Author Topic: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?  (Read 5997 times)

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
It's been bandied about a lot lately about how the main stream media has a liberal bias, how fake news is rampant, how  the Internet has caused people to lock themselves in information bubbles instead of freeing them from propaganda, how opinion sites are being believed as if they were news and vice versa.

What does it take for you to believe a news source? If the facts presented lead you to a conclusion other than your own admitted bias, will you accept them or search for more facts until you find some that reconfirm your previous bias?  What are news sources that you commonly read and believe? What would you say the strengths and weaknesses of the sources are?

« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 01:52:52 PM by Poundwise »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2016, 02:04:41 PM »
I'll start: my favorite is the Christian Science Monitor. I like the thoughtful reporting on world events, and the Take Action section.  It's not negative, but hopeful.

I read the New York Times for world and local events but I hate the lifestyle articles, which are too precious. I also like the Guardian, and sometimes scan Le Monde.

I will admit that I can't read anything from Drudge Report or Fox News without doing a fact check.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 02:06:29 PM by Poundwise »

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2016, 02:45:18 PM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2016, 02:47:26 PM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Do you have examples of this? I don't hold CNN to any higher standard than any other reporting source, but I generally find them trustworthy, if sometimes skewed.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2016, 03:11:20 PM »
Well trustworthy is a great word to use in the conversation.  Whenever a news organization is trying to make the claim that they are not biased, that betrays a lack of self-awareness that should be viewed with skepticism, which is so similar to untrustworthy as to be the same difference insofar as news consumption decisions goes.

What I like is when a news organization embraces their bias and clearly communicates that.  "Here's what we know, and this is what we think the takeaway is from that, but it's up to you to make up your own mind."

That's one of the reasons I like Vox.  Most of the time they don't engage in the clickbait headline shenanigans (although they have been creeping towards that) and their stories usually take the form of:  First bit facts.  Second bit background.  Third bit commentary.

I often disagree with the commentary, and lament the omission of certain facts or background, but it's a far sight better than most any other news site I have found as far as quickly distilling the information from the spin.

Back in 2005 or so I used to be able to just search the Google News page for source: The Associate Press and that worked so fucking great.  You'd get a paragraph that AP reported that was basically all the news that was going out on the subject, before each individual reporter added 2000 words of their own bullshit to the 75 words of news.  That stopped working, I think Google got sued over it because those AP snips were only supposed to be view-able by affiliates or something, I was never quite sure.

I stopped paying attention to televised news altogether the first time I saw something from twitter discussed.  I was already thoroughly disgusted by how seriously the news takes the rest of social media.  The inability of these so-called professionals to separate the serious business of adults from the online gossiping of the masses is a huge factor in their lack of credibility.

I can understand why a marketing firm is required to take that sort of stuff seriously, but nobody ostensibly concerned with seeming legitimate should.

So that's a major factor in the lack of credibility.  The mainstream media isn't being accused of these things because of a smear campaign or anything like that, it's because they are acting like children.

To put it another way, an adult journalist with a newspaper column has at their disposal a terrific medium for communication of their ideas, their fucking newspaper column.  Likewise someone with a news program or a radio show.  Cross-promotion on social media is all well and good, but it lent a legitimacy to those other media that shouldn't have happened.  These people, in their relentless whoring for attention, gave up their sacred duty as gatekeepers.  That gatekeeping was just an important aspect of journalism (the profession) as the actual reporting itself.  This is fundamental to professionalism.  Engineers do good engineering but they also serve as gatekeepers to interlopers.  Doctors do good doctoring but they also serve as gatekeepers to interlopers.  Lawyers, architects, and accountants similarly all have laws and practices in place to not only do their job but to keep bad people from pretending to do their job.

It ought to be simple to separate the trash from the media, if it is on twitter or facebook, don't trust it, it isn't news.  Period.

Instead, the media ran to these things that it couldn't control and tried to out-gossip the teeming mass of idiots, and in trying to co-opt the fandom of randomtwittergoddess97 did the ultimate in greedy media whore which is invite someone with no business on the national stage to be interviewed online as though they had something worthwhile to contribute.  And so the birth of the you-tube celebrity that gets taken seriously by the media.

