Jump to content

What Is A Credible Source


Donald Trump
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I've noticed that the left has basically hijacked the mainstream media and spread the belief around that it is somehow more credible then anything else out there. Even though credible publicans like Breitbart and Infowars are fine with reporting on stuff that goes against their narrative, as they're more concerned with facts, unlike what Liberals are concerned with. Sad!

 

So what is a credible site and source of info? I think it's obviously not the biased MSM at this point! Very dishonest of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breitbart is useless. They push out conservative opinion pieces and the AP news feed. You can just go straight to the AP for the newsfeed. Reuters, AFP, AJ (if you ignore the op-eds. Infowars straight makes shit up. Congressional Research Service reports can be obtained for free from any of your state's Congressional delegation and are the basic definition of bias-free research.

Edited by ComradeMilton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al-Jabr has weapons of math instruction according to Breitbart.

 

Seriously, BBC, Al Jazeera, CBC, ABC.

 

For those of who aren't from Commonwelaht countries or at just cannot guess acronyms, British Broadcast Corporation, Canadian Broadcast Corporation, Australian Broadcast Corporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you a meme or are you serious?

 

Just trying to bait people to make posts about how only Breitbart speaks the truth or whatever. 

 

Anyway... what I'd say on this subject is those sort of sources get off on very dramatic headlines and articles which often don't fully represent what is going on. However there is a great deal of people who do see them as the most honest out of the media and usually that is summed up as, "They are stupid idiots" which is as always arrogance and stupidity in itself and not I believe what is fully going on. Many of the mainstream sources have so withdrawn from reporting on some matters that anyone who does report on them are seen as automatically more honest and less corrupt. Forget things like refugees and look at stuff like the supporting of head choppers in the middle east. Every man on the street knows those "moderates", "rebels", and "freedom-fighters" are scum and yet the MSM will glorify them to try and promote intervention. Such corrupt and dishonest action gives these sort of sources an "in" as they actually do report on said people being scum. Once an ordinary person makes the connection of them being honest on that subject while the MSM isn't then they start thinking on the other things perhaps the MSM is lying about. Eventually this becomes a complete distrust of the MSM to the point they are as reviled as they now are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trying to bait people to make posts about how only Breitbart speaks the truth or whatever. 

 

Anyway... what I'd say on this subject is those sort of sources get off on very dramatic headlines and articles which often don't fully represent what is going on. However there is a great deal of people who do see them as the most honest out of the media and usually that is summed up as, "They are stupid idiots" which is as always arrogance and stupidity in itself and not I believe what is fully going on. There are tons of massive research services and news wires with bias-free writing to fit any customer in the media.  Many of the mainstream sources have so withdrawn from reporting on some matters that anyone who does report on them are seen as automatically more honest and less corrupt. Forget things like refugees and look at stuff like the supporting of head choppers in the middle east. Support by whom? Of which group? By which organization? Every man on the street knows those "moderates", "rebels", and "freedom-fighters" are scum Some disagree entirely and they're often secular members of the society being destroyed. and yet the MSM will glorify them to try and promote intervention. Such corrupt and dishonest action gives these sort of sources an "in" as they actually do report on said people being scum. Once an ordinary person makes the connection of them being honest on that subject while the MSM isn't then they start thinking on the other things perhaps the MSM is lying about. Eventually this becomes a complete distrust of the MSM to the point they are as reviled as they now are. Who are these people who think the global mass media is a conspiracy and are they more or less deluded than Alex Jones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be a troll.There in no way anyone can  think info wars is credible. Even fricking Rozalia probably agrees.

https://www.infowars.com/house-intelligence-committee-demands-donald-trump-hand-over-proof-that-barack-obama-ordered-his-wiretapping-by-monday/

 

Perfectly valid article, no? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Info Wars is as credible as ABC, CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and MSM. All are shit and not worthy sources. I can't think of any media source that doesn't have an obviously bias viewpoint. 

If there is somewhere then it is somewhere diverse that hires Conservatives and Leftists equally. 

Edited by Lightning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Info Wars is as credible as ABC, CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and MSM. All are shit and not worthy sources. I can't think of any media source that doesn't have an obviously bias viewpoint. 

If there is somewhere then it is somewhere diverse that hires Conservatives and Leftists equally. 

Infowars is run by an insane person. AP, AFP and Reuters all lack a bias for business reasons. AJ, BBC and some other services are more about accuracy than independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think vox, Huffington Post, MSNBC, occupy Democrats, slate, and mother Jones are great sources of information. I encourage you all to check them out, you'll learn a lot.

They're all a bit biased from what I can tell. You should look at BBC, ABC, CBC, or Reuters for unbiased, accurate reporting, and HuffingtonPost or Infowars for opinions on things (HuffPost also has a good food section).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My general rule is, don't quote or cite motherjones, huffpost, or thinkprogress.

 

If I see something there I want to share, find it somewhere else.

 

I do sometimes read fox news because I wanna know what the other side thinks. And its really not all 100% awful. The opinion stuff is out there, of course. But I bet they are like...in the ballpark of 60% as accurate as other sources, which is bad, but its not the 10% liberals like to think.

 

Worst source is obviously some random dude's conspiracy blog. Which is pretty much how infowars got going.

 

Honestly though, some extreme sites may be more accurate reporting on their extreme topic, like redstate reporting on inter-gop squabbles(except redstate is so anti-trump, its kind of not really credible on that front)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're all a bit biased from what I can tell. You should look at BBC, ABC, CBC, or Reuters for unbiased, accurate reporting, and HuffingtonPost or Infowars for opinions on things (HuffPost also has a good food section).

You're pretty much wrong from what I can tell. Don't forget Buzzfeed,that's good source there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any News source with the resources to be actively considered credible is going to be biased in one form or the other.

and by comparison. any unbiased source isnt going to have the resources to be constantly credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in academic papers i could cite nyt, wapo, the economist, al jazeera, and bbc. otherwise it should be (preferably peer reviewed) journals and books

Edited by Katie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

otherwise it should be (preferably peer reviewed) journals and books

http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract

"I use the anus as a window." 

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-013-9205-2

"The !@#$ as a Transformative Political Tool: Feminist and !@#$ Perspectives"

 

Yeah, maybe a decade ago peer reviewed journals were good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract

"I use the anus as a window." 

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-013-9205-2

"The [email protected]#$ as a Transformative Political Tool: Feminist and [email protected]#$ Perspectives"

 

Yeah, maybe a decade ago peer reviewed journals were good. 

 

i am just telling u what most professors consider credible sources buddy. there are a ton of great peer reviewed journals tho smh

Edited by Katie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.