https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f890724b318583&ei=75

Right-wing propaganda infiltrates local news stations as 2024 Election ramps up

President of Media Matters for America, Angelo Carusone and Donny Deutsch join Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with a look at the impact that Sinclair Broadcast Group is having on what Americans are seeing on their local airwaves with conservative propaganda being spread on million's of televisions across the country.

Frankly, none are 100% reliable.


I would say WSJ is probably best in the US, closely followed by NPR- but stay away from both on the opinions for hard news.

The way I look at it, check whatever source you like and then try and verify via multiple others.

Sad to say, a lot of the foreign media are better at US events than our media… probably less axe to grind.

Well, okay Doc.

Maybe I'm thinking about this too deep.

I see Fox and Newsmax and what they are doing. It's obvious.

But I had forgotten about Sinclair Broadcast Group. This has been going on for a while with them, and ramps up in election years.

I do agree with your post, verify and corroborate.

This propaganda thing is pervasive and subtle, outside of Fox and Newsmax, for examples.

Here's an article I read. I'm not sure how much it applies to this thread. It could be influencing me to think too much about this. It's about a movie from a few years ago, dystopic. But it says something about human nature, IMO.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d4aa2931649efb&ei=62

The Real Lesson of The Truman Show
Story by Megan Garber • 11mo • 9 min read

I find BBC radio quite good.
I listen to NPR mostly, when the radio is on.
The guests on On Point, get shit wrong all the time. The host never corrects them, even when it's been proven BS. Calls ins are screened so no-one opposes the guest speaker.
I got a chuckle, maybe 3 sundays ago, They had guests on about AI. One of them said AI at this point is not as smart as the average house cat.
I thought Kabob should have been listening. He might have got a 30 second reprieve, before his paranoia kicked back in.

In my truck I listen only to the BBC or country music.

Some of my favorite news sources:

TDS:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...=yt&ocid=socialshare

Desi Lydic Foxsplains Biden's "Assassination Plot" Against Trump | The Daily Show

https://www.theonion.com/biden...t-scott-i-1851512959

Biden Reveals He’s Delta Force Operative Robert Scott Investigating Major Government Cover-Up
Published Yesterday

ME, you once proudly declared that
Sarah Palin SAID she could see Russia from her Backyard
dozens of posts referencing YOUTUBE as a trustworthy (or at least a bias confirmation) site
AND

That CNN was totally non-biased, in your opinion

It's interesting that you call them "media sites" - which leads me to believe you can understand that these "media companies" are NOT "news sources" (the politically correct way to describe these media sites is "news based", which is frequently as akin to the truth as a "based on a true story" drama) they are elaborate ways to garner "eyeballs" or "clicks" or "likes" generally to sell ads/services, where YOU are the product.

These media companies are built to adjust to their target audiences - it's echo chambers and massive bias confirmation, all of them

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ME, you once proudly declared that
Sarah Palin SAID she could see Russia from her Backyard
dozens of posts referencing YOUTUBE as a trustworthy (or at least a bias confirmation) site
AND

That CNN was totally non-biased, in your opinion

I don't "proudly" declare. That's your adjective.

I was mistaken about what Palin said, and admitted it.

Many videos on youtube are trustworthy.

I never said that CNN was totally non-biased, certainly not as a fact. But I do find them trustworthy, 8 or 9 on a scale of 10. Bias beats lies anytime.

NON!

ZERO!

Especially American news media!

Ground news is interesting.

As we are all human there is no such thing as infallibly correct, however Reuters, WSJ, FT, AP are all pretty reliable.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Ground news is interesting.

As we are all human there is no such thing as infallibly correct, however Reuters, WSJ, FT, AP are all pretty reliable.

Bullshit!

They only report selected news.

Obviously it’s totally impossible for any organisation to report everything newsworthy from every country in the world every day, so by definition they can only report on some, not all, of events that day,

My point is that what those organisations do report is more reliably factually accurate than most of the rest, including your beloved Daily Mail, although that’s a pretty low bar

There was nothing "bias" about cnn's reporting of the BP whipping migrants, nor of Sandman instigating things at the rally. Those were lies. CNN had video and written proof they were wrong and continued to run the stories for a week.
Kabob is good at having blinders on in his posts.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I find BBC radio quite good.
I listen to NPR mostly, when the radio is on.
The guests on On Point, get shit wrong all the time. The host never corrects them, even when it's been proven BS. Calls ins are screened so no-one opposes the guest speaker.
I got a chuckle, maybe 3 sundays ago, They had guests on about AI. One of them said AI at this point is not as smart as the average house cat.
I thought Kabob should have been listening. He might have got a 30 second reprieve, before his paranoia kicked back in.

