Sites Deemed to be Acceptable/Reliable Sources of Information (Page 2): Accurate except that stupid statement about Conservatives. It's the Libs that distort and outright lie and...

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

Keenan wrote:

3 points: br br 1) Reliable/accurate is not the s... (show quote)

Accurate except that stupid statement about Conservatives. It's the Libs that distort and outright lie and ignore facts that don't fit THEIR narrative!

Sjfh

Bazbo wrote:

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

Cross off WP and NYT and I'm ok with these.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

ken hubert wrote:

Spazbo's list is pretty left wing!

So what's your list lil' kennie?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

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.

Sites that have a hard copy, such as a magazine or newspaper have an obligation to get their facts rights.

Online Blogs are just you and I or our neighbors posting anything we want and we answer to no man. Those are the wacko sites, no matter how pretty they look!
These blogs can also be writers from a newspaper or were with a newspaper and can show affiliation to a major publication but the blog may not be actually officially connected to that publication or may not show official logos from that publication, again who knows.
SS

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

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.

What do you think of the Christian Science Monitor? To me they seem pretty level and they appear to pretty much represent some of both sides of the spectrum.

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

Bazbo wrote:

So what's your list lil' kennie?

Everything that isn't far left or far right and then make up my own mind.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

ken hubert wrote:

Everything that isn't far left or far right and then make up my own mind.

So give us some examples. Don't just sit back and take cheap shots at others.

dljen Loc: Central PA

Sjfh wrote:

Cross off WP and NYT and I'm ok with these.

NYT and WaPo have the most extensive investigating staffs of them all. Because the facts they expose don't agree with what you'd wish were true doesn't make them wrong, it makes them candidates for more awards in investigative journalism, spikes the # of homes they're read in and allows the ppl to become familiar with exactly what's going on. I love both of those outlets.

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

Bazbo wrote:

So give us some examples. Don't just sit back and take cheap shots at others.

LA Times
WaPo
Chicago Tribune
USNI
RT
ST. Louis Post Dispatch
BBC

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

ken hubert wrote:

LA Times
WaPo
Chicago Tribune
USNI
RT
ST. Louis Post Dispatch
BBC

So there is some overlap, which is good to know.

You know that RT is pure Russian state propaganda, right?

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

Bazbo wrote:

So there is some overlap, which is good to know.

You know that RT is pure Russian state propaganda, right?

Most of it is but they post things that are going on that American outlets cover up.

Sjfh

dljen wrote:

NYT and WaPo have the most extensive investigating staffs of them all. Because the facts they expose don't agree with what you'd wish were true doesn't make them wrong, it makes them candidates for more awards in investigative journalism, spikes the # of homes they're read in and allows the ppl to become familiar with exactly what's going on. I love both of those outlets.

I live in DC. I've been physically present at some of the events they've reported. They spin like there is no tomorrow. And the media (pics) they choose to go with their stories....cropped or photoshopped to support what they report. Tho I don't live in NYC.....I've traveled there and witnessed the same first hand.

One example: One day I was downtown near the White House and the reporters outnumbered the "protesters" (can't recall exactly what for). Took a minute to figure out what they were even doing....when I remembered reading something about the event. The evening paper reported "thousands" in town for the event. Seriously, there couldn't have been more than ten (10)....with perhaps a dozen reporters. It looked more like they were filming a movie or television show.

Nope. No credibility there.

dljen Loc: Central PA

Sjfh wrote:

I live in DC. I've been physically present at some... (show quote)

I totally disagree.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Too many of the media outlets sensationalize their reporting in order to boost ratings or circulation.

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

dljen wrote:

I totally disagree.

Of course you do. Reality sucks doesn't it.