So journalism as a profession is practically dead.  Can it be revived?  I believe it can, and several people are making a legitimate effort to do that.  We'll just have to see if the temptation to seek their own fortune through celebrity can be resisted long enough for it to happen, if they can maintain the discipline to re-establish a media form where responsible journalists are the only ones granted that legitimacy.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2016, 03:17:51 PM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Do you have examples of this? I don't hold CNN to any higher standard than any other reporting source, but I generally find them trustworthy, if sometimes skewed.

There are plenty of examples that can be found in seconds on the internet and YouTube. Do your own research.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2016, 03:19:07 PM »
Complete and accurate reporting on a topic that I am intimately involved with is one test I use.  In my case, the ACA is a substantial part of my work life so I use stories about that as a gauge.  I figure if they get the facts right about things I know, they're probably right about other stuff. 

I get most of my news from The Economist.   Although I frequently disagree with their editorial opinions, I find their reporting to be trustworthy.

little_brown_dog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2016, 03:19:16 PM »
Generally trust: CNN, Reuters, the Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times
   These sources lean left (my own bias as well) so it is a bit harder for me to assess just how biased they might be. However, they tend to be really good at citing their sources if possible and updating errors.

Somewhat trust: Fox News
   Leans right and often obviously frames things from a conservative standpoint, but that doesn’t mean the information presented is necessarily factually inaccurate in all cases. A good option to check if you are like me and are looking for another media outlet to include in your repertoire to try to counterbalance your own left leaning media bias.

Read with a big dose of healthy skepticism: Breitbart, The Federalist, USUncut, Huffpost
   First two hard right, second two strong left. I would not rely on these as go to news sources at all, but more sites to pique your interest or to get a more extreme perspective/lean on an existing issue/event/topic floating around the big news sites. To me the journalism in these sites are obviously different than that of the others I listed – where the other news’ outlets’ bias is often relatively subtle via framing (word choice, how information is presented or organized) these outlets often have pieces where the author’s bias is practically oozing off the page, so badly you can’t tell if it is an actual news article or an opinion piece.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2016, 04:11:12 PM »
I think it is completely unrealistic to expect any news source to be completely without bias, but it is possible to be trustworthy, per the subject of your post. Human beings have perspectives. And those perspectives will always seep in, no matter what. I wish, frankly, that Americans would recognize this and stop flinging the word "bias" toward any news article or source in which they can detect anything other than robot-like neutrality.

I consider news sources to be trustworthy when they cite their (reputable) sources, meticulously avoid leading language, and do not succumb, insofar as possible, to the temptation to devolve into click bait. These days, that's a tall order, unfortunately, but there are still news outlets that do this. NPR, generally, is a source I consider trustworthy. Public Radio International. The Economist. BBC World Service. To an extent, The Guardian. Foreign Policy Magazine.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2016, 04:17:42 PM »
I read the New York Times for world and local events but I hate the lifestyle articles, which are too precious.

Thanks for this - I never could quite find the right word for what bugged me about those articles in the NYT (and in a few other new sources). 

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2016, 04:31:18 PM »
Currently I think the terms bias and untrustworthy are being conflated. All mainstream media is biased. CNN was very clearly biasing coverage in favor of Clinton and mainstream democrats. This is entirely different than outright lying. I don't believe CNN is reporting blatantly false news.

There was also the incident of the new caster colluding with the Clinton campaign to give her debate questions early. The kind of shit that happens when the media is to warm an cozy with a major party.

Unfortunately this is causing large portions of the population to tune out all news from media like this. This is pretty tragic because though they are biased their size and stature holds them accountable to tell some degree of the truth in their most basic reporting. They wont air blatantly false stories and if they do they will generally correct themselves.

Untrustworthy news are basically blogs and all of social media and any site spreading rumors from these sources as news with click bait titles. The problem is compounded when everyone is seeking confirmation bias on the internet as a reprieve from biased mainstream news sources.

The problem with the mainstream media is the bulk of the air time isn't news. Its punditry and noise. While it is more interesting to listen to what amounts to dinner table conversation about news, it is doing us all a real disservice because it pushes viewers away who do not agree with the opinions of the news casters.

