Most Trusted News Source

[evince]

One station was actually reporting that Bush was lying

they turned out to be correct

It wasn't Fox

 

[Nordberg]

You basically listed left wing sites. You're correct, right-wing sites will (most likely) be different. Now just because a site comes from the left or right doesn't automatically make it wrong or incorrect but it comes from a different perspective.

Not left wing, but factual sites that fill out their stories with evidence. They are not screaming headline types like Tea Party, Infowars and Fox Gnus. They actually take time to inform. They back their stories up. However, it recovers time and trouble to go through them.
I know of few right wing sites that have intelligent and thoughtful writing. They are emotionally driven as opposed to a carefully laid out analysis.

 

[cawacko]

Not left wing, but factual sites that fill out their stories with evidence. They are not screaming headline types like Tea Party, Infowars and Fox Gnus. They actually take time to inform. They back their stories up. However, it recovers time and trouble to go through them.
I know of few right wing sites that have intelligent and thoughtful writing. They are emotionally driven as opposed to a carefully laid out analysis.

Wow. It's hard to see when you're in that deep huh?

I guess I'm not surprised you get your economics ideas/information from The Rolling Stone.

 

[Nordberg]

You basically listed left wing sites. You're correct, right wing sites will (most likely) be different. Now just because a site comes from the left or right doesn't automatically make it wrong or incorrect but it comes from a different perspective.

Foreign affairs, ACLU, Nader New Yorker are not left wing. They give room fror rightys to speak too and they are not blogs. They take the time to show argument and deliver facts and content. I know of no right wing sources that will do that.

 

[cawacko]

Foreign affairs, ACLU, Nader New Yorker are not left wing. They give room fror rightys to speak too and they are not blogs. They take the time to show argument and deliver facts and content. I know of no right wing sources that will do that.

The New Yorker is not left wing? Da fvck? If you are so far left it's possible the New Yorker could look centrist I guess. Otherwise it's just complete denial. The ACLU? Same thing. Ralph Nader? Come on man.

I mean you are free to read whatever you like but at least be honest about their political leanings.

And claiming no right leaning/conservative publications show arguments or deliver facts is just ignorant. You don't have to agree with all that is written but that's just an ignorant statement. I mean there is no site called Tea Party. Infowars is a conspiracy site. You don't even know where to look. That's on you. You choose to remain ignorant.

 

[evince]

The New Yorker is not left wing? Da fvck? If you are so far left it's possible the New Yorker could look centrist I guess. Otherwise it's just complete denial. The ACLU? Same thing. Ralph Nader? Come on man.

I mean you are free to read whatever you like but at least be honest about their political leanings.

And claiming no right leaning/conservative publications show arguments or deliver facts is just ignorant. You don't have to agree with all that is written but that's just an ignorant statement. I mean there is no site called Tea Party. Infowars is a conspiracy site. You don't even know where to look. That's on you. You choose to remain ignorant.

well you are a right wing shit head so who cares what you "think"

 

[Nordberg]

The New Yorker is not left wing? Da fvck? If you are so far left it's possible the New Yorker could look centrist I guess. Otherwise it's just complete denial. The ACLU? Same thing. Ralph Nader? Come on man.

I mean you are free to read whatever you like but at least be honest about their political leanings.

And claiming no right leaning/conservative publications show arguments or deliver facts is just ignorant. You don't have to agree with all that is written but that's just an ignorant statement. I mean there is no site called Tea Party. Infowars is a conspiracy site. You don't even know where to look. That's on you. You choose to remain ignorant.

It is true that the truth has a left wing slant. I get lots of right wing blogs, like Tea Party. I read them. I get 2 emails a day from Tea Party. So wrongo.

 

[cawacko]

It is true that the truth has a left wing slant. I get lots of right wing blogs, like Tea Party. I read them. I get 2 emails a day from Tea Party. So wrongo.

I read a lot and have never heard of a Tea Party blog nor heard anyone on the right reference it. Try reading national publications instead of some obscure blog.

