Anonymous wrote:NP. I am a moderate, pro-labor Democrat who knew Trump was going to win months ago, just to lay out my political leanings. I do not believe there are any unbiased or even trustworthy news sources. I consume a very wide array of media sources and reach conclusions from that. And I mean very, very wide: like Daily Wire on one end, Mother Jones on the other.

Bye bye Daily Wire

Anonymous wrote:

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”

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.

Could not have said it better myself. I noticed this over 30 years ago in reporting in general. It has only gotten worse since then.

30 years ago, the news mostly was just 30 min in the evening on various channels and newspapers. It didn't politicize EVERYTHING like they do now.

People in general are tired of everything being politicized, and that is also a big part of why the media in general is not trusted by anyone anymore, but for a small % of the devout rich political elite.

Spot on.

I think it is telling that there are posters here on DCUM who apparently fully believe there are absolutely trustworthy news sources. That just means that they are members of the devout rich political elite that control the general media narrative.

Once you see how the media treats a topic where you have deep professional expertise, you cannot believe in the concept of true media neutrality any more.

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”

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.

Could not have said it better myself. I noticed this over 30 years ago in reporting in general. It has only gotten worse since then.

30 years ago, the news mostly was just 30 min in the evening on various channels and newspapers. It didn't politicize EVERYTHING like they do now.

People in general are tired of everything being politicized, and that is also a big part of why the media in general is not trusted by anyone anymore, but for a small % of the devout rich political elite.

Anonymous wrote: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.

That chart is beyond silly and not legitimate at all. It's completely influenced by money.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

By "vetted" you mean those who agree with your POV? Because in real life educated people tend to disagree with one another and "science is never settled".. There were very many educated accomplished academics who spoke against Covid measures and were silenced, I suppose you have dismissed them as "unvetted" ?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I follow both liberal and conservatives as long as they have a legit CV of experience and expertise and can back their claims with facts, legit sources and reason. It is harder to find conservatives doing this right now though (and that’s backed with data), so I generally find them at The Bulwark, The Atlantic, and via Tom Nichols.

Cue RWNJ screeching that The Atlantic isn’t conservative “enough” and bashing a War College professor as a “lib” or some other dumb criticism.

You also need to see what other media organizations are saying. Here is an example:

Recently the Telegraph published an article about alleged BBC bias on Israel/Gaza coverage (link below). Now, the Telegraph definitely has its own obvious biases, and I am not at all saying they are not biased and the BBC is. These kinds of discussions do not mean you accept that the BBC is biased. You just read articles understanding that they might be.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/23/evidence-of-bbc-bias-is-overwhelming/

Media companies do cover each other, and it is a useful data point to see how they do it. Even if you reject every point made, the fact that another opinion exists is worth considering.

The best thing to do is get down to the level of the author of an article and see what articles they have previously written. Pretty easy to click on their name and see what they've written.

By that, you can see where their loyalties are.

News outlets often lie by omission. They just don't carry whole news articles hoping it will go away if their readers don't know about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I am a moderate, pro-labor Democrat who knew Trump was going to win months ago, just to lay out my political leanings. I do not believe there are any unbiased or even trustworthy news sources. I consume a very wide array of media sources and reach conclusions from that. And I mean very, very wide: like Daily Wire on one end, Mother Jones on the other.

I 100% do not trust mainstream media like NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc.

You are NOT.
Your statement is contradiction.

No, it’s not. “Moderate” does not mean adopting the excesses of the extreme left as “fact.” It means asking hard questions and not blindly accepting positions.

Anonymous wrote:AP is the safe bet.
[/b]X is nauseating.[b]

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I am a moderate, pro-labor Democrat who knew Trump was going to win months ago, just to lay out my political leanings. I do not believe there are any unbiased or even trustworthy news sources. I consume a very wide array of media sources and reach conclusions from that. And I mean very, very wide: like Daily Wire on one end, Mother Jones on the other.

I 100% do not trust mainstream media like NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc.

makes no sense to me. You don't trust BBC and AP but you do Mother Jones, as if MJ is not biased or has stellar reporting?

To be clear, I do not trust MJ whatsoever. But I also do not trust NYT, BBC, etc. I view them as equally untrustworthy to MJ.

Would love to share an example of bias from this morning's news. I'm a moderate who likes to watch CBS in the morning (I also alternate between Morning Joe and Fox and Friends to see how cable is covering.)

Tday, I was listening to Ed O'Keefe lay out how Americans are responding to the Zelenskyy meeting. How his script was written was inherently biased against Trump regarding a weekend survey of voters. "Just over half of Americans support how the is responding in Ukraine."

If it had been Kamala, I can promise you it would have been written "A majority of Americans now support..."

Its a small but really meaningful difference. After Trump won, I started thinking more about how coverage has impacted my own views. And Ive gotta say -- the more I listen, the more I feel manipulated by -- yes -- the mainstream media.

I expect less bias from the major networks, and I think their attempts to sway viewers towards their preferred narrative is backfiring.

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.

By "vetted" you mean those who agree with your POV? Because in real life educated people tend to disagree with one another and "science is never settled".. There were very many educated accomplished academics who spoke against Covid measures and were silenced, I suppose you have dismissed them as "unvetted" ?

Anonymous wrote:AP and BBC are best. Then NYT, especially for long form. WaPo only for local and some federal government employee news. I’ll consider National Review and WSJ with an open mind.

Moderate Dem.

Oh— and never, ever, ever, social media. Not X, Bluesky, Facebook, IG… good for individual takes. But not for factual news. Although the comments section in the NYT can be interesting. WaPo destroyed theirs with the AI crap.

AP and BBC are best. Then NYT, especially for long form. WaPo only for local and some federal government employee news. I’ll consider National Review and WSJ with an open mind.

Moderate Dem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I am a moderate, pro-labor Democrat who knew Trump was going to win months ago, just to lay out my political leanings. I do not believe there are any unbiased or even trustworthy news sources. I consume a very wide array of media sources and reach conclusions from that. And I mean very, very wide: like Daily Wire on one end, Mother Jones on the other.

I 100% do not trust mainstream media like NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc.

You are NOT.
Your statement is contradiction.

Different poster here. That person sounds a lot like me. I used to be liberal but I think I'm more mainline Democrat. Who progressives would view as either a moderate on a good day or a DINO on another. That's the reality of politics today. Extremes on both sides demand political purity and most can't give it. So we get vilified.