Who do you ACTUALLY trust for news?

When it comes to media, I keep seeing stories about Facebook closing it's borders to fake news sites. Some people argue that alt news is not fake news. Some people argue that alt news is total BS. Some people argue in-between. Some people say all MSM is trash. Some people argue liberal media like CNN/MSN are trash. Some people argue conservative media like Fox is trash. I've heard international news outlets, natural sites, government sites, Snopes, Drudge, ATS and everything else is trash.

This brought me to two questions. One has likely been asked many time so I won't spend a lot of energy on that. But I DO want to preface that I am asking this is a purely open question and not a "why don't you believe what I believe" type of thing. I promise you that

Ok...let's get to it

1. Who do you personally read or watch to get news? Why, objectively is your specific site better than others?

That to me is the easy one

But here is my problem....

2. How can you truly trust your source and more importantly, how do you know you aren't falling for confirmation bias?

I am a liberal...hard-left leaning socialist scum :-)

i do generally watch MSN or read Al-Jazeera and love NPR. Though admittedly with NPR I listen for the stories as opposed to the news. I'm becoming aware over time that I am fallible and prone to confirmation bias but I am happily working at breaking it...though it is tough as hell. All over, I see examples (yes...including my own) of hypocrisy from the right and left and anyone else. One side blasting the other for something they have personally done of the same site. It's here in plenty of places on ATS....again....myself included. I can see it a bit more now.

so how can you actually, genuinely know that your news source is trustworthy and truly objective? AND....if you agree that NO sources are trustworthy...then the big question, how do you know anything is legitimately true unless you personally saw it? Benghazi, Trump University, NOAA, climate change denial, whatever...unless you personally witnessed it, how can you ever truly trust?

Maybe I am still a fool for even asking and I do know that this is not a question mortals can truly answer...but I'd like to see some imperfect mortal answers if you will indulge

Personally, everything that I see or read today, is approached with a large dose of cynicism.

Before I accept it as possible truth, I try to research it as much as I can, and this is not always easy. I have found that people are so quick to want to be the first to re-post something, that they don't take the time to check out the information. Then a thousand other folk are posting the same exact thing over and over. Once it hits the viral stage, trying to find any real information is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

The MSM is not exempt, they print a bunch of garbage and throw in a little propaganda into the mix. Believe nothing that you see or hear until you have checked it out for yourself. Seeing it parroted or cloned, doesn't mean it is real.

a reply to: KyoZero

I lean the same way as far as my favorite go-to sources but do I trust them as infallible sources of information? Not really.

I honestly don't think I can point at any single news source and say "I trust that one". Instead, if I read anything questionable or seemingly too biased, I'll look at another source.

Although, most things from Rueters or straight from the AP I have quite a bit of confidence in.

I trust no one when it comes to news.
All media is owned by 3-4 parent corporations that filter what we read and almost always are filtered through some sort of agenda.
I cant recall the last time I saw a news article that I believed to be completely unbiased.

I believe most news has a kernel of truth to it its just a matter of brushing off all the crap and trying to work with whats left

I read many different sources. I tend to be more right leaning, but I am a subscriber to the NYT and WSJ. I read my local papers. I also read sources like conservativetreehouse and huffington post. A bunch of other blogs and news sources.

I just approach everything as a skeptic and try to see holes in logic, data, etc.

Without trusting any particular source, BBC, C4, Sky, Breitbart, Grauniad, Telegraph, Times, Independent and a few other sources such as tweeters.

The trick is to read widely and try and find the most reasonable compromise between the wilder claims made by say, The Guardian and Breitbart.

a reply to: KyoZero

Only local news, though according to the propaganda model, any source that is indebted to advertisers and special interests should be met with doubt.

a reply to: KyoZero


FB.....you like a few political sites that reflect your tastes and they just hammer you with absurd BS. Many of them take advantage of their patrons with just simply steaming hot piles of it.

This is a good thread topic and your questions are fair.
Unfortunately, most people here will be a bit skittish about answering directly, because from either side...both barrels are already loaded with the usual insults, ridicule and condemnation...and trigger fingers are always twitchy.

I read Drudge fairly regularly because it provides stories from a multitude of sources...and while I no longer trust the MSM...based upon their blatant propaganda, false polls and obvious agendas (reaching a zenith during the elections)...when I do watch television news, I watch FOX.

Why FOX?...I feel that while it is obviously right-leaning, it makes a greater attempt to be balanced, through showing a greater degree of opposing views on news stories.

Naturally, I expect everyone on the left to disagree with me.
But that's okay.

Ultimately, I form my opinions using a triangulation process...whereby I use my own common sense juxtaposed with the opinions of various people I respect and with whom I both agree & disagree on various subjects.

NOW...I fully expect insults and ridicule from the Left to follow...and, generally, that bores me...and goes nowhere fast.
So, having expressed myself and having answered your question...I will move on and comment no further.

Nothing personal, OP...I credit you for putting forth a good question...for putting yourself out there...and for presenting your own preferences, as well.

Please note, however, that THIS conservative did not condemn or ridicule you for your preferences.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I couldn't agree more

Despite being hard left, I know plenty of hard left folks (or at least importers) who are interested in 6 word memes without any context. Don't get me wrong, I know hard rights and moderates who do it too. My point is that I am not trying to show that my "side" is immune. The larger and more relevant point is that when it comes down to it, memes travel farther and faster than news.

