Most Accurate News Source

[Twilight Hue]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

I follow the money. Influenced sources are more prone to fake news or an uncanny bias.

Never forget Sinclair.

The beholden collective obediently does the bidding of its master.

 

[Fool]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

some don't want the truth. they want to be in power. they don't want to serve anyone else. they want the truth to look they think it should be and not as it is

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

For science, probably Scientific America or Nature.

Thinking to media coverage of my own work and subject matter I'm familiar with, mainstream general media can often lack important nuance.

This isn't because of any particular bias; it's just that the reporters are often generalists who aren't that well-versed in technical topics.

 

[Polymath257]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

For *science* sources, look to professional journals and places where research papers are published. The journals 'Science' and "Nature' are high quality. Even if you can't read their articles (they are often quite specialized), they often have an editorial summary that puts the articles into perspective.

Don't rely on a single article. Research is messy and often goes into corners before it frees itself. it isn't always understood how to interpret a new result when it is found. Often, it can take years or decades for a consensus to build. But that is as it should be.

Go read university level textbooks. They are more likely to have the more recent information included, although that is not guaranteed. Start with the basics: physics, chemistry, biology, geology. Get a *solid* basis in those and then spread out to get more detail and into other areas. it might also be a good idea to get some math under your belt: calculus contains some very basic ideas that are used universally in the sciences.

 

[Polymath257]

For science, probably Scientific America or Nature.

Thinking to media coverage of my own work and subject matter I'm familiar with, mainstream general media can often lack important nuance.

This isn't because of any particular bias; it's just that the reporters are often generalists who aren't that well-versed in technical topics.

I want to second this. Often, science reporting in the popular press is just bad and distorted. As you say, the nuances are gone and the accuracy declines because of that.

Even the *good* news sources get the science wrong because of the simple fact that journalists aren't trained in science. That means they report what they *hear* the scientists saying. Unfortunately, what they hear is often not what is actually said or meant. But to hear it correctly takes *training* in the relevant area of science.

I often use Science Daily, but is doesn't have any general articles and it can be tricky to figure out the relevance of any particular article. There be dragons!

Oh, I'd say do Science, not Scientific American, al though the latter isn't bad, it has become a lot more gee-whiz over the decades. American Scientist is also good.

 

[Bodie]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

My suggestion is never rely on only one source or one countries media outlets for information or even fact checking (who fact checks the fact checkers?) if you have an issue you want to research read a number of different sources, what seems a common thread through all is most likely the closest you will get to the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see how very far outside that rectangle Fox "news" is. So sad that's the main news source for a lot of folks who buy whatever lies of the day the politicians wish to feed them.

FOX News years ago was roughly equivalent to CNN. Both were higher than they are now too by quite a bit. Unfortunately Trump happened. Trump dragged FOX down with him and what used to be a source that was as reliable as CNN, but slightly to the right, became a far right conspiracy station. I miss the old FOX where. Even there opinion was far better. Do you remember Hannity and Colmes? They could each drag the other away from the loony side of their beliefs at times. When they ended that partnership Hannity's show only became more and more crazy right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even the *good* news sources get the science wrong because of the simple fact that journalists aren't trained in science. That means they report what they *hear* the scientists saying. Unfortunately, what they hear is often not what is actually said or meant. But to hear it correctly takes *training* in the relevant area of science.

I have to forgive the journalists a bit, because often, the first point of distortion is with the research institution's own PR department.

 

[sun rise]

Please expound.

Actually I feel that way even @mikkel_the_dane retracted it. There are stories that don't get distorted because they don't involve politics, religion, government and some other topics. So I try to remain conscious of the outlet when I'm reading such stories.

I also have no issue with reading stories in the yellow section because some opinion pieces have interesting points as long as I don't mistake opinion for fact. And it's worthwhile to me to have the thoughts of the sane left and the sane right in mind.

 

[metis]

The point of this thread is to examine the sources to in fact see for ourselves and not take anyone’s opinion like op-outcthe media bias sites.

