Your Sources

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
24,357
16,858
Colorado
#11
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.
I look at it like this:

Some people make music for a living, they are called musicians.
Some people have a guitar in the corner so they can strum it from time to time - and they might call themselves a musician.

Only one is an actual musician.

People can type all they want but it doesn't change the fact.
 
Mar 2012
52,854
34,972
New Hampshire
#13
I look at it like this:

Some people make music for a living, they are called musicians.
Some people have a guitar in the corner so they can strum it from time to time - and they might call themselves a musician.

Only one is an actual musician.

People can type all they want but it doesn't change the fact.
Totally agree. But it is blurry these days. Of course we assume most mainstream news agencies hire people with journalism degrees, but not all. So I do admit its very hard these days to look at a site say like Politico, and just assume its fine. Many arent necessarily journalists. So unless we want to spend all day researching who wrote it and who they are and what degree they have its normally just a quick glance. I think in part its why we are a mess. Too many assume that FB post from Uncle Joe is legit. Then we pass it around as such. Look how many people now source Twitter, thats nuts. Sure Twitter is great for things happening immediately (fire, explosion etc) but most is going to be shown to be wrong because they are all assuming as soon as something happens, like we do here.
 

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
24,357
16,858
Colorado
#14
Totally agree. But it is blurry these days. Of course we assume most mainstream news agencies hire people with journalism degrees, but not all. So I do admit its very hard these days to look at a site say like Politico, and just assume its fine. Many arent necessarily journalists. So unless we want to spend all day researching who wrote it and who they are and what degree they have its normally just a quick glance. I think in part its why we are a mess. Too many assume that FB post from Uncle Joe is legit. Then we pass it around as such. Look how many people now source Twitter, thats nuts. Sure Twitter is great for things happening immediately (fire, explosion etc) but most is going to be shown to be wrong because they are all assuming as soon as something happens, like we do here.
Very true about blurry lines. I'll give all stories a chance and even a source I don't prefer, but when I'm reading and get to that point where the journalist has injected their own take, I stop. It's clear as day at that point - for me anyway.

Even if it confirms a theory in my head, it's not going to do me any good believing something without credit. To me, that's just fodder for political forums.

I don't agree with Trump's take on journalists because he is already biased himself. But I do see the point. There is very little integrity involved in journalism any more. What's worse is those who just eat it up without so much as a taste test. And they'll defend their sources too.
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
103,146
91,615
Most Insidious
#17
I also like to ask myself as I'm reading an article "what does this person want me to believe?". If I can identify that, then I can immediately identify the article as having a definite bias. If I can't figure out what they want me to believe from reading the article, then I know I'm well on my way to identifying the article as not having at least an overwhelming bias.
 

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
24,357
16,858
Colorado
#18
I also like to ask myself as I'm reading an article "what does this person want me to believe?". If I can identify that, then I can immediately identify the article as having a definite bias. If I can't figure out what they want me to believe from reading the article, then I know I'm well on my way to identifying the article as not having at least an overwhelming bias.

That's a good rule of thumb.

I've seen an interesting trend that may not be iron clad, but does seem to hold up.

Look up a story on NBC, then go and look for that same subject on say Salon, or Raw Story, or another source with less than stellar integrity and if the stories are the same, or very similar - then there is usually a lot of contentious facts. And low and behold, come to PH and prove that point by people fighting over minor details.

For instance, the North Korea story about missile and nuclear locations. The majority are running the same story but the President, South Korea and a few sources are literally saying something entirely different.

Not all sources are fake news, but you can tell the ones who just pick up stories and run with it, without much fact checking.
 
Likes: boontito

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
24,357
16,858
Colorado
#19
I'm in my 40s and all of my life, all news has had a negative slant. I don't know how many times I've said, and heard others say "why is the news only reporting the bad stuff, the murders, the crime, the issues - when we all know that good stuff happens." They save the one good story for the end of the cast - knowing full well that the majority of viewers tune out or turn off after weather or sports.

This has been presented and in some cases created a toxic environment that isn't actually as toxic as reported. But people sure absorb the toxicity.

Forums are a good minor taste of what that toxicity has helped cause, in part. Look how toxic people are.
 
Nov 2013
10,326
9,760
NY
#20
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.
If you don't like to hear / read other people's opinions on the current - or historic - topics.. why are you engaging here at PH ?

Curious.