Several months ago I recalled this nasty little experiment done on Facebook...it was pretty racist and offensive but it made a point. It had a picture of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin. The writing started with big words saying "To the friends of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin" (or something like that). The last words were, "Amen." In between was a message that was N-word this and N-word that and how ****ers were responsible for all crime and said IN THE TEXT something along the lines of, "We will get away with this message because you will only read the first and last lines."

paraphrasing mind you

The point is, all sides and all sectors of people fall for this crap and use confirmation bias to pass their agenda. If it confirms their tale, they use it. If it argues against, it is automatically wrong.

Look all over ATS...hell look at past posts of mine. People come in and drop two lines driveby posts and don't give context.

All of this being well documented and known, how do we actually know who we can trust...and again more importantly, how do you know you aren't falling for confirmation bias?

Me.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I think that is an appropriate answer to be honest and I hope it doesn't get removed for being short

Ultimately we need to make the determination but I still wonder sometimes how often I fall to the bias

originally posted by: KyoZero
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

All of this being well documented and known, how do we actually know who we can trust...and again more importantly, how do you know you aren't falling for confirmation bias?

You can't trust anyone. That's the point.
Right wing news sources have their bias and left wing ones have their own.

The important thing is to realise that there are no neutral sources of news anymore. Save perhaps the wire services like Reuters etc who roll out tweet like snippets that then get formed into fully fleshed stories by the biased media organisations.

To give an example, take the migration crisis in Europe.
The left leaning orgs want more immigration, more diversity and will downplay or outright ignore anything contrary to their own view. Conversely, the right wing ones will play up every migrant crime, ignore every positive story about a migrant etc.

The secret is in your own head. If you are grown up enough to not be led by the nose on every issue then you can see through both sides bias and get to the truth of the matter.

It's not a simple answer for me. I don't necessarily "get" my news from any place in particular. I see it more like getting "leads" from various places. If the story or "lead" is interesting to me, then I'll try to get info from the source to confirm or refute what I saw. (note: Not the "source" as in "the article linked", but the source of the issue itself. As in, a story about the State Dept would have me checking the State Dept's site, the site of the activism group that's raising alarms about the State Dept's program, the actual documents and laws in question, etc.)

Because of this approach, I tend to visit a lot of "portal sites" because they carry articles and editorials from various other publications. So I end up visiting sites like "Atimes.com", "AllAfrica.com", "AfricaNews.com", "Al-Monitor.com", and "Al-Jazeera", etc everyday to see what's new for their regions. If a story piques my curiosity, I'll then look at more sites in the corresponding countries to see if I can learn more. I also end up checking a lot of govt and company sites to see if they put out press releases, documents, etc that are mentioned in the articles (though that gets boring so it better be something I care about).

I like visiting random forums for the same reason. In my eyes, forums basically exist to let people from around the world bring interesting news to my attention (yes, you're all serving my interests muahahaha!). If something piques my curiosity, I'll look for more sources about the issue, including going to the official site of the subject that's mentioned in the thread/post/blog.

Let's look at the recent recounts that were initiated by Jill Stein. People from all over the internet were yapping back & forth about what was going on, usually just spreading info and rumors they'd heard from others. So I checked in on Jill Stein's official site, the Green Party sites for each of those States, and the official websites for the election commissions from each affected State. There was a wealth of info at these locations, including things like the official petitions for the recounts (which were good reading, btw).

Then I started researching the actual costs and procedures that would be needed to complete the recounts. I also started following different hashtags on social media (like #auditthevote) to see any new info that others had brought to the table. When I saw something that piqued my curiosity, (you guessed it) I looked for more sources about the issue, including going to the official site or the document of the subject that's mentioned in the thread/post/blog.

a reply to: KyoZero

Ha, ha.....I don't usually respond to OPs by "hard-left leaning socialist scum :-) ", (tongue firmly in cheek), but I appreciate your honesty and efforts to combat confirmation bias.

There's actually only one news source I come close to trusting, and I routinely fact check them, and that's the Wall Street Journal/Barons.

Unfortunately, I can't afford a subscription to Barons, but I manage a subscription to the Wall Street Journal off and on.Yea, the WSJ is pretty "conservative", but they've allowed a mix of viewpoints and are far less likely to offer up opinion as factual "news" like CNN and MSNBC do.

It is getting harder and harder to dodge the propaganda.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I wish people would stop asking this question.

It does nothing but feed TPTB information beyond simply assuming that a media outlet is trustworthy based on it's viewership. When we declare trust to any media outlet, affiliations can then be made between our specific viewership identities and the outlet, essentially lighting a beacon from which an attack can be mounted. It would be smarter not to declare anything that is important to us as trustworthy. Learn to vet your sources. Period.

Trust me.

a reply to: KyoZero

1. Who do you personally read or watch to get news? Why, objectively is your specific site better than others?

There are a lot of options but none of them are entirely trustworthy. Not a one.
I tend to sift the BS from the pot and come to my own conclusions.

2. How can you truly trust your source and more importantly, how do you know you aren't falling for confirmation bias?

See above reply.

...

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Since you got that from me, that would make my opening post so!

Breitbart & Amren