"Nice" cop-out, but that comes as no surprise. PolitiFact is used by those on both sides, thus it's not like MediaMatters that indeed has a left of center bent.

If your response would have been anything but a smokescreen for you to ignore what it concluded, you'd have posted a link to show that it's not accurate-- but you didn't.

Thus, you simply cannot be taken seriously. And anyone who uses multiple sources as I do 6 days a week, they would know just how biased and inaccurate Fox is, as it was created to reflect "conservative values" by Murdock. But then, maybe you didn't get his "memo".

 

[ElishaElijah]

"Nice" cop-out, but that comes as no surprise. PolitiFact is used by those on both sides, thus it's not like MediaMatters that indeed has a left of center bent.

If your response would have been anything but a smokescreen for you to ignore what it concluded, you'd have posted a link to show that it's not accurate-- but you didn't.

Thus, you simply cannot be taken seriously. And anyone who uses multiple sources as I do 6 days a week, they would know just how biased and inaccurate Fox is, as it was created to reflect "conservative values" by Murdock. But then, maybe you didn't get his "memo".

Not sure what you’re talking about, seems you’re having a conversation with yourself or something

 

[metis]

Not sure what you’re talking about, seems you’re having a conversation with yourself or something

And the above is of no surprise either as if we've never repeatedly read your posts.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And the above is of no surprise either as if we've never repeatedly read your posts.

You would be better off trolling somewhere else, not into engaging in your type of conversation, it’s just divisive.

 

[pearl]

I know people who depend on Facebook for their news. Well they may be lost if they can no longer find Facebook as it has changed its name to Meta.
Wonder why.

 

[ElishaElijah]

@metis
If you’ve got some good, truthful sources then please share those. The other comments are not necessary.

 

[metis]

@metis
If you’ve got some good, truthful sources then please share those. The other comments are not necessary.

It doesn't make a difference because you'll just invent another "story" so as to ignore what it says.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It doesn't make a difference because you'll just invent another "story" so as to ignore what it says.

That’s not me brother, only concerned with the Truth. Sometimes people project their own bias on other people so maybe that’s you. That’s another purpose of this thread, to find some common ground when discussing issues.

Pick a news story from the past like Russia Collusion or another story, now that the truth came out and we have
more information on what happened, then go back in time and see what was reported and by who.

 

[metis]

Pick a news story from the past like Russia Collusion or another story, now that the truth came out and we have
more information on what happened, then go back in time and see what was reported and by who.

Yes, we do have more information that's surfaced on that item, but that'll have to wait for another day. You should also remember that Mueller chose not to pursue that item but went after two others, which Trump was impeached on that included some Republican votes as well.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes, we do have more information that's surfaced on that item, but that'll have to wait for another day. You should also remember that Mueller chose not to pursue that item but went after two others, which Trump was impeached on that included some Republican votes as well.

Now that we know that Russia Collusion was a set-up, the impeachment based on false information, any good journalist and news source worth its salt would’ve figured this out and reported the truth. Now looking back it’s easy to see the frauds. So which news source was on to the truth of this story from the beginning?

 

[metis]

Now that we know that Russia Collusion was a set-up, the impeachment based on false information, any good journalist and news source worth its salt would’ve figured this out and reported the truth.

You got it wrong. The Steele Dossier was based on hearsay info from some Russian amd Dutch sources, which is what Steele referred to it as being unverified. The irony is that it was the Pubs that had primary interest in it but backed out after Trump got the GOP nomination.

Now looking back it’s easy to see the frauds.

Again, Mueller did not pursue that as he said, thus you don't know what you're talking about. We do know with certainly that there was some collusion with some in Trump's staff, but whether Trump himself was directly involved is either unclear or that the fact that he could not be prosecuted on this being he was president.

So which news source was on to the truth of this story from the beginning?

It certainly wasn't Fox if that's what you're implying, and anyone who uses Fox as their only or main news source is not being very intelligent as it was created by Murdock to "reflect conservative values", and we certainly are seeing that in spades right now as it is unabashedly the "Trump News Channel". And this is not the only country Murdock's "yellow journalism" shows, btw.