Society What makes you trust a news source?

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
There's a lot of anti mainstream media sentiment in the air these days. Alternative and non-traditional sources of print and new media have seen growing enthusiasm among some.

So when you are choosing your preferred media source, be it alternative or mainstream, how do you go about selecting it? What do you look for in a news provider that allows you to trust them?
 
Last edited:

Gay For Longo

*insert Matt Serra meme
Jan 22, 2016
16,758
18,014
There's a lot of anti mainstream media sentiment in the air these days. Alternative and non-traditional sources of print and new media have seen growing enthusiasm among some.

So when you are choosing your preferred media source, be it alternative or mainstream, how do you go about selcting it? What do you look for in a news provider that allows you to trust them?
Don't trust any news source
Not everyone is bought and paid for, but every news source I've seen has some sort of bias attached
Read/listen to what they have to say, use critical thinking, do research if necessary
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Don't trust any news source
Not everyone is bought and paid for, but every news source I've seen has some sort of bias attached
Read/listen to what they have to say, use critical thinking, do research if necessary
Where do you do your research?
 

TalkingLeaf

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2015
443
959
Don't rely on one. Gotta use many different sources, see each sides take on an issue, try to find independent expert opinions, ignore political operatives opinions.

It's an impossible task to accumulate all the info really needed for an informed position on most complex subjects. We really are filled with mostly blind opinions.
 

Gay For Longo

*insert Matt Serra meme
Jan 22, 2016
16,758
18,014
Where do you do your research?
Generally speaking,
Find out what the topic is, go to duckduckgo and do searches on it. read articles from different view points because they all have some truths in there.
Sometimes further research is needed, but then it really depends on the topic is

Be open to the idea that all sides are lying to you
 

sparkuri

Pulse On The Finger Of The Community
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
34,420
46,562
If the journalists and editors are blackballed/dying.
 

megatherium

el rey del mambo
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
8,798
11,164
I recall in the sixties the network news coverage was very serious and comprehensive. The major networks had foreign bureaus and correspondents stationed at hot spots across the globe. The coffins of fallen US soldiers were seen being loaded off of helicopters returning from Vietnam on a nightly basis, bringing home the reality of war. Brutal footage off combat from embedded reporters was there every night. The coverage became gradually more and more critical of the mission as the years passed with Walter Cronkite and the CBS evening news leading the way. CBS was actually considered the gold standard for broadcast news at the time. families gathered together to watch the evening news around the country and could have informed discussion of the events of the day and discussions at the dinner table about the situation in Vietnam and did so. Of course this fueled the growing anti war sentiment in the US and of coarse the informed populace took to the streets to protest the war. These protests eventually succeeded and we all know the eventual outcome of that.

This is not the case today.
 

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,247
10,770
Even librarians are talking about how hard it is to trust previously trusted news sources, and they're posting more guides and having more conference sessions than ever about how to find good information.

One thing they've talked about is some newspapers publishing two versions of the same story, each leaving out some facts, for right- and left-wing clicks and retweets/sharing.

Another problem is the prevalence of anonymous sources, and also of single-source info - i.e., only one publication reports an incident, and it can't be confirmed by reading stories from other journalists citing their own sources.

The bottom line for me is that there aren't many news publications or programs I trust. It's more about individual journalists now, and also the ability to confirm individual news stories. If I care about a story and I'm not sure about how true it is, I will seek information from multiple places. It's time consuming, which is why I don't always keep up with the latest news, but I rarely take anything at face value anymore.
 

megatherium

el rey del mambo
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
8,798
11,164
Sy Hersh is good on war and the Middle East. He had to go to Germany to get his investigative piece on the sarin gas fugazi and Trump's subsequent bombing of the Syrian airfield published. The noose has been slowing tightening on the free press since the Reagan years.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,127
I judge media outlets based on reputation, who owns the company, and the nature of the advertisers. I look for rhetoric, euphemisms/dysphemisms, added opinion, personality of news person/journalist (attention seeker? semi-celebrity? etc), sensationalism, and agenda.

