Your Sources

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
24,331
16,842
Colorado
#1
I don't read most of your sources not because another source like Snopes says so - but because if I read to any degree and see more than just reporting news as is - like opinion, slant, predictions, personal takes, how-I-see-it's, or anything where the reporter is getting personally involved - I immediately feel the need to close the article and read no further.

Why? Because journalism is reporting facts and I'm not interested in any would-be budget journalist who fancies themselves a super star.

What standards do you have regarding sources? And you can skip the "well it's FOX, duh" stuff, we've heard all that before.
 

One

Former Staff
Dec 2006
11,416
10,066
----> X <----
#2
I don't read most of your sources not because another source like Snopes says so - but because if I read to any degree and see more than just reporting news as is - like opinion, slant, predictions, personal takes, how-I-see-it's, or anything where the reporter is getting personally involved - I immediately feel the need to close the article and read no further.

Why? Because journalism is reporting facts and I'm not interested in any would-be budget journalist who fancies themselves a super star.

What standards do you have regarding sources?
You don't like agenda based reporting?
It is truly hard to find unbiased sources.
 
Mar 2012
52,785
34,942
New Hampshire
#3
I don't read most of your sources not because another source like Snopes says so - but because if I read to any degree and see more than just reporting news as is - like opinion, slant, predictions, personal takes, how-I-see-it's, or anything where the reporter is getting personally involved - I immediately feel the need to close the article and read no further.

Why? Because journalism is reporting facts and I'm not interested in any would-be budget journalist who fancies themselves a super star.

What standards do you have regarding sources? And you can skip the "well it's FOX, duh" stuff, we've heard all that before.
I typically read them all and then if there appears something off or odd, I will check other sources to get some sort of confirmation. Sometimes they are from the fringes and cant be confirmed. Sometimes they are just trying to be the first and are full of mistakes but the gist of the article is correct.
 

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
24,331
16,842
Colorado
#7
If you read a far right source and read a far left source, the truth is likely in the middle. :)
Furthermore if you look at how some sources present stories around the world you find very different reporting.
There are journalists who still take the job seriously.

My point overall is this: if we take these biased sources at face value then it creates a slippery slope.
That slope's edge showed it's head in the middle east with 2 different stories, written differently for different regions. Also where a journalist was caught photoshopping an image to make it more dramatic.

To me those are the same thing. Bias at it's worst, but still bias.

So it makes me consider how far some of these journalist will go. They aren't paid by how much we learn, grow or are more aware, they get paid from clicks/views.

People gotta eat.
 
Dec 2014
12,927
10,359
Opal mining
#8
When assessing a source, I always try to corroborate the factual content from independent sources. In addition, I always analyse a source using a simple table of questions:

1. Who wrote it?

2. When?

3. For whom?

4. What is the purpose of the piece?

I also note the use of persuasive language designed to elicit a specific response. I also try to determine the probability of any predictions within the text.
 
Mar 2012
52,785
34,942
New Hampshire
#9
Furthermore if you look at how some sources present stories around the world you find very different reporting.
There are journalists who still take the job seriously.

My point overall is this: if we take these biased sources at face value then it creates a slippery slope.
That slope's edge showed it's head in the middle east with 2 different stories, written differently for different regions. Also where a journalist was caught photoshopping an image to make it more dramatic.

To me those are the same thing. Bias at it's worst, but still bias.

So it makes me consider how far some of these journalist will go. They aren't paid by how much we learn, grow or are more aware, they get paid from clicks/views.

People gotta eat.
I suppose we also could put journalists in quotes as well since quite frankly any one of us can post a blog or have a site where we "report" news as we see it. All three cable news stations have no news from 8-11 pm each night. They are all opinion shows. So is that news? The internet has opened up a whole new world and an ugly can of worms. My kids dont look to CBS or CNN for their news, they go online and do a news feed from all sorts of places. I bet most under 40 do the same. So even the entire concept of "news" is going to vary. Sources are constantly coming and going and changing. The "Big boys" of news, put their content behind a paywall.
 

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
24,331
16,842
Colorado
#10
When assessing a source, I always try to corroborate the factual content from independent sources. In addition, I always analyse a source using a simple table of questions:

1. Who wrote it?

2. When?

3. For whom?

4. What is the purpose of the piece?

I also note the use of persuasive language designed to elicit a specific response. I also try to determine the probability of any predictions within the text.
Well said. I don't forget that people on this forum are sources of information too. I use the same method as the OP for social media / forums, too.