OccultHawk

I think media literacy and determining reliability in sources is getting harder even for educated people so I’m wondering who do you trust?

Also, I thought it might be interesting to discuss news articles, not on how we feel about the news but rather how we feel about how this news was presented. Bias, clickbait, echo-chamber, disguised advertising, and so on.

Same with studies, journals, data from government sources - anything

And what does subjective and objective even mean. Is it better if the mirage of objectivity is destroyed and the bias is laid bare? Any of that.

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

ando here

Well, I don't trust most of them. However, BBC World, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and The Associated Press will generally give me up to date info without undue editorializing. John Hopkins website for Covid-19 numbers. NewYork1 (Spectrum cable channel) for local developments.

And I still listen to the radio. Brian Lehrer talk show, M-F mornings on WNYC (FM) for local stuff and an admittedly progressive slant of national news. Various other radio talk shows (including sports nonsense) up and down the dial. AM radio remains rife with reactionary/"conservative" talk (not discussion, I don't care what they claim) so, other than the Mets or a random gospel show I steer clear. I can remember when listening to AM radio was cool. But I digress.

The New York Times is little more than fodder (even the weekly "Book Review"). The Wall Street Journal almost always seems to beat them to developing events. For national papers I guess The Washington Post is the go to sheet (imo).

Oh, and Smart News, which is almost exclusively local pulp (which has a utility if you want a clue about your homicidal neighbor) I keep on my backup cell. Dip into that every now and then.

Ever see the movie, Roshomon? It's like that with every story, unfortunately. Discernment's in the reading, not the dissemination. Know what I mean?

The Batlord

Honestly if I just feel like the source is a human being and not a grifter I'm good. Even if I don't agree withe the person or people at least I'm getting something honest.

__________________

OccultHawk

Rashomon. Yes. And I speak Japanese (poorly) so please excuse the spelling correction. Also, as great and respected as Akira Kurosawa is, the short story its based on, In a Grove, by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa is even more essential as a work of art and ranks near the top of all the short stories I’ve ever read.

I know what you mean.

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

Trollheart

Fox News, Newsmax, OAN...

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

OccultHawk

Define “grifter” because I wonder who tf isn’t sometimes

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

OccultHawk

Commentary aside. If they’re reporting a basic event I think it’s fair to assume it really happened.

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

The Batlord

Someone who I feel isn't giving an honest opinion and is putting on a performance for cash money. Obviously that's subjective but I don't think it's as hard to figure out as it's made to be.

Honestly just moving through the world and talking to people I think the human race is largely incompetent at recognizing grifters and I don't ****ing know why cause it often isn't as hard as people make it. I think it's more that people don't want to accept that civilization is built so closely and profoundly around grifters that people mold their expectations to ignore the obvious to maintain their sanity cause if they saw what was obvious it would be supremely disheartening and demand immediate revolution

__________________

adidasss

The Guardian, obvs. The Washington Post seems to be their U.S. equivalent but The Guardian is the one I read on a daily basis. I don't watch TV so written media and the internet is my source of news.

I also read newspapers from Malaysia (live here), Croatia (from there) and Spain (hubby is from there and plan to live there one day), and in all three cases choose the more liberal, progressive papers.

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

Trollheart

Hardly. These are (were) the people who constantly pushed Trump's fantasy of voter fraud and basically licked his arse until suddenly they lost the taste and had to rejoin the real world. I wouldn't trust a thing they say. ****s. Just because they're no longer an arm of the Trump Fake News Network, just because he's got even more insane, dangerous, right-right-right-leaning networks to spout his nonsense on now does not make Fox suddenly a trusted news source. They're just a slightly lesser evil now, but still evil.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018