Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Who verifies the media verification site?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How/Why could/should we trust Mainstream Media sources?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Various sources across the web will identify dodgy verification sites. Easy to Google. And of course, that with a little savvy about what is happening.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I still think the best methodology is cross referencing and looking for the differences and similarities.
That explains a lot.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sometimes one needs to be their own gumshoe.
So does that.
I would say that so long as what you are investigating is varied and not particularly playing to your particular believe them you may have a point.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Independent journalists I have followed in the past have researched these “fact checking” organizations, particularly who bankrolls the “fact checkers”. But those who report on stuff contrary to what the mainstream media says are labeled as “conspiracy theorists”.
Are we supposed to trust the “fact checkers” because they say “Hey, we are fact checkers! And CNN is cool!”.
I’m paywalled from visiting the news source that I trust where I can get evidence and information showing who bankrolls these fact checkers. So that’s unfortunate, but I will eventually have full access and I’ll come back to these threads I make and present evidence.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's because you think for yourself and don't allow others to do the thinking for you.
Never give that up.
Fact checkers are for those who desire another to do all the thinking for them.
Or to verify or refute ones thinking
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. You asked a question about how we can assess sources of information - the answer is media literacy. What assumptions were made by answering your question with a correct answer? Anyone who wants to know how to properly assess sources of information can and should become media literate. It wasn't a character judgement.
To add, I'm not sure who this "you guys" are, but I haven't been pointing at "fact checking" sites. I've been pointing at the importance of media literacy and knowing how to evaluate sources of information. Media literacy is more or less means practicing critical thinking, which includes asking the exact sorts questions you raise here.
Why did you create this thread, anyway? I am beginning to wonder about the intentions behind it.
[As an aside - asking about the intentions of the author is one of the important hallmarks of practicing media literacy - does the author have an agenda and what is that agenda?]
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Well.... it's kind of hard to be funded by middle class people. These people generally don't have the budget to fund big media outlets.
A media outlet, which requires much money to operate, is always going to have a bunch of rich folks funding it. That, or state funded - which you won't trust either for the same reason.
Ironically, you have no problem trusting Russian state funded media channels.
**mod edit**
Last edited by a moderator:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The mainstream media have a list of ethical traditions that help keep their stories accurate. These are things like having multiple sources, verifying a source is credible, fact checking, passing muster with the review board.... You simply have nothing like that on YouTube or social media.
Do they sometimes make mistakes? Yes. It's very rare, but sometimes they don't keep their own rules, and stick their foot in their mouths. As far as outright lying, I know of only one case in my lifetime (Fox News and the Dominion voting machine scandal).
All of this means that the facts they present will be accurate. Now, this doesn't mean they don't have their biases, but their bias is not in the stories, it is in WHICH stories they choose to run or not.
My conclusions? The mainstream media is not perfect, but it is the best place to go for reliable news.