Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

Yes, but so is Bluesky - though I'm sure you'll argue it's not because it aligns with your political views.

Bluesky is not comparable to. because it wasn’t bought by an unhinged man who now lives in the White House, is in charge of way too much and puts out misinformation which no one is allowed to dispute.

The X owner also proudly pushes lies all the time and is currently running the biggest heist on a country ever.

Bluesky moderates for bots, trolls, and harassment and users like that.

They are the same only in that the quality of your information comes down to who you follow. I only follow legitimate sources and real people I’ve vetted like professors, lawyers and scientists.

BlueSky users threatened to kill a journalist (Jesse Singal) they disagreed with. I am actually worried he is going to be killed at some point.

X is trash, but the idea that BlueSky is some sort of rational haven is ludicrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

Yes, but so is Bluesky - though I'm sure you'll argue it's not because it aligns with your political views.

Bluesky is not comparable to. because it wasn’t bought by an unhinged man who now lives in the White House, is in charge of way too much and puts out misinformation which no one is allowed to dispute.

The X owner also proudly pushes lies all the time and is currently running the biggest heist on a country ever.

Bluesky moderates for bots, trolls, and harassment and users like that.

They are the same only in that the quality of your information comes down to who you follow. I only follow legitimate sources and real people I’ve vetted like professors, lawyers and scientists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

What isn't? It's a lot of stuff, a melting pot of opinions if you can create a feed and follow accounts to bring you diff POVs and learn to filter BS and bots. Anonymous small accounts are not all bots and often have useful insightful info in the replies. In other words, don't just read the stuff posted by big accounts (monetized) but read the replies and replies to the interesting replies to create a list of accounts to follow with varied opinions and interesting perspectives. Often there is confrontation in the replies. And yeah, you will see a lot of crazy sh**, so be prepared. I haven't tried Blusky or Truth Social but I think they lean more bias and my time is limited

Saying “what isn’t “ is an incredibly lazy way to avoid looking for real news. They are not all biased. But it does take some work to read what actually happens and then form your own opinion on how you feel about it. Much more difficult than turning on cable news and hearing “ this is what happened and this is how we want you to feel about it”

If your goal is to be unbiased or expose yourself to variety of POVs then you have to do the work, I don't disagree with you here, but saying one thing is real news and not biased is also biased. In reality you cannot verify any news and although it may be correct, it can be presented in an exaggerated manner to sway your opinion about what happened. reading more channels (whether it's traditional legacy media or social media or a combo) is better than just watching one channel on TV if you seek more POVs.

I think we have become so bogged down with different types of media that we have forgotten what news actually is. I sound 80 here, but let’s all turn on the nightly news. It is just the facts. Watch all three major networks. They will be pretty much the same. They simply tell us what happened. Anything that inserts opinions, particularly very one-sided opinions, could be referred to as analyzing the news, I guess.

So, you could say, “I read AP for my news and typically watch Rachel Maddow for a left-leaning analysis of the news.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just popping in to remind everyone that social media is not a news source. It’s like when my students try to cite their source as google.

And no, it is not the reader’s job to sort through reporting to determine what is right or wrong. If you are having to do this, you need new sources. The first time a source reports something that is false, time to get a new source. This is how we ended up as a society that reads news as if it’s a “choose your own adventure “ book.

If you don’t want to continue coming across as an uninformed moron, a good place to stsrt is with the chart posted above. Choose some sources in the middle. But realize there will be things in those sources that are hard for you to hear and will be in contrast with what you previously believed. That doesn’t make it untrue.

A lot of the stuff on social media recites info from legacy media from this chart, it's just consolidated and it's more like reading personal comments at the end of each article, which also often contains links to other articles. There are also fringe opinions that do not support "left or right" rhetoric and they can range from insane to very insightful and valuable. They are hard to find in legacy media that likes to cater to the predefined sets of beliefs. But yes, you will be disturbed by things you will find out that may shatter your world or at least seed doubt. The way I work around it is that in reality I don't really know and cannot verify the info, so I take most things with a grain of salt. And read the arguments against.

