Where do you get your news or, is the MSM trust worthy anymore?

I've heard many explanations for why we get what we get from the main stream media.
They include:

There is no bias: if anything impacts reporters, it is a desire to do what is necessary to be first or to gain access.

They are biased to the left.

They are biased towards whatever their corporate masters want.

They aren't biased. Just frivolous, reporting on celebrity prat falls over people dying in wars.

They are biased and frivolous.

I was taken to task for getting news from youtube. But these people do not seem to be millionaires getting paid by corporations. Youtube is where I see stories like this:

And youtube, facebook and other social media are supposedly at war with these kinds of posters.

Where do you get your news? Who can you trust?

What news media is flat-out making up fake events to report on?
They report on actual things that happen and are said. If any headline seems particularly outrageous, google it or the key phrase, get as close to the original source as possible, then make up your mind.
Don't let highly manipulative emotion button pressers tell you the story, don't get your news from a talking head - read it in text so you aren't responding to tone of voice and face as you process the information. You can easily see the qualifying words inserted into the story to spin it a certain way, and choose whether you agree with that or dismiss it.
You should double and triple-check any story that gets you particularly riled up, because you are the weakest-link in the acceptance of truth or spin. Emotion will spin truth more consistently than any 'mainstream-media conspiracy' (which is itself an emotional appeal to get you riled up).
Associated press usually have extremely dry reports with just the basics, all highly reactive clickbait should be ignored or only used as a spur to further research.
Basically, you have to be an active information consumer, not a passive one, with at least a passing acquaintance of critical thinking.

Kwak:
What news media is flat-out making up fake events to report on?

It isn't that they are making up fake news stories. It is either that they are just plain not reporting on stories or framing stories in a misleading way. I.e. "Police clashed with hamas militants in Gaza during the opening of the embassy" vs. "police snipers shot and killed more than 60 peaceful protestors".

Mainstream media is a weird phrase. It suggest the media is far more united than it actually is.

Despite its reputation Fox News is very much part of the mainstream media and so is CNN. You got multiple established news papers, telivision stations, political news shows and much more. They can't be ALL part of some huge mainstream media plot right?

I mostly get my news from BBC America, MSNBC podcasts and the occasional read of the Washington Post and Drudge Report(i know its mostly lies, but I like knowing what the other side is thinking and saying)

My two cents: Yotubers have no obligation towards anyone, so they can't be held accountable for making up stuff. If you trust them, is by 100% blind faith.

I get my news from the Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, CBC, BBC & occasionally Al Jazeera.

It's not that they don't have a bias of their own but they do have better standards for fact-checking and reliability than people who have none whatsoever.

I love youtube. Fanboy for lots of different channels but for actual news? No. Never!

Silentpony:
I mostly get my news from BBC America, MSNBC podcasts and the occasional read of the Washington Post and Drudge Report(i know its mostly lies, but I like knowing what the other side is thinking and saying)

BBC seems better than most too.

I've read things on line. I don't appear to have access to TV in the states. They do stories on US NPR I listen to from time to time.

I get my media diet from mostly liberal (centrist) publications, along with far-right ones and a sprinkling of far-left ones, just so I can see what they're thinking of.
It's a very weird media diet.

I think its a very dangerous thing to give up on mainstream media, because its then easy to fall into the trap of brainwashing yourself until one day you find yourself declaring some weird political title like calling yourself an anarcho-communist or something weird on a youtube comment section and posting some crazy shit.

And picking and choosing who you believe is dangerous too, because then you craft yourself an echo chamber. It may be better to cross reference rather than write off a media outlet. If everybodies saying the same thing then maybe its true. At the end of the day though who knows?

Mainstream media has its faults, and honestly their lack of journalistic integrity has caused many problems where people dont know what to believe anymore and fake news is effecting us all, but at least they have some form of accountability, not like this wild west of internet news. I recall some supposed speech made by some african president(Mugabe?) years ago about people cheering while he talked about massacreing white guys, and when I looked at the sites 'about' page I found a bit that said this site is satirical. And to me it didnt seem like the Onion where it was obvious, it seemed more like a site that was blatantly spreading lies to mislead people and then hiding a way to get out of trouble for lieing. And many sites do not even bother with that much.