At this point don't know how a news org like CNN goes about regaining conservative viewers. I hope they don't try to do it by kissing Trumps ass even though the sad truth is if they treat him fairly and call him out conservatives will continue to ignore CNN.... What we need is dryer news coverage more focused on good iterative investigative reporting with an adversarial approach to all business and politicians.

Problem is I don't see it happening because the major news orgs are big business interested in profits. Dry news doesn't sell and political allegiance greases the wheels. So we will all continue to get pushed towards smaller possibly less reliable news sources while the mainstream media continues to lose its ability to define truth. And in that world assholes like Trump and Clinton can continue to say anything at win elections because there will always be a shit blog or meme to confirm their blatant lies.

Silverado

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2016, 04:45:45 PM »
I think it is completely unrealistic to expect any news source to be completely without bias, but it is possible to be trustworthy, per the subject of your post. Human beings have perspectives. And those perspectives will always seep in, no matter what. I wish, frankly, that Americans would recognize this and stop flinging the word "bias" toward any news article or source in which they can detect anything other than robot-like neutrality.

I consider news sources to be trustworthy when they cite their (reputable) sources, meticulously avoid leading language, and do not succumb, insofar as possible, to the temptation to devolve into click bait. These days, that's a tall order, unfortunately, but there are still news outlets that do this. NPR, generally, is a source I consider trustworthy. Public Radio International. The Economist. BBC World Service. To an extent, The Guardian. Foreign Policy Magazine.

This does it for me, well said.

oldladystache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
  • Age: 79
  • Location: coastal southern california
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2016, 05:19:38 PM »
There have been several times when I happened to be there when something newsworthy happened. Every time when i read about it later they had it completely wrong. Not because they were slanting the news, just because they didn't know what they were doing.

A relative was once interviewed on TV as an expert, and he said the thing they were discussing was definitely not a hazard. When he saw himself on TV later they had edited it so he was heard to say it was definitely a hazard. Oops, they accidentally cut out the not.

So you'd think I wouldn't believe anything I heard on the news, but for some unknown reason I still believe what they tell me.


Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2016, 05:22:17 PM »
There have been several times when I happened to be there when something newsworthy happened. Every time when i read about it later they had it completely wrong. Not because they were slanting the news, just because they didn't know what they were doing.

A relative was once interviewed on TV as an expert, and he said the thing they were discussing was definitely not a hazard. When he saw himself on TV later they had edited it so he was heard to say it was definitely a hazard. Oops, they accidentally cut out the not.

So you'd think I wouldn't believe anything I heard on the news, but for some unknown reason I still believe what they tell me.

I have had the same experience. I've been on the news multiple times, and quoted in the paper at least three times I can remember. In each time, what I said and what ended up being printed/shown was approximate at best, and deliberately misleading in one case. I have also participated in peaceful demonstrations that were classified as "riots" in the press, so I know better than to take those accounts at face value.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2016, 06:45:03 PM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Do you have examples of this? I don't hold CNN to any higher standard than any other reporting source, but I generally find them trustworthy, if sometimes skewed.

There are plenty of examples that can be found in seconds on the internet and YouTube. Do your own research.

You're kind of proving the original point here. Any asshole can upload something to YouTube. Plenty do. Believing random bullshit is a big part of the trouble we had in this election cycle.

Generally, you don't get to be an accredited journalist for a legitimate news organization without proving yourself (Giraldo Rivera excepted). If you think every single accredited journalist in the U.S. is a lying conspirator out to get you, well that's on you.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2016, 07:06:06 PM »
The BBC, because they are playing a different 'game' than other broadcasters.

The BBC.. well, it's somewhat complicated because there are for-profit bits (BBC Worldwide? Not sure how the structure breaks down), but generally the purpose of the BBC is to provide good content. So it can do things other, for-profit, organisations cannot. It tries very hard to be unbiased.