I agree, but that doesn’t make the social media the source. It is just the way to access those sources. That’s why I compare it to students citing their source as google. It would be more accurate to say, “My favorite sources are AP and USA Today, and I usually access them through links and comments on BlueSky.”

The NYT has the best investigative reporters with Washington Post following. The bias with the reputable news sources is only in what they choose not to report.

If you’re not sure just read the healings. If they are tabloidy then they are biased news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

Yes, but so is Bluesky - though I'm sure you'll argue it's not because it aligns with your political views.

Bluesky is not comparable to. because it wasn’t bought by an unhinged man who now lives in the White House, is in charge of way too much and puts out misinformation which no one is allowed to dispute.

I guess I’m maga in the sense that I want Trump to be successful with most of his stated goals. I think WSJ is the best news source at the moment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

What isn't? It's a lot of stuff, a melting pot of opinions if you can create a feed and follow accounts to bring you diff POVs and learn to filter BS and bots. Anonymous small accounts are not all bots and often have useful insightful info in the replies. In other words, don't just read the stuff posted by big accounts (monetized) but read the replies and replies to the interesting replies to create a list of accounts to follow with varied opinions and interesting perspectives. Often there is confrontation in the replies. And yeah, you will see a lot of crazy sh**, so be prepared. I haven't tried Blusky or Truth Social but I think they lean more bias and my time is limited

Saying “what isn’t “ is an incredibly lazy way to avoid looking for real news. They are not all biased. But it does take some work to read what actually happens and then form your own opinion on how you feel about it. Much more difficult than turning on cable news and hearing “ this is what happened and this is how we want you to feel about it”

I saw the media coverage of a speciality issue that requires specialized knowledge. I’m sorry, but I simply do not trust these supposedly unbiased sources any more. Once you see the coverage of an issue you know a lot about professionally in a supposedly neutral and unbiased media source, your view of the media is permanently changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

What isn't? It's a lot of stuff, a melting pot of opinions if you can create a feed and follow accounts to bring you diff POVs and learn to filter BS and bots. Anonymous small accounts are not all bots and often have useful insightful info in the replies. In other words, don't just read the stuff posted by big accounts (monetized) but read the replies and replies to the interesting replies to create a list of accounts to follow with varied opinions and interesting perspectives. Often there is confrontation in the replies. And yeah, you will see a lot of crazy sh**, so be prepared. I haven't tried Blusky or Truth Social but I think they lean more bias and my time is limited

Saying “what isn’t “ is an incredibly lazy way to avoid looking for real news. They are not all biased. But it does take some work to read what actually happens and then form your own opinion on how you feel about it. Much more difficult than turning on cable news and hearing “ this is what happened and this is how we want you to feel about it”

If your goal is to be unbiased or expose yourself to variety of POVs then you have to do the work, I don't disagree with you here, but saying one thing is real news and not biased is also biased. In reality you cannot verify any news and although it may be correct, it can be presented in an exaggerated manner to sway your opinion about what happened. reading more channels (whether it's traditional legacy media or social media or a combo) is better than just watching one channel on TV if you seek more POVs.

Anonymous wrote:Just popping in to remind everyone that social media is not a news source. It’s like when my students try to cite their source as google.

And no, it is not the reader’s job to sort through reporting to determine what is right or wrong. If you are having to do this, you need new sources. The first time a source reports something that is false, time to get a new source. This is how we ended up as a society that reads news as if it’s a “choose your own adventure “ book.

If you don’t want to continue coming across as an uninformed moron, a good place to stsrt is with the chart posted above. Choose some sources in the middle. But realize there will be things in those sources that are hard for you to hear and will be in contrast with what you previously believed. That doesn’t make it untrue.