You’re free to remain ignorant to bias of certain publications. It only limits yourself

 

[anonymoose]

Many here have probably read where I have stated that we simply cannot know the actual truth of what is going on in the news, and therefore we can only triangulate the "most likely" truth from multiple sources. No media source is trustworthy anymore, since the have their own biased agenda that favors either a financial bias or an ideology bias. I maintain that the best way to triangulate the "most likely" truth is to study as many different news sources as possible, and to make sure to cover a broad range that covers the most extreme left that you can find, all the way to the most extreme right sources you can find.

Read, listen or watch as many different sources as you can find, but do not trust any of them. Often, the most dangerous ones I encounter are the ones that I trust the most. Because of confirmation bias phenomenon, your most trusted media sources have a better chance of getting propaganda past you. The media industry makes lots of money selling food, propaganda, make up, and shit to people, and they know exactly how to capitalize on confirmation bias. They will absolutely capitalize on it. My favorite personalities at Fox News will do it just as readily as my opponents at MSNBC will to their base.

Don't trust any of them, and keep an extra sharp watch on the news that you trust the most.

I agree that none of the American media can be trusted. I assume that foreign media has less of an agenda so I tend to trust them more.

 

[Evmetro]

Foreign affairs, ACLU, Nader New Yorker are not left wing. They give room fror rightys to speak too and they are not blogs. They take the time to show argument and deliver facts and content. I know of no right wing sources that will do that.

There is a lot of valuable information available from the other side of the aisle. The righty media sources that you hate the most are the best resource for more information to use in your search for the truth, unless you trust your favorite lefty media sources to form your perception of the political landscape. Which righty media do you hate the most?

 

[Evmetro]

well you are a right wing shit head so who cares what you "think"

One of the things that makes lefties what they are is how they are limited to using lefty media sources. They block information from opposing media sources from entering their minds as a way to protest it, and they impose ignorance upon themselves by doing so. Even though this thread has been authored from a non partisan position until now, lefties can smell the righty influence of the author when they read the notion that gathering a broad range of information from both sides has merit. Lefties can identify with the broad range of media sources thing, but in their minds it means a broad range of information "as presented from lefty sources."

 

[Nordberg]

I read a lot and have never heard of a Tea Party blog nor heard anyone on the right reference it. Try reading national publications instead of some obscure blog.

You’re free to remain ignorant to bias of certain publications. It only limits yourself

I get 3 . Tea Party Pac, Tea Party,com and Conservative Zone. The crappy writing and lack of logic is what is limiting.

 

[cawacko]

I get 3 . Tea Party Pac, Tea Party,com and Conservative Zone. The crappy writing and lack of logic is what is limiting.

That's on you that you choose to read obscure blogs. There are many publications/sites with mainstream conservative viewpoints. By only reading what you do it's almost a cop out to not challenge yourself.

 

[Nordberg]

That's on you that you choose to read obscure blogs. There are many publications/sites with mainstream conservative viewpoints. By only reading what you do it's almost a cop out to not challenge yourself.

That was nuts. There is no challenge in reading right-wing crap. Lots of it is presented on this right-wing board. I read plenty on it. No cop out. I hold my nose and read enough of it here. Since you are not familiar with those blogs, what qualifies you to criticize them?

 

[cawacko]

That was nuts. There is no challenge in reading right-wing crap. Lots of it is presented on this right-wing board. I read plenty on it. No cop out. I hold my nose and read enough of it here. Since you are not familiar with those blogs, what qualifies you to criticize them?

You were the person who said building owners should have to update their buildings each time a new regulation is passed, instead of having it grandfathered in. That right there said all I need to know about how little you understand markets and economics. So of course anything arguing for capitalism and free markets is going to be crap to you.

I read enough to know I have never seen the blogs you referenced anywhere by anyone and there is probably a very good reason for that. So if that's where you choose to get right leaning thought that's on you.

 

[Evmetro]

That was nuts. There is no challenge in reading right-wing crap. Lots of it is presented on this right-wing board. I read plenty on it. No cop out. I hold my nose and read enough of it here. Since you are not familiar with those blogs, what qualifies you to criticize them?

The truth comes out... you are limited to lefty media and the perception of the political landscape that they have engineered for you.