CBC tries, too. I'm certainly not as impressed with it as I am with the Beeb. The CBC is asking for more government money so it can stop having adverts on the radio, which is fantastic.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2016, 07:13:20 PM »
I'll start with sufficient editorial oversight to not have rampant typos. The news should also not entirely consist of reporting on what NYT, Guardian, CNN, BBC, etc have reported elsewhere; that is filler, not 'content'. Where an organization has been around for a long time, I expect things to go wrong once in a while, and in those cases I care how they, as an organization, deal with it. For example, I had a lot of respect for the way the NYT turned the microscope on itself during the Jason Blair scandal, even if the scandal itself was, well, scandalous. It was an organization that found bad behavior and rooted it out. Other organizations have had bad behavior that required substantial effort to remove it from the bottom up (ahem, Fox's Roger Ailes). What is in their DNA? What are their core values (not political, but how do they balance the myriad pressures that fall on a news organization).

There are also a few long-form pieces that come out of unexpected places like Rolling Stone (which has had some credibility issues), Vanity Fair, etc.

For in-depth analysis I tend to like things like Foreign Affairs.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4136
  • Location: WDC
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2016, 08:10:56 PM »
I think it is completely unrealistic to expect any news source to be completely without bias, but it is possible to be trustworthy, per the subject of your post. Human beings have perspectives. And those perspectives will always seep in, no matter what. I wish, frankly, that Americans would recognize this and stop flinging the word "bias" toward any news article or source in which they can detect anything other than robot-like neutrality.

I consider news sources to be trustworthy when they cite their (reputable) sources, meticulously avoid leading language, and do not succumb, insofar as possible, to the temptation to devolve into click bait. These days, that's a tall order, unfortunately, but there are still news outlets that do this. NPR, generally, is a source I consider trustworthy. Public Radio International. The Economist. BBC World Service. To an extent, The Guardian. Foreign Policy Magazine.

+1.  I also like Democracy Now with Amy Goodman

When the newscasters change from journalists to "personalities", I tune out.  When reporters talk about their opinions or start too many sentences with "I", then I have little interest unless it's about something that they witnessed personally and they're trying to express the emotion of a horrific incident.  I want objective news, not opinions. 

I want to jump through the TV and throttle Bill O'Reilly every time I see him.  It drives me crazy when he states as fact what other people must be feeling.  He lost me forever as a viewer when he interviewed the president of NOW years ago and just would not accept that it is possible for a woman to have an abortion and not feel guilty about it later.  I wanted to punch him then and I want to punch him now.  That must have been 20 or even 30 years ago and I'm still pissed that he wasn't pulled off the air for expressing his opinion instead of conducting an interview. 


vern

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2016, 11:32:01 PM »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2016, 03:58:05 AM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Do you have examples of this? I don't hold CNN to any higher standard than any other reporting source, but I generally find them trustworthy, if sometimes skewed.

There are plenty of examples that can be found in seconds on the internet and YouTube. Do your own research.

So the answer is "No." That's fine; I was just asking. I don't particularly hold YouTube up as a pillar of factual reporting; perhaps that's my own ignorance of their required journalistic standards. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2016, 04:11:26 AM »
Generally trust: CNN, Reuters, the Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times
   These sources lean left (my own bias as well) so it is a bit harder for me to assess just how biased they might be. However, they tend to be really good at citing their sources if possible and updating errors.

Somewhat trust: Fox News
   Leans right and often obviously frames things from a conservative standpoint, but that doesn’t mean the information presented is necessarily factually inaccurate in all cases. A good option to check if you are like me and are looking for another media outlet to include in your repertoire to try to counterbalance your own left leaning media bias.

This is pretty much the path I use. I've never found Fox's print media to be off-the wall terrible, or slanted any worse than CNN's, in general. FOX's television personalities are a different story, of course. I like to page through Fox every once and awhile - they often cover stories that few other outlets tackle, and it makes a good balance to CNN. (Though with all the FOX bashing, I feel that I've absorbed some of this and wouldn't trust Fox without at least some other outside verification. Probably needlessly biased on my part.)

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2016, 07:44:44 AM »
I changed my news consumption habits considerably after the election.  I do a scan of the headlines from all sources on this site first:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/current-news/ 

Quote
That's one of the reasons I like Vox.  Most of the time they don't engage in the clickbait headline shenanigans (although they have been creeping towards that) and their stories usually take the form of:  First bit facts.  Second bit background.  Third bit commentary.