BBC is excellent. NPR as well.

Newshour on PBS is the only TV news I watch. FOX and MSNBC are in a dead heat for most biased.

I like the Washington Post. I read the New York Times as well and while most of their reporting is excellent, there's no denying it is biased opinion-wise. Same can be said for the WSJ. Good on news, biased on opinion.

here's a good source
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart


i consider wikiepedia, youtube, podcasts, blogs, self-published books, ebooks, and opinion pieces as interesting things to review, but HIGHLY questionable

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


I don't "proudly" declare. That's your adjective.

Okay - you just declared that Sarah Palin once said she could she russia from her backyard ... see, that's better ?!?!?!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
here's a good source
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

Per AllSides:

"This chart does not rate accuracy or credibility. A publication can be accurate, yet biased. Learn why AllSides doesn't rate accuracy."

"Unless otherwise noted, these bias ratings are based on online written content, not TV, radio, or broadcast content."

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

i consider wikiepedia, youtube, podcasts, blogs, self-published books, ebooks, and opinion pieces as interesting things to review, but HIGHLY questionable

Since you provided us with a website that rates media online bias and referred to it as a "good source", perhaps you could provide us with a website that rates "questionable" for news or info sources.

Or is "questionable" just subjective and knowing the bias ratings helps with seeking affirmations, full disclosure accuracy aside?

You highlight a good point, though perhaps not intentionally.

On AllSides, those sources shown as far-right, and to be fair the far-left, my question is are those sources "trustworthy". That's the premise word in the OP.

By "Trustworthy" I don't mean affirmation or bias confirmation. Nor do I mean 100% credible. I mean credibility relating to accuracy and reality to a high degree. by intent.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
There was nothing "bias" about cnn's reporting of the BP whipping migrants, nor of Sandman instigating things at the rally. Those were lies. CNN had video and written proof they were wrong and continued to run the stories for a week.
Kabob is good at having blinders on in his posts.

I think Magine has proved he's paranoid and also wears blinders. He's not the only one though.

The Toronto sun often has good world news articles. More facts, less opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
There was nothing "bias" about cnn's reporting of the BP whipping migrants, nor of Sandman instigating things at the rally. Those were lies. CNN had video and written proof they were wrong and continued to run the stories for a week.
Kabob is good at having blinders on in his posts.

I think Magine has proved he's paranoid and also wears blinders. He's not the only one though.

Your stated evidence leading to the conclusion of proof is as lame as the rest of your conclusions, and stands as a fine example.

It really is a fine example of why one should be skeptical, verify and corroborate.

Here's a sample of the "story" run by CNN:

Border Patrol Agent Seen Holding Whip During Encounter With Haitian Migrants

U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has begun deportations for migrants from Haiti who number in the thousands in Texas. As these efforts are underway, a border patrol agent on horseback has reportedly been seen holding a whip during an encounter with the migrants.

https://youtu.be/0zpkynCB0_8?si=XNzjQ3IXx2uNDuWy

Note in the content they use the word "whip". That word, as they said it, is a noun. It can also be a verb.

It appears that the BP were using long leather reins as whips. But appearance can be deceiving.

However, I can see how the reporters got it wrong. I'll bet none of them ever rode a horse.

They also leave the comment section open. Here's some of the comments below the video:

"Called them whips because High capacity assault reigns sounded too silly"

"When has sounding silly ever stop them before."

"They are using a specific type of rein. Not once was a person "whipped." You've been fooled."

"That's weird. When I learned to ride and for all the years since, I've called those reins..Thank you MSM for correcting me."

"Those were reins, not whips. Specifically they are "split reins" as opposed to "solid reins". The twirling of the reins is a technique used in Western rein Management and taught to crowd control personnel to keep pedestrians from approaching the horse."

"I am surprised that the main stream media is still keeping their narrative of ”whips” after so many people have tried to explain that is simply not the case. Anyone with a basic knowledge of horses and riding would immediately debunk that claim."

=====================================================

Also - a search:

https://www.google.com/search?...lMsB&sclient=gws-wiz


=====================================================

Also: (Better Reporting)

https://youtu.be/rqS3QvFF3TU?si=cf1Xuwsh1LRutM8Z

Trust Index: Border Patrol did not use whips when confronting migrants

2 years ago
News4Jax is running a viral social media claim through the Trust Index about U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents allegedly whipping Haitian migrants along the Rio Grande as they tried to get into the United States. It was found that this was not true, what is seen as whips are actually the long reigns the agents use to control their horses

==================================================

What happened to the Border Patrol agents on Horseback?
Four Border Patrol agents involved in an aggressive confrontation with Haitian migrants last year near Del Rio, Texas, were referred for discipline and are on administrative duties after a months-long investigation, senior US Customs and Border Protection officials said Friday.Jul 8, 2022

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08...ials%20said%20Friday.