The news is business and money is the motivator.

Another problem is the prevalence of anonymous sources, and also of single-source info - i.e., only one publication reports an incident, and it can't be confirmed by reading stories from other journalists citing their own sources.
And this is a big problem right now. It adds this false value tot he message, which cannot be verified. And while I understand the importance of anonymous sources, I do believe it has been abused lately. Especially when they say " A unnamed person with knowledge of...", etc. that is when a red flag should present itself.

Can we trust the journalist to reveal ALL the information given to them through anonymous sources?
Are the motives of the unnamed sources thoroughly questioned?

We are required to put trust in the mainstream media in order to make such anonymous sources have ANY validity. And I feel that trust has been squandered as of late. The true cost of this petty back and forth between Mr. and Mrs. Smith aka Trump vs. The Media.

We let the media get away with it. We have more and more tuned into information we WANT to hear, not what we NEED to hear, so we bear a part of the responsibility as well.

TLDR: NPR biches.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Another problem is the prevalence of anonymous sources, and also of single-source info - i.e., only one publication reports an incident, and it can't be confirmed by reading stories from other journalists citing their own sources.
Do you think there's an increased prevalence of anonymity because of media chicanery or because in certain instances there are stiffer penalties (legal or professional) for speaking on the record? I've heard people discuss this as a problem, but it's seemed more pronounced to me mostly under the last two presidential administrations. Obama was pretty ruthless against whistleblowers and people in Trump's admin have expressed concerns that they would be vulnerable. In both cases, there were perceptions from within that the President is/was very inexperienced and lacked connections to the bureaucracy. As a result, insiders seemed to want to be sure that quality wasn't going to lead to blunders and used leaks either to influence policy or add transparency to it.

As a former journalist, I know editors hate anon sources. In the past, stories that relied on them were often spiked. But in today's "be first" click farming media environment it seems that policy has been relaxed.
 

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,247
10,770
Do you think there's an increased prevalence of anonymity because of media chicanery or because in certain instances there are stiffer penalties (legal or professional) for speaking on the record? I've heard people discuss this as a problem, but it's seemed more pronounced to me mostly under the last two presidential administrations. Obama was pretty ruthless against whistleblowers and people in Trump's admin have expressed concerns that they would be vulnerable. In both cases, there were perceptions from within that the President is/was very inexperienced and lacked connections to the bureaucracy. As a result, insiders seemed to want to be sure that quality wasn't going to lead to blunders and used leaks either to influence policy or add transparency to it.

As a former journalist, I know editors hate anon sources. In the past, stories that relied on them were often spiked. But in today's "be first" click farming media environment it seems that policy has been relaxed.
I think there are multiple reasons. It probably started out because of fear of retribution. But it definitely has been abused to be able to create news stories out of unconfirmed rumors by quoting random people. E.g. "someone familiar with the president's thinking", like what does that mean? Could even be anyone who follows the president, even through the media, giving an opinion. Or someone who worked for Trump years ago. Or just some completely random newswatcher on the street.

I definitely agree this is related to the "be first" culture the internet and social media have brought, and also the fact that journalists are often measured by clicks now, so fear- and hate-mongering are in their best interests.

Another element is the way the internet does often allow some level of anonymity to those expressing their opinions (kind of like me right now). I want to talk to all of you, but I don't want to put my relationships or career or loved ones in jeopardy in any way, or even just inconvenience them. It is more acceptable for me in this society to express my opinion anonymously. So even sources without a clear path to retribution are probably more likely to request anonymity for convenience.
 

KWingJitsu

ยาเม็ดสีแดงหรือสีฟ้ายา?
Nov 15, 2015
10,311
12,758
Believe what you want to believe, and then go find a "news source" that backs it up.

That's the way to go!