A lot of the stuff on social media recites info from legacy media from this chart, it's just consolidated and it's more like reading personal comments at the end of each article, which also often contains links to other articles. There are also fringe opinions that do not support "left or right" rhetoric and they can range from insane to very insightful and valuable. They are hard to find in legacy media that likes to cater to the predefined sets of beliefs. But yes, you will be disturbed by things you will find out that may shatter your world or at least seed doubt. The way I work around it is that in reality I don't really know and cannot verify the info, so I take most things with a grain of salt. And read the arguments against.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

What isn't? It's a lot of stuff, a melting pot of opinions if you can create a feed and follow accounts to bring you diff POVs and learn to filter BS and bots. Anonymous small accounts are not all bots and often have useful insightful info in the replies. In other words, don't just read the stuff posted by big accounts (monetized) but read the replies and replies to the interesting replies to create a list of accounts to follow with varied opinions and interesting perspectives. Often there is confrontation in the replies. And yeah, you will see a lot of crazy sh**, so be prepared. I haven't tried Blusky or Truth Social but I think they lean more bias and my time is limited

Saying “what isn’t “ is an incredibly lazy way to avoid looking for real news. They are not all biased. But it does take some work to read what actually happens and then form your own opinion on how you feel about it. Much more difficult than turning on cable news and hearing “ this is what happened and this is how we want you to feel about it”

Just popping in to remind everyone that social media is not a news source. It’s like when my students try to cite their source as google.

And no, it is not the reader’s job to sort through reporting to determine what is right or wrong. If you are having to do this, you need new sources. The first time a source reports something that is false, time to get a new source. This is how we ended up as a society that reads news as if it’s a “choose your own adventure “ book.

If you don’t want to continue coming across as an uninformed moron, a good place to stsrt is with the chart posted above. Choose some sources in the middle. But realize there will be things in those sources that are hard for you to hear and will be in contrast with what you previously believed. That doesn’t make it untrue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC


X is a total $hit show of bots, trolls, and disinformation. Americans have proven they are not smart enough to sort through it for real news. Plus, no one should be supporting Musk. Get off X.

Agree. X is an absolute shtshow. It’s propaganda drivel.

What isn't? It's a lot of stuff, a melting pot of opinions if you can create a feed and follow accounts to bring you diff POVs and learn to filter BS and bots. Anonymous small accounts are not all bots and often have useful insightful info in the replies. In other words, don't just read the stuff posted by big accounts (monetized) but read the replies and replies to the interesting replies to create a list of accounts to follow with varied opinions and interesting perspectives. Often there is confrontation in the replies. And yeah, you will see a lot of crazy sh**, so be prepared. I haven't tried Blusky or Truth Social but I think they lean more bias and my time is limited

Here's a media bias chart.

https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive

The conservatives won't like who's in the middle and at the highest level of reliability but that's because they don't like hearing inconvenient truths.

And for those who say "I get my news from Twitter" - don't, and for those who say "I get my news from podcasters" it really depends. For example Joe Rogan is not a reliable source for much of anything.

All trust in platforms is very low. There was a lot of self censorship. People flocked to podcasts and opinion podcasters and writers, where they felt their “point of view was shared and uncensored.” The reason is two fold: The left started language policing and implemented a hard core “cancel culture” where people were kicked off gigs, roles etc M. The People “picked and kicked” —and lots of news was made. People sought out drama, which is normal.

At the same time, The Right cultivated its own platforms and podcasters and celebrities who shared their own points of view with their audience.

The audiences were not shared and they seldom interacted. The sides did occasionally pirate clips and sound bytes from each other to mock the other side.

This separation and entrenchment grew during the pandemic, when people spent a lot of time alone. They explored news alone and forged online communities. You can not separate the news and these virtual (but very real) communities in my opinion.

People were desperate to find community and many micro-communities were formed, some had political goals; many social causes gained attention (Black Lives Matter anti local police protests by the Left and gathering for anti federal government and boys-in-blue by the Right. Several bad guys were identified and vilified on both sides.

I think asking about news sources is irrelevant. It’s not how people are behaving en mass.

The conventional news and media is basically not fast enough and not entertainment-based. On line communities are.