Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Sites Deemed to be Acceptable/Reliable Sources of Information
Page 1 of 11 next> last>>
Apr 7, 2017 09:59:18   #
chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO
 
So many times someone posts a link to a site and the rebuttal is oh that's a .(enter political leaning word) biased site.

I'm curious which sites you feel are reliable/accurate, and should I hope, unbiased for political reporting.

I ask that you not reply as to your feeling about others posts.

I'm just curious.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:06:40   #
Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
 
chrisscholbe wrote:
So many times someone posts a link to a site and the rebuttal is oh that's a .(enter political leaning word) biased site.

I'm curious which sites you feel are reliable/accurate, and should I hope, unbiased for political reporting.

I ask that you not reply as to your feeling about others posts.

I'm just curious.


BBC
NPR
PBS
The Economist
Forbes
Washington Post
NY Times
Pro Publica
PolitiFact

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:09:22   #
Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ
 
That's something you will need to decide for yourself.
It's like asking which of Nikon or Canon is the better camera. What you will get is, "I use THIS one, so it must be the better one."
When it comes to politics, opinion rules. Attempting to argue facts seems to be verboten.
Choose wisely.

Reply
 
 
Apr 7, 2017 10:13:15   #
nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca
 
Some sites are less biased than others

Fox, Politico (any site Idaho sources in his posts) are good examples of biased reporting.


Bazbo's list is pretty neutral.


Big Bill wrote:
That's something you will need to decide for yourself.
It's like asking which of Nikon or Canon is the better camera. What you will get is, "I use THIS one, so it must be the better one."
When it comes to politics, opinion rules. Attempting to argue facts seems to be verboten.
Choose wisely.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:16:16   #
Keenan Loc: Central Coast California
 
chrisscholbe wrote:
So many times someone posts a link to a site and the rebuttal is oh that's a .(enter political leaning word) biased site.

I'm curious which sites you feel are reliable/accurate, and should I hope, unbiased for political reporting.

I ask that you not reply as to your feeling about others posts.

I'm just curious.


3 points:

1) Reliable/accurate is not the same thing as unbiased. Biased is not the same thing as false/unreliable.

2) There is no such thing as unbiased. Everyone has a set of values/world view that determines the person's particular bias. Although 'extremely biased' usually correlates with low reliability/accuracy, it is not possible to be completely free of bias. We are not all going to agree on what is or is not biased, nor on the definition of bias. What some people might perceive as unbiased, another group of people will see the same source/perspective as very biased.

3) I think it is more useful to talk about journalistic standards. Does the source have a track record of accuracy/reliability? Do they use good proper standards of verification/fact checking? Do they engage in poor journalistic practices, such as publishing rumors/conspiracy theories as fact? Do they correct mistakes and publish apologies and retractions/corrections after mistakes in their reporting are discovered?

Facts are neither liberal nor conservative nor libertarian nor wh**ever, despite what some feel. Conservatives tend to be much more willing to distort/deny objective facts that contradict their feelings/narrative than most other groups I've seen.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:29:28   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
I actually agree with what Keenan said except for the last sentence...

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:33:14   #
chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO
 
Keenan wrote:
3 points:

1) Reliable/accurate is not the same thing as unbiased. Biased is not the same thing as false/unreliable.

2) There is no such thing as unbiased. Everyone has a set of values/world view that determines the person's particular bias. Although 'extremely biased' usually correlates with low reliability/accuracy, it is not possible to be completely free of bias. We are not all going to agree on what is or is not biased, nor on the definition of bias. What some people might perceive as unbiased, another group of people will see the same source/perspective as very biased.

3) I think it is more useful to talk about journalistic standards. Does the source have a track record of accuracy/reliability? Do they use good proper standards of verification/fact checking? Do they engage in poor journalistic practices, such as publishing rumors/conspiracy theories as fact? Do they correct mistakes and publish apologies and retractions/corrections after mistakes in their reporting are discovered?

Facts are neither liberal nor conservative nor libertarian nor wh**ever, despite what some feel. Conservatives tend to be much more willing to distort/deny objective facts that contradict their feelings/narrative than most other groups I've seen.
3 points: br br 1) Reliable/accurate is not the s... (show quote)

I agree with most of your observations......but NOT the last sentence....it is not totally owned by conservatives.

1) What I meant was reliably accurate.

2) While I agree that everyone has a bias, that doesn't mean that is hast to show in their reporting.

3) I agree that "journalistic standards" may be a more accurate way of describing what I'm interested in.

So, using your clarification:
Which sites maintain a "high journalistic standard"?

Reply
 
 
Apr 7, 2017 10:37:48   #
Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
I actually agree with what Keenan said except for the last sentence...


If you were to equate the right wingers here in the Attic with all conservatives, then Keenan would be right. However, I find the conservatives that I interact with in real life to be nothing like the s**t slingers who inhabit these parts.

If the actual conservatives that I know in real life are more reflective of all conservatives, the Keenan would be wrong. I guess it depends on which segment of "conservatives" one is most exposed to.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:41:23   #
chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO
 
I do NOT, and do NOT recommend that anyone use the individuals here as a "bell weather" for how others of the same political bent would/do act.

What we tend to see here, in the Attic, are the extreme extremes.

I don't believe that "most" of the people, in the country, typically curse and name call while having a conversation.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:42:58   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
This is a very pertinent question. Bigness can be betterness as bigness can afford for background verification. Bigness can also afford more astutely trained staff. Bigness can also afford 'analysis' articles - these are probably of the most importance. Someone else has produced a list of major league sources.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:45:36   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
John_F wrote:
This is a very pertinent question. Bigness can be betterness as bigness can afford for background verification. Bigness can also afford more astutely trained staff. Bigness can also afford 'analysis' articles - these are probably of the most importance. Someone else has produced a list of major league sources.

Keyword here is "can". Doesn't mean they all do...

Reply
 
 
Apr 7, 2017 10:56:34   #
Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ
 
nakkh wrote:
Some sites are less biased than others

Fox, Politico (any site Idaho sources in his posts) are good examples of biased reporting.


Bazbo's list is pretty neutral.


I can't believe you can say that after looking at PolitiFact.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 10:58:09   #
dljen Loc: Central PA
 
I agree with Bazbo's list.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 11:07:20   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Note that a lot of links referred to are "opinion" articles and not always "news" articles.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 11:33:14   #
ken hubert Loc: Missouri
 
nakkh wrote:
Some sites are less biased than others

Fox, Politico (any site Idaho sources in his posts) are good examples of biased reporting.


Bazbo's list is pretty neutral.


Spazbo's list is pretty left wing!

Reply
Page 1 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.