Real News

With all this talk about fake news and dishonest media I am just curious if anyone has any suggestions or recommendations as to where they go to receive real, honest, true, and unbiased news? I'm a big fan of the Christian Science Monitor as their motto is "do no harm to anyone" and they do seem on the whole balanced and goin depth with things. I can't stand news sources like Breitbart, Drudge Report, or the Huffington Post. Where outside of Fox News can we really find fair and balanced reporting?

Years ago, I would say, "US News and World Report". (It was so boring it had to be true).

A news source can be 100% truthful and yet what it leaves out can make the reporting deceptive.

And personally, I think you should give most new reports 24 hours before swearing on your life something is true, because these organizations trying to get the news out, will make mistakes early on. That's aside from being intentionally wrong or just a hard right or left bias.

I think you fail to realise that NEWS is now part of the ENTERTAINMENT budget.

TV networks do not really focus on anything but ratings and revenue.

Featherbedding rules made the NYTimes a 'charity' and inheritance tax laws made its sale inevitable.

The Atlanta Constitution and the Christian Science Monitor were runners up at the time but economic pressures and the internet degrade quality.

Journalism traditions? The tabloids in NYC once took a secretary home to be photographed with her legs sticking out of a bathtub and published the photo as if it were a crime scene photo. The Journal American was publishing quotations about Titanic victims before ANY survivors had been able to communicate anything at all.

Its not just a problem for citizens. During Three Mile Island the governor of Pennsylvania felt he was getting endless public relations guff from the utility rather than the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It later turned out that he was getting severely lied to.

In many areas, there are no independent experts. And there are only extreme views, no middle ground at all.
Economic impact of sports stadiums; Mammograms; charter schools; Heroin Overdose deaths; Pre-School Day Care; Foreskin removal; Flossing; Flouridation. Just look at my recent post about reversing the age old advice on stopping antibiotics when you feel better. When does 'right' and 'wrong' get judged when pendulums swing based on popular viewpoints? Consider the JonBenet Ramsey case: one woman spoke of 'grapefruit sized feces globs in a five year old's bed'. Any five year old girl would be dead if that had been happening, but tabloids are not troubled. (Though they may soon be: several million dollars in damages involved in lawsuits against a coroner and against a TV network).

The Christian Science Monitor used to have more clout and respect but the Cult of Christian Science is struggling financially. The white palm beach suited political commentator had great respect but he retired eons ago.

The World Report used to be the most well respected opinion magazine in the USA, but its headline of "Peace in the Pacific" on the issue dated Dec 7, 1941 was the death knell and it had to merge with US News to become USNews and World Report. Anyone looking at shipping columns in newspapers world wide could plainly see that all Japanese merchant ships were marching across the Pacific to be in the safety of the home waters by Dec 8th.

There is a term in journalism now "longform". It represents a manner of treating a subject other than the short simple sentences of People Magazine. The trouble is that many people prefer people magazine to lengthy, scholarly in-depth coverage of a topic. People seem to want to be entertained. Its like that New Yorker cartoon: Thank You. That was Jaimee with the Republican News, now here is Alice with the Democratic News.

You want to hear the 'news' Padre? Put on street clothes and take coffee in a homeless shelter, a rehab residence, a workingman's coffee shop, and in your own church's Senior Day Care 'day room'.


Consider Shirley McKie a police constable in Scotland who was hounded out of her job, arrested, tried, jailed, villified in the press and in government circles despite the simple fact that despite the Fingerprint Office saying her prints matched one found at a crime scene, they did in fact not match at all and each and every one of the four technicians testifying were lying. They were not mistaken, they were lying. Yet even a parliamentary inquiry was sidetracked because it was politically necessary that the Scottish system be unblemished because of the Lockerbie Trial then about to take place. The truth shall set you free? Hah! She was railroaded into the nuthouse and the truth never emerged, only outright lies and innuendo.

You have to go to a bunch of places. Drudge
writes nothing, he links to other sites. Most
of what he links to is the real thing, his rep
depends on it. It's a fact that every news
agency depends heavily on Drudge because
he does all the heavy lifting for them, he's
on top of everything. He's number
one for a reason, he's the news religion for
both Right and Left.