I often disagree with the commentary, and lament the omission of certain facts or background, but it's a far sight better than most any other news site I have found as far as quickly distilling the information from the spin.

I also really like Vox for similar reasons.  Their policy podcast "The Weeds"  is also really good. 

P.S.  I don't honestly think you can have an unbiased news source.  Every news site has an agenda because they are run by humans. 

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2016, 07:58:58 AM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Do you have examples of this? I don't hold CNN to any higher standard than any other reporting source, but I generally find them trustworthy, if sometimes skewed.

There are plenty of examples that can be found in seconds on the internet and YouTube. Do your own research.

So the answer is "No." That's fine; I was just asking. I don't particularly hold YouTube up as a pillar of factual reporting; perhaps that's my own ignorance of their required journalistic standards.

I'm never said that YouTube is a "pillar of factual reporting". What I did was suggest you look because people have posted examples of their outright lies and selective editing and their on air apologies when they were caught lying.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2016, 08:13:13 AM »
It's been bandied about a lot lately about how the main stream media has a liberal bias, how fake news is rampant, how  the Internet has caused people to lock themselves in information bubbles instead of freeing them from propaganda, how opinion sites are being believed as if they were news and vice versa.

What does it take for you to believe a news source? If the facts presented lead you to a conclusion other than your own admitted bias, will you accept them or search for more facts until you find some that reconfirm your previous bias?  What are news sources that you commonly read and believe? What would you say the strengths and weaknesses of the sources are?
  I do not trust any news source.  I try to get my news from as many sources as I can.  Most lean heavily to the left, some lean to the right, but none of them just want to report facts.  They all like to push an agenda, and I keep that in mind when I am reading.

Sometimes it is difficult to get more than one source for the same story, though.  They use wire services, and sometimes they all report the same thing, word for word.

The most laughable thing is when people say, well, yes, most of the mainstream sources lean to the left, but there are these other sources that lean to the right, so it is overall balanced.

That just means I am getting biased, skewed reporting from two different directions.  Just give me the facts and let me draw my own conclusions.  I do not need to hear about how there are white, non-muslim mass murderers when reading a story about a muslim committing mass murder.  Nor do I need to read about how many muslim mass murders there are if I am seeking out another news source about the same event.  Just give me the details, and keep you speculations and conclusions to yourself.

But they can't do that.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2016, 09:09:26 AM »
So vern, in other words, what you're saying is you trust Wikileaks, right? It's helpful if people post not just what they don't trust, but post what they DO trust and why.

I'm trying to assimilate all the thoughts that have been thrown up by this thread, with my own.  It seems like most people agree that to be trustworthy, it helps to have "just the facts, ma'am" without spin or conclusions drawn by the journalist.  And of course that these facts should be accurate and complete.  By "complete", I mean that although an article may not include every detail of a scene, that it should sample the most salient details that are representative of the scene. That is, quoting a person but leaving out the word "not" is not complete, though it would be okay to leave out the word "the".  A YouTube video that shows the murder without the preceding struggle is not complete. So, a news source is not reliable if it reports only facts that support their main bias (such as reporting only the bad things that a politician says), or reports only negative things about one side, whether liberal or conservative. A good news source should seek out and report ALL the news.

It does not seem to be a requirement that the news source interpretation be balanced... in other words, the journalist does not have to equally defend several interpretations of the same facts. And that seems reasonable to me, since although every event will have as many viewpoints as there were people involved in the event, in many cases the facts will point to a single conclusion. In short, the facts themselves will be biased.

I agree that the news source should do its own investigative reporting.  And since nobody is perfect, the news source has to have a mechanism to admit wrongdoing and police its own journalists for fraud and negligence.

So here's the checklist so far:
  • Does own reporting
  • Cites sources
  • Reports a complete or representative sample of the facts for each article
  • Reports a complete or representative sample of events
  • Minimizes journalistic interpretation
  • Avoids sensationalism
  • Admits and acts to correct errors when applicable

What did I miss?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 09:12:21 AM by Poundwise »

cube.37

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2016, 11:41:43 AM »
I think all news sources have an agenda. I try to glance at Politico, NYT, WSJ and Fox news to see what everyone has to say about something.

