Which Sources Do You Trust?

Hey ATS,

I've taken a bit of a break from posting here to quietly and attentively observe the events in and around the 2016 elections.

To be perfectly transparent, I actively monitor and post on /pol/. Once pizzagate started to pick up steam, I had to effectively take a step back from providing an opinion, and instead closely monitor the obvious avalanche of questionable reporting and less-than-sly finger pointing.

Taking a step back for a while, I have one question and a brief point of view to convey which I believe is beneficial by way of caution:

ATS, who do you trust for your reporting, and why?

Personally, I trust no one - this is precisely why I keep my eyes & ears open to all relevant sources. To anyone here who also has a hard time taking the word of an organic teleprompter, you'll probably agree that it's been an "us vs. them" ordeal in the world of journalism for a while now. That sources like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS and the like are in clear opposition and often times contradiction to authors from RT, Ron Paul Institute, Infowars, Corbett Report, The Young Turks, Drudge Report, Washington Examiner, Zero Hedge, True Pundit, etc.

In a few lines, I'd like to lay out the issue we're facing.

Basically, it's the big 6 corporation calling your friendly neighborhood journalists a bunch of liars.

Media Cross Ownership In The US

Most pertinent section to this discussion from the wiki:

In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies.[

This is alarming in the sense that the big 6 sentiment of "fake news" is intrinsically authoritarian. It's telling you to "do as I say, not as I do."

And who authors the latter mentioned organizations? Basically, everyone who's not in "the club." That's about as hard to figure out as what 4-2 would equal.

Now, maybe I live under a rock when it comes to recognizing a news source worth paying attention to, but I'd like to believe that the sources listed above are part of a pretty inclusive list of where a lot of us get our sources from. With that being said, nobody seems satisfied nor happy with it.

It seems like every time I find myself listening to people discuss the mainstream news, they harbor disdain for their half-hearted and sensationalized reporting. They ridicule the style of reporting and even question the validity of the information as "news" to begin with.

When I find myself listening to people discuss the alternative media sources, it always boils down to the authors being a bunch of "crazy conspiracy theorist nutjobs who either hide their identity, hide/misconstrue the facts, or both."

Seems to me like these two responses take the brunt of the reactions I constantly experience, and in my mind these are expressions from both sides of the same coin. Can it not be the case that a journalistic dichotomy *must* exist for a clear picture of unfolding events?

ATS, let's try to unbox this a little bit.

Who do you trust with your reporting, and why?

I trust the minds of certain ATS members who vet and dissect every source shared.

Take the Italy thread on the new page, took 3 pages for someone who actually knows Italian to verify that DisinfoWars was full of sh*t.

Too little, too late.


I usually follow threads to the end, by about page 5 or 6 someone has usually worked out the crap from the truth.

Trust any source that is talking about political candidates? That wouldn't be a smart thing to do. People are so brainwashed they actually believe in things that are not real or pertinent.

Trust no one source, but absorb as much information as possible and use discernment to ferret out possible truth to add to your belief.

To be honest.....none.

It is the main reason I use ATS anymore.

Most of the relevant news shows up here, then due to the diversity and expertise of the membership here things are NOT taken at face value and are shredded for truth.

After reading ALL viewpoints I then use my own discernment, which has been honed after years here, to make up my own mind.

But that's just me.

I trust no one. I am critical of all sources, all the time.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Great point Hazardous,

but what if ATS wasn't on your radar? Surely, validating information once you've read it is probably the smartest thing one can do.

however, (and not necessarily at face value) which organizations do you place more trust in prior to a forum discussion, if any?

originally posted by: stosh64
To be honest.....none.

It is the main reason I use ATS anymore.

Most of the relevant news shows up here, then due to the diversity and expertise of the membership here things are NOT taken at face value and are shredded for truth.

After reading ALL viewpoints I then use my own discernment, which has been honed after years here, to make up my own mind.

But that's just me.

Agreed and starred.

funny, then, that according to some big head honchos, all of us here are vodka chugging commies by association!

a reply to: facedye

but what if ATS wasn't on your radar?

Lol it doesn't bear thinking about does it.

Ultimately it depends on the story.

If it's about Hillary I dodge CNN.
If it's about Trump I dodge Breitbart.
Too biased to be expected to tell the whole truth.

If it's about the UK I dodge the BBC.
If it's about Russia I dodge RT, Sputnik etc.