My mother shared that article on Facebook and even sent it to her friend, a professor immigrated from Africa, for his opinion. She was mortified when I showed her the mention of the site being 'satirical'.

Nowadays people trust guys shooting youtube videos in their home more than the newspaper. Theres nothing at all to stop them from either willingly lieing, being misinformed or simply not having done enough research, and then people believe them. At least a journalist could lose their job.

Oh and Kwak up there is right too, its dangerous to listen to speakers because they can influence you with their charisma. Much better to read things. Im learning about persuasion techniques taught for business to deal with customers right now and half the stuff feels like borderline mind control lol. You should believe an argument on its merits but wearing a clean suit and maintaining eye contact can help you believe me regardless of merit, its crazy.

As to biases, I think people need to look up yellow journalism. If you think today's media is corrupt, you may be unpleasantly suprised.

I get my info from everywhere, even places like Vox. But I tend to be more centrist maybe with a slight left leaning. Becuase I can't get on with Alex Jones and now Sargon. I try to listen to the Rubin report but I find he just tries to lead the conversation to blame the left. I tend to like shows that blame their side of politics atleast half as much as they blame the opponents. I can't expect it to be equal otherwise you wouldn't choose a side. But if your not critical of your side at all, then you just have blinders on

trunkage:
As to biases, I think people need to look up yellow journalism. If you think today's media is corrupt, you may be unpleasantly suprised.

I get my info from everywhere, even places like Vox. But I tend to be more centrist maybe with a slight left leaning. Becuase I can't get on with Alex Jones and now Sargon. I try to listen to the Rubin report but I find he just tries to lead the conversation to blame the left. I tend to like shows that blame their side of politics atleast half as much as they blame the opponents. I can't expect it to be equal otherwise you wouldn't choose a side. But if your not critical of your side at all, then you just have blinders on

I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly. That is seeking the center in a way that is arguing equivalence. It sounds right amid too far extremes, but it is still seeking to influence the view of things in the end.

I think the better answer is to seek someone willing to call shit out on either side as it appears, and without a drive to make it appear equal on both sides. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, as sometimes, sometimes it really is one side doing the lion's share of something, and those seeking equivalence between it will underplay and undersell it to make it appear that way, ultimately being guilty of the same sort of bias in narrative as the others.

Not hard to report things as they are. Just stop caring about how it will reflect upon one side or the other, stop trying to interject a narrative in the first place, be it left, right, or equivalence, and just report what is going on plainly, accurately, and timely.

runic knight:

trunkage:
As to biases, I think people need to look up yellow journalism. If you think today's media is corrupt, you may be unpleasantly suprised.

I get my info from everywhere, even places like Vox. But I tend to be more centrist maybe with a slight left leaning. Becuase I can't get on with Alex Jones and now Sargon. I try to listen to the Rubin report but I find he just tries to lead the conversation to blame the left. I tend to like shows that blame their side of politics atleast half as much as they blame the opponents. I can't expect it to be equal otherwise you wouldn't choose a side. But if your not critical of your side at all, then you just have blinders on

I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly. That is seeking the center in a way that is arguing equivalence. It sounds right amid too far extremes, but it is still seeking to influence the view of things in the end.

I think the better answer is to seek someone willing to call shit out on either side as it appears, and without a drive to make it appear equal on both sides. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, as sometimes, sometimes it really is one side doing the lion's share of something, and those seeking equivalence between it will underplay and undersell it to make it appear that way, ultimately being guilty of the same sort of bias in narrative as the others.

Not hard to report things as they are. Just stop caring about how it will reflect upon one side or the other, stop trying to interject a narrative in the first place, be it left, right, or equivalence, and just report what is going on plainly, accurately, and timely.

This is what I meant.

I would say that biases do make "Not hard to report things as they are" hard. I've recently decided to watch Phillip De Franco as a new spin on things. He hasn't reported on the Tommy Robinson thing and his fans are complaining. Especially the Free Tommy group. I don't know why he would. Tommy did a dodgy thing and a good thing by the sounds of things. Pointing both out will just get hate from both sides. So I gather he's just... not doing it. No one will be happy with his reporting of both sides.

trunkage:
As to biases, I think people need to look up yellow journalism. If you think today's media is corrupt, you may be unpleasantly suprised.

