News Sources.....

I take a lot of flack for my sources and even the fact that I reference material for the the facts I present.

My question to each and everyone of you .... those who post source material at all ...

What sources do you consider factual and valid? Are there people you trust to be factual and honest with their 'reporting' and why?

If so many hate my sources, I'll look at yours.

I've asked this very question a handful of times to ATS and have yet to receive any reasoned answers. I've just received childish answers such as "Why should I tell you my sources, bla bla bla.

So if my sources are so terrible, who do you trust, not to be perfect, but to do their utmost to inform you truthfully of casuses and conditions

a reply to: FyreByrd

You don't provide links.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
I take a lot of flack for my sources and even the fact that I reference material for the the facts I present.

My question to each and everyone of you .... those who post source material at all ...

What sources do you consider factual and valid? Are there people you trust to be factual and honest with their 'reporting' and why?

If so many hate my sources, I'll look at yours.

I've asked this very question a handful of times to ATS and have yet to receive any reasoned answers. I've just received childish answers such as "Why should I tell you my sources, bla bla bla.

So if my sources are so terrible, who do you trust, not to be perfect, but to do their utmost to inform you truthfully of casuses and conditions

For me, it isn't so much the source as it is the information / data being presented. I don't take any source at face value.

For example, a lot of people on here will put up a "study" or something referenced by an organization. They don't actually go critique the study.

A good example of this is in healthcare debates. Invariably, someone will reference some study saying US healthcare is 37th in the world to prove their point. However, they never actually look at the foot notes or how that study comes to that conclusion. Often times the devil is in the details.

I try to constantly question the data and draw my own conclusions.

Yeah, you forget to provide a link to your source sometimes. If there's a link, I can decide whether I find it to be a valid source or not. I accept nearly all sources as long as they quote their sources. Opinion pieces aren't really news. I tend to ignore vox and salon completely but I'll give most a chance.

a reply to: FyreByrd
NYT are almost as trusted as ABC.

But NBC wins Most Trusted news source in my book.

Sources which USED to be considered respectable by everyone...no longer are.
The NYT and WAPO have completely lost their credibility due to being caught so many times pushing their own agendas, faking news and quoting anonymous sources which don't exist.

Honestly,...with the exception of, maybe, LOCAL newspapers doing their own reporting...I doubt it's really even possible anymore, to find ANY news source that everyone trusts and respects.

I won't even go NEAR MSM sources anymore, lately been watching these:

Declassified (Gina Shakespeare)
www.youtube.com...

Dave @ X22 Report
www.youtube.com...

One America News
www.youtube.com...
www.oann.com...

Epoch Times
www.youtube.com...

Democracy Now! (democracynow.org)
Independent news—no corporate sponsors, etc.

Excellent reporting, IMHO.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
I won't even go NEAR MSM sources anymore, lately been watching these:

Declassified (Gina Shakespeare)
www.youtube.com...

Dave @ X22 Report
www.youtube.com...

One America News
www.youtube.com...
www.oann.com...

Epoch Times
www.youtube.com...

Thank you for actually answering the question. I will look at these outlets.

I'm less willing to trust any YouTube pundit regardless of ideological leaning. Perhaps - because of my age and affinity for print.

originally posted by: Gandalf77
Democracy Now! (democracynow.org)
Independent news—no corporate sponsors, etc.

Excellent reporting, IMHO.

Me too - I try to listen every day - or watch.

I'm a big fan of independent news but it's hard to come by.

The Pacifica Network is the only radio that I know of that is listener sponsored and it is in existential danger right now for many reasons. But one hopes.

And your point about 'user funded' reporting is very valid. So-called News organizations that are funded by Big Business or Government are also directed in their editorial policy about what can be aired or even investigated.

A military analogy just came up -

Twenty-four hours after the Navy's top leaders said they need commanding officers to be candid about problems, the captain of a coronavirus-stricken aircraft carrier who pleaded for help has been relieved of command.

Capt. Brett Crozier, who commanded the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, was removed from his job after a letter he wrote about the situation on his ship was sent to people outside his chain of command, Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said.

www.military.com...

for more.

I can't find the funding source for this website which can be tricky. And the 'chain-of-command' issue carries weight. But the issue is funding sources - and the Navy pays this whistleblower and can, in an instant, destroy his career for doing what he thought was the right thing morally. BTW - his crew cheered him as he left the ship.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: FyreByrd
I take a lot of flack for my sources and even the fact that I reference material for the the facts I present.

My question to each and everyone of you .... those who post source material at all ...

What sources do you consider factual and valid? Are there people you trust to be factual and honest with their 'reporting' and why?

If so many hate my sources, I'll look at yours.

I've asked this very question a handful of times to ATS and have yet to receive any reasoned answers. I've just received childish answers such as "Why should I tell you my sources, bla bla bla.

So if my sources are so terrible, who do you trust, not to be perfect, but to do their utmost to inform you truthfully of casuses and conditions

For me, it isn't so much the source as it is the information / data being presented. I don't take any source at face value.

For example, a lot of people on here will put up a "study" or something referenced by an organization. They don't actually go critique the study.

A good example of this is in healthcare debates. Invariably, someone will reference some study saying US healthcare is 37th in the world to prove their point. However, they never actually look at the foot notes or how that study comes to that conclusion. Often times the devil is in the details.

I try to constantly question the data and draw my own conclusions.

A source means nothing to you regarding the factual nature of the 'information'? It's the first thing one does.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Sources which USED to be considered respectable by everyone...no longer are.
The NYT and WAPO have completely lost their credibility due to being caught so many times pushing their own agendas, faking news and quoting anonymous sources which don't exist.

Honestly,...with the exception of, maybe, LOCAL newspapers doing their own reporting...I doubt it's really even possible anymore, to find ANY news source that everyone trusts and respects.

This is true. Lets all hold each other accountable.