In this post-truth media landscape, what news sources/publications do you use & trust the most, and why?
deleted by creator
AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Guardian
This helps: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias
Reuters and AP have both been extremely biased towards the perpetrators of the Gaza genocide.
Reuters lied about Maccabi supporters attacking Dutch people and manufacturen fake outrage about pogroms.
Reuters also said they confirmed oct7 rape footage evidence which turned out to be a lie because it does not exist.
ABC NBC CBS AP NPR Guardian
Lol
None of them have blanket trust. Read each article, dig through half a pound of bullshit to get to the facts behind the click bait headline. Then see if that makes sense. Seek out second source if the topic requires it.
this. id say always check second sources if you are in doubt.
every media company has its own bias (usually influenced by the owner) and you have to know what they are to understand what they will be manipulating or what agenda they will be pushing along with the actual facts.
factor that in to your reading of the news and you will get a much better view of things.
None in isolation.
CBC is a pretty reliable go-to although they’re more than a bit pandering these days. BBC is similar. Al Jazeera is pretty reliable for things not related to Islam and Palestine in particular (although they’re not as biased as they could be). AP is fairly neutral. Aside from that, it’s non-legacy Canadian sources like the Walrus and the Tyee, which all have their problems but are good at exposing reality.
Al Jazeera is infinity more reliable on Palestine then BBC or AP are, though.
As others have said no one source should have blanket trust.
Understanding the bias the source may have by looking up who owns/funds it and understanding how that might skew what you’re reading is important.
For news based on studies I usually will try to directly to the study which should list the methodology which will help show how well done it was.
If I have time later I’ll put together a list of ones I use and what I’ve seen as their biases.
NPR, NYT, BBC. I have my criticisms, but seldom are these sources factually incorrect.
No single source. I like how Verity collates the facts and the spins from multiple sources across the web.
Why should I trust Ground News, a for-profit company, on what the media biases are?
I get what you’re saying. However, their entire business model is predicated on them being impartial. If it turned out that they were biased, their business would collapse.
That’s only true up to a certain size. If Ground News ever grows big, they’ll still retain enough of a user base regardless of what they’re doing. Compare it to e.g. Meta, Google, MS services. Or even X. Many people just never leave once they feel at home there. Meta could do even more disgusting stuff and people would still use WhatsApp, Instagram, and the likes.
The environmental sensors on my local network.
I ask gemini and take everything it says as 100% fact 🙏
None. When was the last time you saw an actual headline not click-bait?
News is not about issues anymore - since the advent of 24 hr TV last century - It’s about filling time until the next exposé about Meghan frigging Markle, or some influencer of zero repute who overdosed.
Trust to be accurate or trust to be unbiased? I trust the hyperlocal paper to be unbiased but the articles are all over the place. I trust most large publications to be accurate but with their articles and editorials in line with the paper’s overall bias.
I’ve stopped paying attention to what any regular news source says about anything themselves since it is all basically profit driven and therefore unreliable. Rather I just pay attention to sources where I can see what is said or done from the horses mouth directly, and then pay attention to people’s reactions to such things.
These are usually few and far between, but I’m talking about what was written or said by specific persons with the clear source of it coming from their personally verified outlets.
I also wait on this information before thinking too much about it as well because god knows if someone catches something out for being AI generated or a deepfake or what have you in this day and age. After a few days it gains some actual credibility as coming from that person and being the genuine article.
It is also important to still not trust what any one persons says about something else as well, or even multiple persons. I can never really trust what is said by anyone as facts anymore - rather this only gives insight into that specific persons opinions on the other thing.
In the face of mountains of clear evidence and individually verified sources from many multiple persons - then and only then can I begin to trust something as fact.
BBC and CBC. They’re not unbiased, but I haven’t found any better.