Indeed, I would recommend anyone to look up pre-WWII news reporting. Particularly anything before 1900, back when newspapers were made by and for the elite, and in many cases were subsidized or even straight up owned and run by political parties.

I tend to get news from the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, and occasionally Reuters. The Independent has become pretty shite, though.

The mainstream TV media in the UK is not massively biased, but biases exist and are particularly evident in selective reporting and framing. The newspapers are exceptionally biased (most towards the right), and have a very shoddy standard of journalism in general. There exists no regulatory body with any legal standing in the UK for papers, meaning they can print whatever they want, true or not, libellous or not, and there is no recourse.

My sources reside within the realm of a haemorrhaging interdimensional plane, where consciousness bleeds through the endotenon to the subfascicle retaining one's resolve. To explore between these layers are beyond ordinary human comprehension and requires intense preparation of rituals no single entity should have to perform. But I, in a noble yet schizophrenic haze of moral duty, sacrifice what glimmer of sanity remains to bring to humanity the truthes lurking beneath the perception of chaos.

I would show you the way, but everybody so far tends to run away by the second bucket of electrolysed blood in the bathtub.

Xsjadoblayde:
My sources reside within the realm of a haemorrhaging interdimensional plain, where consciousness bleeds through the endotenon to the subfascicle retaining one's resolve.

But the Escapist hasn't posted news in ages!

Baffle2:
But the Escapist hasn't posted news in ages!

Depends on how loose your definitions of "news" and "ages" are. ;)

curses for being quoted before fixing typos!

Gorfias:
I've heard many explanations for why we get what we get from the main stream media. ..

Let's rephrase the issue slightly: is anything, overall, better than the mainstream media?

Quick answer: no.

* * *

Non-mainstream sources are almost inevitably going to have lower journalistic standards and more inclination to bias than the mainstream media, not least because many are deliberately founded with the intent to sell a certain ideological group what they want to hear. Your average mainstream media is restrained from the excessively outrageous by the need to cater to a broad audience; they also have more reputation to protect with quality control, and more money to afford it.

YouTube and most forums in particular are junk. Sorry, but they just are. At best, it's like searching for gold in a sewer. Sure, at least someone's accidentally dropped their ring down a drain, but it's just not worth sifting through that much crap to find it. Seeing someone write "I saw this great video that explains things on YouTube" basically means "I know nothing, and here's another guy who knows nothing saying something that flatters my prejudices". You're being invited to waste minutes of your life you will never get back. (At least if it were a text transcript, you'd finish in a fraction of the time.)

Blogs can be different. You can seek out blogs from professionals who really know stuff, and are writing for love of their discipline. They may often be biased. They may be relatively inaccessible, because they're aiming at a level of expertise well over your own. They may be incredibly dull, because the author isn't good at keeping the reader hooked. They rarely have a wide scope, restricted to the specialism of the author(s) and their interests. However, they are frequently well informed and provide detailed analysis - at minimum they tend be very thought-provoking, even if the conclusions need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The problem with good blogs is, again, that it's far too hard to tell what's good and what's not unless you know enough already, and it's also far too easy to just pick out and think good whatever you already agree with.

Fox, CNN, MSNBC and many other established news sources are corporate propaganda designed to avoid the working class developing class consciousness. This is why they stoke racial tensions (examples abound), manufacture outrage (such as Bakari Sellars getting angry at Bernie Sanders over saying that Barack Obama was a charismatic individual, extraordinary candidate, and brilliant guy), amplify the right (let's profile a random Nazi, pay excruciating attention to the tea party but not its funding, draw attention to voices like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson and then write articles about "the intellectual dark web" and how a few mediocre morons are being 'censored' because of their conservative views-- and yet you've undoubtedly heard of them and had ample opportunity to listen to them), and ignore the left (such that people think centrist liberals like fucking Joy Ann Reid are "the left", and you have to go to RT or Youtube to find people like Chris Hedges and Ed Schultz and Noam Chomsky).

The concentration of media ownership has allowed them to get away with simply not demanding evidence for government claims (Skripal, Syria, Iraqi WMD) and assuming their truth because "hey, the other few media sources who get their info from the same place(s) all agree!"; viewers are being manipulated into believing familiar narratives without hard evidence. The CIA and FBI which both have histories of brazenly lying to the public are trusted on faith and asking for evidence-- just asking for evidence!-- is treated as "conspiracy theorizing".