If it's about immigration I dodge The DailyMail or The Express.

I used to read Xinhua, pretty bland and never spun.
Unless it was to do with China.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: stosh64
To be honest.....none.

It is the main reason I use ATS anymore.

Most of the relevant news shows up here, then due to the diversity and expertise of the membership here things are NOT taken at face value and are shredded for truth.

After reading ALL viewpoints I then use my own discernment, which has been honed after years here, to make up my own mind.

But that's just me.

Agreed and starred.

funny, then, that according to some big head honchos, all of us here are vodka chugging commies by association!

Cheers comrade, since we at least made the 'fake' news list of some MSM.

a reply to: facedye

None.

I try to vet on my own as much as time allows. Admittedly, that also means sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: facedye

but what if ATS wasn't on your radar?

Lol it doesn't bear thinking about does it.

Ultimately it depends on the story.

If it's about Hillary I dodge CNN.
If it's about Trump I dodge Breitbart.
Too biased to be expected to tell the whole truth.

If it's about the UK I dodge the BBC.
If it's about Russia I dodge RT, Sputnik etc.

If it's about immigration I dodge The DailyMail or The Express.

I used to read Xinhua, pretty bland and never spun.
Unless it was to do with China.

lol interesting. I actually never heard of Xinhua, thanks!

what you're saying makes me wonder though - why do you refrain from reading those sources on matters you know they'll definitely be biased about, but pay attention otherwise? do you expect them to set their differences aside and report the issues honestly when it comes to certain topics?

a reply to: loam

which organization do you take that leap with the most?

has it ever backfired?

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: facedye

but what if ATS wasn't on your radar?

Lol it doesn't bear thinking about does it.

Ultimately it depends on the story.

If it's about Hillary I dodge CNN.
If it's about Trump I dodge Breitbart.
Too biased to be expected to tell the whole truth.

If it's about the UK I dodge the BBC.
If it's about Russia I dodge RT, Sputnik etc.

If it's about immigration I dodge The DailyMail or The Express.

I used to read Xinhua, pretty bland and never spun.
Unless it was to do with China.

lol interesting. I actually never heard of Xinhua, thanks!

what you're saying makes me wonder though - why do you refrain from reading those sources on matters you know they'll definitely be biased about, but pay attention otherwise? do you expect them to set their differences aside and report the issues honestly when it comes to certain topics?

In a way, yes.

Most of the stories I said I dodge is due to the click bait effect they go for.

Most of the time sources stay neutral, but when it's something they're passionate about they usually go overboard in their spin.

As I say, the source I follow depends on the story attached.

a reply to: facedye

No one in particular.

Has it ever backfired? Of course, particularly when it involves climate data...medical data...and other science data. Sources for that material, including the originating sources for that data, are rife with politics, bad methodology, and bad conclusions.

I don't even trust ATS for reliable information. Political agendas, ideologies and disinfo taint all reporting here as well.

originally posted by: olaru12
I don't even trust ATS for reliable information. Political agendas, ideologies and disinfo taint all reporting here as well.

hmm - there's no way I can write this question without coming off a bit crass, but if that's the case, then what do you do to round out the validity/invalidity on any given issue?

There is no such thing as news.

There is gossip, talk, and hearsay.


If this thread is talking about information, specifically new information, then I find zero sources reliable. They are all just carrying water. They never give us access to the source or person themselves. And they move on, dropping the story, before it is resolved. Letting the person defamed twist in the wind. Like the so-called Atlanta Olympic bomber. The falsly accused one who's life was destroyed.


Here is what I do do. My method. My approach.

What is the difference between information and knowledge?

Information changes.
Knowledge does not.

4-2 will always equal 2. But information constantly changes. What the internet is doing, social media, the news, all of it . . . is they are drowning us in information, and starving us of knowledge. For knowledge I use the 1980 edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica.

For information, on the other hand, I prefer to hear from the principle(s) or witness testimony.

Thanks for asking.


Mike Grouchy

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c56008db6de.png[/atsimg]
A young George Washington

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: olaru12
I don't even trust ATS for reliable information. Political agendas, ideologies and disinfo taint all reporting here as well.

hmm - there's no way I can write this question without coming off a bit crass, but if that's the case, then what do you do to round out the validity/invalidity on any given issue?

Nothing...

Skepticism overrides everything. I have been involved in media for over a decade.