Bicycle_B

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
  • Mustachian-ish in Live Music Capital of the World
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2016, 05:28:03 PM »
I changed my news consumption habits considerably after the election.  I do a scan of the headlines from all sources on this site first:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/current-news/ 

Quote
That's one of the reasons I like Vox.  Most of the time they don't engage in the clickbait headline shenanigans (although they have been creeping towards that) and their stories usually take the form of:  First bit facts.  Second bit background.  Third bit commentary.

I often disagree with the commentary, and lament the omission of certain facts or background, but it's a far sight better than most any other news site I have found as far as quickly distilling the information from the spin.

I also really like Vox for similar reasons.  Their policy podcast "The Weeds"  is also really good. 

P.S.  I don't honestly think you can have an unbiased news source.  Every news site has an agenda because they are run by humans.

Thanks for posting the mediabiasfactcheck.com link.  I had never heard of them before.  That and the Vox explanation just expanded my source list for sorting out the issues.

Sometimes I listen to the radio show "On the Media" to understand some of the issues underlying biased media coverage.  Their reports are detailed, thoughtful, fact based though not limited to facts (they also express opinions, or their sources do).  Focused on decoding media bias regarding specific news items, and understanding the workings of modern media in general.  Podcast link: http://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2016, 05:56:39 PM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Do you have examples of this? I don't hold CNN to any higher standard than any other reporting source, but I generally find them trustworthy, if sometimes skewed.

There are plenty of examples that can be found in seconds on the internet and YouTube. Do your own research.

So the answer is "No." That's fine; I was just asking. I don't particularly hold YouTube up as a pillar of factual reporting; perhaps that's my own ignorance of their required journalistic standards.

I'm never said that YouTube is a "pillar of factual reporting". What I did was suggest you look because people have posted examples of their outright lies and selective editing and their on air apologies when they were caught lying.

CNN may be biased cooperate news. It is selective in what it airs based on its agenda. When pundits talk its mostly biased hot air trying to control the conversation. They clearly even prep panelists and send them on air with little research to inject loaded questions.

But when they actually report news and events they generally don't blatantly lie. They report sources and gather verifiable real world information. The rely on real reporting from news papers even if they spin the conversation that results from the news. This is not what fake news is.

Fake news is literally made up information that is spread as the truth by blogs, and sketchy internet news sites with out any reasonable level of fact checking or investigation. The resulting conversation is then not only biased but misinformed.

A news agency like CNN generally tries to ensure that they at least get their account of events and data from a reputable source. And they also generally admit when there is an error in the facts they report. Most smaller popular internet sites and shows make no such guarantee.

You can get good information from Fox and CNN as long as you aware of the propaganda they peddle with 99% of the unnecessary air time the use to keep your eyeballs glued to the screen.

Most TV news is just re-reporting of news gathered by reputable papers and then rehashed to be entertaining with lots of bullshit conversation.


Kriegsspiel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2016, 06:04:16 PM »
Wouldn't it be comforting, on the whole, to just take all newspapers at their word? Trump is Hitler, butter is good for you, the email servers, Russia doesn't have troops in Ukraine, six-pack abs with this little pill, global warming, 150 year old ladies in Africa. At least you could take solace in the fact that aliens have expressed their intent to take us away from here. Us and Elvis.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2016, 06:00:10 AM »
The most trustworthy news sources just happen to be those with biases which I agree with the most. Imagine that!

Bicycle_B

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
  • Mustachian-ish in Live Music Capital of the World
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2016, 08:52:34 AM »
The most trustworthy news sources just happen to be those with biases which I agree with the most. Imagine that!

Priceless

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2016, 09:06:03 AM »
If you aware of the bias you can get good news a lot of different places.  CNN, FOX and BBC are my go to places (although I love VICE for more in depth reporting).  If the article is only on one site, you disregard it.  Take the reporting from CNN and Foxnews, split the difference and you have the truth.

Papa Mustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Humidity, USA
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2016, 12:52:32 PM »
There have been several times when I happened to be there when something newsworthy happened. Every time when i read about it later they had it completely wrong. Not because they were slanting the news, just because they didn't know what they were doing.