The state of the media is abominable.

Just please say you don't get it from Infowars...

The only newspaper subscription I have/had is Private Eye in the UK.

I read parts of The Guardian, Irish Times, BBC and RTE.

Meh, bit of this, bit of that. The trick is to ignore the bullshit headlines and read the actual story.

Deutsche Welle is occasionally good for a different focus.

runic knight:
I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly.

I'd counter that by saying that it's easier to change things within your own "side" than it is to change the actions of other "side". Even if the other side initially did something, it's worth critiqueing your own response to see how it could have been done better.

Smithnikov:
Just please say you don't get it from Infowars...

Infowars is a machine with the sole purpose of selling snake oil diet supplements.

Hades:
Mainstream media is a weird phrase. It suggest the media is far more united than it actually is.

Despite its reputation Fox News is very much part of the mainstream media and so is CNN. You got multiple established news papers, telivision stations, political news shows and much more. They can't be ALL part of some huge mainstream media plot right?

They don't have to be united to all be terrible in a similar fashion.

I used to jokingly refer to the Trayvon Test -- if you want to see what general political bias a given news outlet has, look at the the Trayvon Martin shooting. Not even their coverage of the facts, which might take time and effort to evaluate, just which pictures of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman they chose to use for their coverage.

Nice photo of Zimmerman and recent social media photo of Trayvon? You've got yourself some right-wing MSM.
Mugshot of Zimmerman and older, nice posed photo of Trayvon? You've got yourself some left-wing MSM.
Someone calling out that using one of those sets of photos is misleading? Independent media, leaning away from whoever they were criticizing.
Someone calling out that both of those sets of photos are misleading? Independent media, possibly centrist, lots of false positives here.
Use of the photo of Zimmerman showing head injury could go either way, depending on how important they think it is.

It's almost painful how accurate that was at the time.

Personally, if a story catches my eye, I look to see what FOX News, MSNBC, and BBC have to say about it. Maybe CNN too if I'm feeling frisky. Sometimes I'll sub in a site with similar leanings for one of those if it's not getting huge coverage. Put them side by side and it's much easier to see spin.

If there's any reference to video of what happened, I scour the net for the least edited version I can find, because context is always good.

Fox is mainstream media just as CNN is. Mainstream Media is NOT one unified group. Many who complain about 'MSM' DO watch and support Fox News. That is hypocritical.

MSM is not perfect, but the alternative is way worse. The real trick is to think for yourself and be able and willing to double-check, to verify.

Hades:
Mainstream media is a weird phrase. It suggest the media is far more united than it actually is.

Despite its reputation Fox News is very much part of the mainstream media and so is CNN. You got multiple established news papers, telivision stations, political news shows and much more. They can't be ALL part of some huge mainstream media plot right?

I did not read any posts before making my own, but I basically copied what you said.

trunkage:

runic knight:

trunkage:
As to biases, I think people need to look up yellow journalism. If you think today's media is corrupt, you may be unpleasantly suprised.

I get my info from everywhere, even places like Vox. But I tend to be more centrist maybe with a slight left leaning. Becuase I can't get on with Alex Jones and now Sargon. I try to listen to the Rubin report but I find he just tries to lead the conversation to blame the left. I tend to like shows that blame their side of politics atleast half as much as they blame the opponents. I can't expect it to be equal otherwise you wouldn't choose a side. But if your not critical of your side at all, then you just have blinders on

I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly. That is seeking the center in a way that is arguing equivalence. It sounds right amid too far extremes, but it is still seeking to influence the view of things in the end.

I think the better answer is to seek someone willing to call shit out on either side as it appears, and without a drive to make it appear equal on both sides. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, as sometimes, sometimes it really is one side doing the lion's share of something, and those seeking equivalence between it will underplay and undersell it to make it appear that way, ultimately being guilty of the same sort of bias in narrative as the others.

Not hard to report things as they are. Just stop caring about how it will reflect upon one side or the other, stop trying to interject a narrative in the first place, be it left, right, or equivalence, and just report what is going on plainly, accurately, and timely.

This is what I meant.