The incident garnered national attention last September when photos surfaced of agents on horseback swinging long reins near migrants who had crossed the border where around 15,000 migrants had amassed under the Del Rio international bridge.

In a 511-page report released Friday from CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility, officials said they found no evidence that Border Patrol agents struck migrants with their reins but said there was an “unnecessary use of force.”

The day CNN ran that story, the photographer sent an e-mail to the news outlets, and the BP that he witnessed no whipping or contact with the migrants. The CNN, msnbc and the like ran that story all week without clarifying no contact was made.
Mayorkas had the information, but had vowed to do something. No charges have been brought against those agents. One was found to have used "inappropriate language"
Once CNN repeated the story, knowing the truth, that means they lied for ratings sake.
You posted " a sample" if you watch the actual news heads, they repeated "whipping".
You are full of shit Kabob trying to cover your CNN is an honest news network post.

quote:

You are full of shit Kabob trying to cover your CNN is an honest news network post.

Yes.

While not perfect, BBC is still the gold standard for me for unbiased reporting. The Guardian ( heavily left-leaning but a principled entity), English version of Germany's DW, Reuters are top on my list. NY Times is high quality but quite biased in opinion pieces. For international relations, Foreign Affairs is an excellent source.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
here's a good source
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

I have read further, clicked on some internal links in the AllSides webpage, and re-considered.

I looked for an article they published, which may be a good example:

https://www.allsides.com/blog/...ssian-disinformation

Facts vs Myths: Was Hunter Biden’s Laptop Russian Disinformation?
Misinformation And Disinformation, Facts And Fact Checking, Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden Laptop, Media Bias, Misinformation Watch

=====
I read the article and IMO some of it is right-leaning bias. The way it's worded - use of the name "Biden" - the reader can't tell if the quote is referring to Joe or Hunter. But, if it's Joe they are talking about, that's a stretch. The whole assertion is a stretch and mischaracterizing.

Here's the sentence:

The writer concluded, “It is going to be very hard to convince voters that some eight-year-old bookkeeping errors show Trump is unfit for office when it has just been confirmed that Biden himself participated in a conspiracy to cover up his family’s illegal financial relationships with corrupt foreign governments.”

Why re-publish that sentence, unless to call out far-right bias, or call it what it is - disinformation? But that's a good summation of why the Right is so interested in Hunter in the first place. If they can't make a legal case against Joe that will hold up, then they will conflate, spin, lie for the political court of public opinion. It wasn't a "bookkeeping error" that got Trump convicted, and so forth.


==============================================

On another page in the website here's what they say about media bias:

Media Bias
At AllSides, we believe there is no such thing as completely unbiased news.

We're all biased, making it impossible to write or curate perfectly objective news. Therefore, readers should not necessarily seek unbiased sources, but should instead consume news coverage across the political spectrum.

Media organizations currently operate on a business model that seeks to make us angry at the "other side" in order to cultivate a partisan customer base, contributing to the increasing polarization seen in society today. By reading a breadth of coverage from Left to Right, readers can more effectively cut through partisanship and get a fuller picture of current events. What's more, exposure to other perspectives is vital to popping filter bubbles, which are the echo chambers that form when we only interact with ideas that we agree with.

There are several types of media bias, including spin, slant, sensationalism, omission, story choice, word choice, use of adjectives, and others.

Lets see.
We have Donna Brazile giving Hillary questions, so she could prepare.
Alan Dershowitz and St Mary's medical center winning court cases against CNN for misleading reporting. Nick sandmann getting paid off by CNN for defamation from a BS story line. You could go on and on against CNN and most other media sites.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Ground news is interesting.

As we are all human there is no such thing as infallibly correct, however Reuters, WSJ, FT, AP are all pretty reliable.

Bullshit!

They only report selected news.

Unlike that paragon of reporting, the Daily Mail?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Unlike that paragon of reporting, the Daily Mail?

One of the vilest, degenerate, hate-mongering, lies-spreading, yellowest excuses for journalism.

RobinO, so you are saying it's middle of the road US journalism?

https://youtu.be/eoycEXNvxIg?si=n88GKkeTMf_nlsHY

Fox is Not Your Friend

quote:

Originally posted by RobinOLocksley:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Unlike that paragon of reporting, the Daily Mail?

One of the vilest, degenerate, hate-mongering, lies-spreading, yellowest excuses for journalism.

Exactly, a mix of biased garbage, gossip and pics of assorted D list celebs in swimsuits. The Express is no better.

If they both suddenly vanished along with their readership the UK average IQ would go up by 20%.