next to someone and 'osmosis' their thoughts?!
in that case-- im headed to the smokey vent !!

Tender

 

[13788]

balls: I know this sounds simplistic but I have found the best is to read history books, read the commentary and news from both sides of the spectrum, then come up with my own opinion somewhere in the middle. For example, Democratic Underground and Lucianne.com balance each other out for opinions. Fox and BBC balance each other out for news, NRO and the Nation balance each other out for commentary. As far as magazines I love the Economist for a pretty fair and balanced approach. I hope I don't get sued for using "fair and balanced."

 

[13788]

balls: After reading my post I realized I used extreme examples to achieve balance. The key, I believe, is to read as much as possible from both sides and in the middle. The crazy thing is in this day and age I see very little difference between hardcore conservatives (Pat Buchannan-The American Conservative) and hardcore lefties (the nation). They both seem to want the same thing but for different reasons. :-/

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Gig, I will admit quite blatantly that you were the main person that inspired me to start this thread (bet ya never guessed my cunningly well-hidden plan there, eh )

Anyway, what I would really like to know is exactly what you do count as reliable, unbiased news sources (if you believe that they exist at all?). It does seem to me (and I mean this as an observation, NOT as a personal attack) that you instantly disregard any source if it does not agree with your own world view. My personal belief is that biased pieces (left or right) are useful in helping to determine what the other side of the equation thinks and can often throw up things that the other side conveniently forgets about or doesn't notice.

Waiting for your reply...

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Sorry for my last post Javier, I was drunk when I wrote it and I guess I got a bit emotional.

I don't know, claim what you want.  I didn't alter Bush state of the union address, and most of the links I present I am of the opinion they support.  

A lot of you guys get off the fact that you think I am just a disgruntled political hermit sitting in my room frothing at the mouth.  I really am not full of hate, I just get too into debates.  When people are rude to me, I am rude back at them.  I guess lately I've been feeling like I am only of the ONLY ones around here arguing my opinions against legions of others.  No one seems to come around to support me.  It affects a guy sometimes.  I get support in private IMs, but none of these people seem to feel the need to post.  The feeling that you are getting ganged up on politically is not fun.  You guys can argue whether or not you are ganging up on me, but sometimes that is how I feel.  So, sometimes I guess it translates to you people as hate or something.  AND I REPEAT, as much as I seem to support Bush, he isn't the best thing since sliced bread.  I appriciate the positive qualities of his presidency, while a lot of people don't and it pisses me off.  That compels me to continously support him around here.  In real life though, i don't sit around spewing out Bush praises and telling people how wonderful of a president he is.  Because he isn't a wonderful present, but he is not nearly as horrible as some of you people make him out to be.  And while some think I am blinding by some kind of hatred, those people are blinded by their hatred for Bush.  Question my sources all the live long day, but out of all the sources I've present, one or two HAVE to be legit.  And, in my personal opinion, being a mainstream news station doesn't exempt something from being politically bias.  A lot of people around the world watch CNN because they have no choice, not because it is unbiased reporting.  Hell, I lived in AFRICA, most of you people have never even been there, and I knew that the ONLY station I was able to watch was CNN.  And, I think CNN and BBC are politically bias.  My opinion.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=0#4 date=10/31/03 at 17:38:33]The BBC was the best news service on earth for over 100 years.  It entered new management a few years ago and has been consistently loosing credibility since. :'(

anything you can find in good sound and picture quality has probably been bought out by someone and is not reliable

Ironically, word of mouth may soon again be the best source of news and info

scientifially studies are good sources but I suggest reading only the study and interpreting it only yourself.  often the interpretations published are one way or anothe rthe most extreme.[/quote]

Bliss, the BBC have been changing their management every few years since the dawn of time (well, at least the 1920's). I can honestly say, however, that I have never been aware (in this country at least) of anyone attacking it's credibility other than our own government (and it's not as though they've got an ulterior motive!)