A relative was once interviewed on TV as an expert, and he said the thing they were discussing was definitely not a hazard. When he saw himself on TV later they had edited it so he was heard to say it was definitely a hazard. Oops, they accidentally cut out the not.

So you'd think I wouldn't believe anything I heard on the news, but for some unknown reason I still believe what they tell me.

Yep. This.

An anecdote: I was once in Carthage, TN at a Sonic Drive-In having a burger on a drive through the TN backroads. This was when Al Gore was noteworthy in the mainstream news. A west coast reporter was looking for someone to interview about him.

She chose some locals who probably did not graduate high school and started asking some tough questions that they were not prepared to answer. Dw and I feared that she was just extending the stereotype of the dumb white hick. We are from the south and we love it here. There are indeed uninformed people here but like everywhere else there are all types of people and all levels of education.

Sure hope she also went on to interview some well informed locals too like a doctor or an engineer or a business owner. 

Bicycle_B

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
  • Mustachian-ish in Live Music Capital of the World
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2016, 02:39:10 PM »
There have been several times when I happened to be there when something newsworthy happened. Every time when i read about it later they had it completely wrong. Not because they were slanting the news, just because they didn't know what they were doing.

A relative was once interviewed on TV as an expert, and he said the thing they were discussing was definitely not a hazard. When he saw himself on TV later they had edited it so he was heard to say it was definitely a hazard. Oops, they accidentally cut out the not.

So you'd think I wouldn't believe anything I heard on the news, but for some unknown reason I still believe what they tell me.

Yep. This.

An anecdote: I was once in Carthage, TN at a Sonic Drive-In having a burger on a drive through the TN backroads. This was when Al Gore was noteworthy in the mainstream news. A west coast reporter was looking for someone to interview about him.

She chose some locals who probably did not graduate high school and started asking some tough questions that they were not prepared to answer. Dw and I feared that she was just extending the stereotype of the dumb white hick. We are from the south and we love it here. There are indeed uninformed people here but like everywhere else there are all types of people and all levels of education.

Sure hope she also went on to interview some well informed locals too like a doctor or an engineer or a business owner.

I take what they say with a grain of salt because when I've been involved in newsworthy events, news reports sometimes had bias depending on the subject matter, including a tendency to exaggerate sensational aspects instead of expressing the whole picture.  Thus a 99% peaceful protest might be described by referring to the one brief incident of violence, ignoring the vast mass of peaceful protest actions. 

But where underlying facts were reported, they were usually reported accurately. Several times I have been surprised at how accurate news reports were.  This is worth noting because it's more hopeful AND accurate to know that there is informational value in many reports, as opposed to the helpless and false belief that there is no reliable information available.

alsoknownasDean

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2843
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #34 on: December 09, 2016, 06:09:43 AM »
At the top of the tree I'd put the major non-commercial (public broadcaster) news outlets. The ABC here in Australia (and the BBC for international stuff). Not relying mainly on advertiser revenue (read: paid per set of eyeballs) to survive means that there's less of a likelihood of outrageous sensationalist articles or clickbait.

After that there'd be the non-tabloid major commercial news outlets or longer-term subject or industry-specific news sources, although of course being commercial organisations their main focus is generating revenue, and hence are more likely to go down the path of sensationalist reporting or reporting from a particular viewpoint.

'New media' is generally mixed. Some of it's OK, others less reliable. Take with a grain of salt unless they've been around a while and won journalism awards.

Below that there's the tabloids, blatantly biased stuff such as Breitbart, any outlet which relies heavily on GIFs in their articles (I'm looking at you Buzzfeed), etc.

Of course nothing is completely unbiased, it's just which biases you notice or agree with. Ultimately I'd consider news sources that had a good longer-term track record (including winning journalism awards) as more trustworthy, but of course any commercial news outlet has profit as its main motive.

A healthy level of cynicism is important to have :)
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 06:11:16 AM by alsoknownasDean »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: What does it take for you to consider a news source to be trustworthy?
« Reply #35 on: December 09, 2016, 09:08:57 AM »
I've lost track of how many times CNN has been caught outright lying.

The recent election should have made the blatant media bias obvious to everyone.

Lamestream Media sucks, man! Amirite?