I would say that biases do make "Not hard to report things as they are" hard. I've recently decided to watch Phillip De Franco as a new spin on things. He hasn't reported on the Tommy Robinson thing and his fans are complaining. Especially the Free Tommy group. I don't know why he would. Tommy did a dodgy thing and a good thing by the sounds of things. Pointing both out will just get hate from both sides. So I gather he's just... not doing it. No one will be happy with his reporting of both sides.

But doesn't that just make it a new problem, where controversial news stories aren't covered because of fear of reprisal?

The whole nature of blaming the messenger or having the messenger shape the message seems related, and a large part in the decline of news media in general.

Catnip1024:

runic knight:
I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly.

I'd counter that by saying that it's easier to change things within your own "side" than it is to change the actions of other "side". Even if the other side initially did something, it's worth critiqueing your own response to see how it could have been done better.

The problem with this is nowadays if you criticize your side, you are accused of being the demonized form of the opposition. How many people were called "alt right" because they criticized the methods and behavior of the media? Or called terrorist sympathizers back when the media supported the wars in the middle east?

Smithnikov:
Just please say you don't get it from Infowars...

You just don't want us to be #Woke about the gay frog situation

runic knight:

trunkage:
As to biases, I think people need to look up yellow journalism. If you think today's media is corrupt, you may be unpleasantly suprised.

I get my info from everywhere, even places like Vox. But I tend to be more centrist maybe with a slight left leaning. Becuase I can't get on with Alex Jones and now Sargon. I try to listen to the Rubin report but I find he just tries to lead the conversation to blame the left. I tend to like shows that blame their side of politics atleast half as much as they blame the opponents. I can't expect it to be equal otherwise you wouldn't choose a side. But if your not critical of your side at all, then you just have blinders on

I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly. That is seeking the center in a way that is arguing equivalence. It sounds right amid too far extremes, but it is still seeking to influence the view of things in the end.

I think the better answer is to seek someone willing to call shit out on either side as it appears, and without a drive to make it appear equal on both sides. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, as sometimes, sometimes it really is one side doing the lion's share of something, and those seeking equivalence between it will underplay and undersell it to make it appear that way, ultimately being guilty of the same sort of bias in narrative as the others.

Not hard to report things as they are. Just stop caring about how it will reflect upon one side or the other, stop trying to interject a narrative in the first place, be it left, right, or equivalence, and just report what is going on plainly, accurately, and timely.

Ya know, I actually agree with what you're saying here.

I watch Kyle Kulinski (Secular Talk) and Ring of Fire for my news.

I read all my news. I don't get it from TV. Of what I read, 90% is online. My most visited websites are...the Atlantic, Politico, and Vox.

I like the first two because they're bipartisan; they tend to give balance to competing opinions. Vox is not exactly bipartisan - it's definitely left-wing, though how far left is a subject of debate - but I like it because it focuses on explaining news topics, often with extensive citations and a lot of graphs, rather than just trying to report on the latest scandal as quickly as possible. Vox is a place where you can get a long piece explaining, as clearly as possible, the details of a radical new development in electricity management that carries the potential to cut energy wastage massively. Other news sites wouldn't try to explain that news in that way; they'd simplify it, or misreport it because they didn't bother to really try and understand it. Vox prioritises the reader's understanding of a topic over pushing a particular spin on the topic, and I appreciate that.

For mainstream places, the New York Times is as professional as it gets. I get hard copies of Australian newspapers as well; there's the Age, which is a left-leaning publication that used to be a whole lot better before the rise of internet news, and the Australian, which is one of Murdoch's broadsheets that I mainly read just in order to get a contrasting opinion and because it's one of the few remaining broadsheets. (I like reading broadsheets.)

My advice on what to avoid:

- anything tabloidy, especially a Murdoch tabloid, because they are gloriously devoid of any information whatsoever.
- anything on TV, with special condemnation for US cable news, which I find to be atrocious. Nowhere other than US cable news will you find people who can burn so many minutes of your time to say so little about any given topic. That covers CNN and MSNBC, but it also covers Fox News.
- anything on Youtube. Youtube is a fantastically shitty place to get one's news. Everyone is basically a click-hungry amateur with a vested interest in grabbing your attention with loud and audacious titles and then twisting the facts into a knot to support whatever bullshit they're selling. It's like watching a shitty documentary, except somehow even worse; literally anyone can put a photo of Hillary Clinton with a dim light filter and play some spooky music while the subtitles repeat variations on "what is she REALLY hiding???" My sole exception to this rule is CGP Grey, who isn't really "news," strictly speaking.
- anything on Reddit, 4chan, Facebook, or anything from a shoddy-looking website that trips the bullshit alarm. This covers the Palmer Report, but it also covers Breitbart, which I understand is in the process of slowly imploding following Steve Bannon's public castigation.