Brietbart also does a lot of linking. Mostly
you have to stay abreast of what everybody
in the media is reporting on, if they're all
doing one story, there's something to it.

I subscribe to CNN MSNBC and FOX on Youtube.
When I go there they will have all the top
stories being reported by all 3 networks. They
have video from recent interviews, it's a good
way to keep up.

Quote: FrGamble

With all this talk about fake news and dishonest media I am just curious if anyone has any suggestions or recommendations as to where they go to receive real, honest, true, and unbiased news? I'm a big fan of the Christian Science Monitor as their motto is "do no harm to anyone" and they do seem on the whole balanced and goin depth with things. I can't stand news sources like Breitbart, Drudge Report, or the Huffington Post. Where outside of Fox News can we really find fair and balanced reporting?

Well, I hope you understand that Fox News is the LAST place you'll find such reporting--they are rabidly right-wing. I agree for the most part about the CSM, but they also have a political agenda. The Huffington Post is a news aggregator, which means that if you can get past their partisan leanings, you'll actually see a lot of good sources.

I've found that CNN generally gives a balanced view of things. MSNBC does a good job as well. As far as print sources go, I find the LA Times and the New York Times to be very comprehensive. I used to read the WSJ, but a few of their recent articles have been horrifyingly right-wing.

Quote: stinkingliberal

I've found that CNN generally gives a balanced view of things. MSNBC does a good job as well.

I totally agree. They give the Left point of
view splendidly, and they're proud of it.
CNN was referred to as the Clinton News
Network during the campaign for a very
good reason. MSNBC has ratings in the
toilet because they are rabidly Left wing.
You can't find 2 better sources for trashing
the Trump presidency. They are the gold
standard.

Quote: Evenbob

I totally agree. They give the Left point of
view splendidly, and they're proud of it.
CNN was referred to as the Clinton News
Network during the campaign for a very
good reason. MSNBC has ratings in the
toilet because they are rabidly Left wing.
You can't find 2 better sources for trashing
the Trump presidency. They are the gold
standard.

Yes, Bob, be a Trumper parrot. Every news source that criticizes Trump is fake news and horribly biased. Speak the words of your orange master, Bob. Don't ever think for yourself. (And here's where you accuse me of being a Hillary puppet or some such EB drivel.)

You worship Breitbart and other alt-right white supremacist "news" sites because you agree with their loathsome worldview. You don't seem to have any original thoughts--you let the wife-beater and thug Bannon think for you.

Not something to be proud of, Bob.

Quote: Evenbob

You have to go to a bunch of places. Drudge
writes nothing, he links to other sites. Most
of what he links to is the real thing, his rep
depends on it. It's a fact that every news
agency depends heavily on Drudge because
he does all the heavy lifting for them, he's
on top of everything. He's number
one for a reason, he's the news religion for
both Right and Left.

I use Drudge but I also eliminate sources I have found with a bad rep. For example, CBS faked docs in 2000 and buried the Monica story. Sorry C-BS, you have lost credibility for life with me. NBC set fire to pick-up trucks to make a news story and altered 911 tapes to make a guy look racist. Bye bye, NBC, you are not missed.

Then one other thing is learn to look for lamestreams jumping on the "word of the day bandwagon." Limbaugh pointed this out when they were using the word "gravitas" when Bush was looking for a running mate. They do not do this every day, but they do do it. They can be defending their guy or attacking the other. But it is lazy journalism at best and bias at worst. The more you see it, the more to question the source.

http://www.refdesk.com/
I check the AP news feed to the right
You can change the newsfeed to different sources but I pretty much just check AP

https://news.google.com/
an excellent news aggregate but it also knows all my interests and had a section (suggested for you) of stories it thinks I will be interested in due to all my various obscure interests.

I then take a glance at CNN, Huff Post then Fox and Breibart for laughs. I found it fascinating that during the Michael Flynn fiasco, for a short time, Breibart had nothing on their front page regarding Michael Flynn. Nothing while just about every sites news headline was Flynn quitting or being fired. Finally they put up a story regarding all about leaks and how bad the leaks are for the country mentioning Flynn.

Quote: FrGamble

Where outside of Fox News can we really find fair and balanced reporting?

Definitely not inside of Fox News.