The best advice, however, is to just rigorously check the facts of the stories, avoid websites that you've previously caught in a lie, and always ask yourself "What does this author want me to think?" and keep the answer in mind when you're reading. It's less a problem of the mainstream media vs. alternative media and more just a problem of places that value facts over clicks and places that don't.

runic knight:

trunkage:

runic knight:

I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly. That is seeking the center in a way that is arguing equivalence. It sounds right amid too far extremes, but it is still seeking to influence the view of things in the end.

I think the better answer is to seek someone willing to call shit out on either side as it appears, and without a drive to make it appear equal on both sides. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, as sometimes, sometimes it really is one side doing the lion's share of something, and those seeking equivalence between it will underplay and undersell it to make it appear that way, ultimately being guilty of the same sort of bias in narrative as the others.

Not hard to report things as they are. Just stop caring about how it will reflect upon one side or the other, stop trying to interject a narrative in the first place, be it left, right, or equivalence, and just report what is going on plainly, accurately, and timely.

This is what I meant.

I would say that biases do make "Not hard to report things as they are" hard. I've recently decided to watch Phillip De Franco as a new spin on things. He hasn't reported on the Tommy Robinson thing and his fans are complaining. Especially the Free Tommy group. I don't know why he would. Tommy did a dodgy thing and a good thing by the sounds of things. Pointing both out will just get hate from both sides. So I gather he's just... not doing it. No one will be happy with his reporting of both sides.

But doesn't that just make it a new problem, where controversial news stories aren't covered because of fear of reprisal?

The whole nature of blaming the messenger or having the messenger shape the message seems related, and a large part in the decline of news media in general.

Catnip1024:

runic knight:
I think it is a foolish thought to try to find someone who blames both sides evenly.

I'd counter that by saying that it's easier to change things within your own "side" than it is to change the actions of other "side". Even if the other side initially did something, it's worth critiqueing your own response to see how it could have been done better.

The problem with this is nowadays if you criticize your side, you are accused of being the demonized form of the opposition. How many people were called "alt right" because they criticized the methods and behavior of the media? Or called terrorist sympathizers back when the media supported the wars in the middle east?

I'd agree on both these points.

Here's a thing: Trump tries to call everything he doesn't like Fake News. I tend to them try and find this fake news and am more likely to like it, just becuase Trump says its bad. I assume it's the opposite for people who like him. So 'shooting the messenger' can have the opposite affect.

I get all my news from the internet.

Usually i try to pick different sources, especcially on controversial stuff. That does include extremely partisan stuff. E.g. if i want to know something about event in the palestinensian conflict, i look at Jerusalem Post, Haaretz and Al Jazeera. If they ever manage to agree on anything than that is probably true. For the British side of the Brexit debate i look mostly at Guardian, Telegraph and Independent and if i feel in need of some humor, also Express. I don't have a good assortment for the continental side of the debate because there is not much of a debate. Barnier is doing his job and that is OK. Only the Irish Times features it regularly.

From the US i do use mostly New York Times. And whatever google puts forward if i look for a certain incident. For a time i tried to use Fox to get a right wing view but that was so bad that it mostly a waste of time.

I also use news agencies like Reuters or dpa.

I don't do social media. I do use YouTube, but not for news. I do frequent several forums some even allowing political stuff but i also don't take forum posts as news. But forum posts can (and often do) bring me to look for news on a subject or event.

Satinavian:

Snip

This is really the only honest way to get an accurate picture of events that occur around the world. You have to read far-right and far-left and centrist news sites and piece together parts of truth from the propoganda they spew.

Especially today when click bait is so prevalent and you can publish stories using "anonymous" sources.

These sites should be held to libel for fabricating news but oh well, what can you do?

Anyone not clicking through several news sites to get a story is getting fed a big ol' pile of biased shit most of the time.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here