How do you know what media/sources to trust?

[Argus]

Well guess what? A study done by the Public Policy Forum has discovered the greatest source of fake news in Canada!

It's the mainstream media!

According to the report, those who get their news from mainstream outlets are more likely to give incorrect answers to questions about basic governmental policy issues.

“Survey respondents who read or watched more traditional news media were less likely to express uncertainty about policy questions than those with low consumption, but more likely to give an incorrect response,” it says.

When asking respondents to reply to statements on central policy issues like the environment, immigration and the economy, those with a high amount of traditional media consumption gave nearly twice as many incorrect answers than those with low traditional media consumption.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/mainstream-media-main-sources-misinformation-report/

[J4L]

From what I understand, CNN and the New York Times used to be impartial, but now they have developed a left-wing agenda, just like NBC, CBC, Macleans, and ABC. FOX and Rebel media tend to be right wing.  I trust CTV. They are usually fairly impartial.  Global News is also pretty fair.  I like the National Post, but many have said they are right-of-centre.

[scribblet]

I used to watch CNN as they were fairly middle of the road but not anymore, they've gone completely off the rails.

[eyeball]

59 minutes ago, scribblet said:

I used to watch CNN as they were fairly middle of the road but not anymore, they've gone completely off the rails.

Actually its audiences that are going off the rails. People just can't seem to accept news unless it's conditional or without getting indigestion.

[scribblet]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Actually its audiences that are going off the rails. People just can't seem to accept news unless it's conditional or without getting indigestion.

To some extent maybe, but CNN itself has gone off the rails,  like the source or not, this gives you an idea of what CNN is up to.  MSNBC isn`t any better.  

https://www.dailywire.com/news/18181/just-how-badly-cnn-collapsing-look-these-numbers-james-barrett

They didn`t do a great job moderating the debates either.  https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/the-worst-ive-ever-seen-it-cnn-ripped-for-doing-a-horrible-job-moderating-democraticdebate/

[BubberMiley]

On 8/11/2019 at 10:04 AM, scribblet said:

To some extent maybe, but CNN itself has gone off the rails,  like the source or not, this gives you an idea of what CNN is up to.  MSNBC isn`t any better.  

https://www.dailywire.com/news/18181/just-how-badly-cnn-collapsing-look-these-numbers-james-barrett

They didn`t do a great job moderating the debates either.  https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/the-worst-ive-ever-seen-it-cnn-ripped-for-doing-a-horrible-job-moderating-democraticdebate/

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC is excellent. She should really get more recognition for her great work.

Edited August 13, 2019 by BubberMiley

[DogOnPorch]

Rachel Maddow is a Russian agent.

[BubberMiley]

That sounds like an unfounded accusation.

[taxme]

On 8/9/2019 at 8:37 PM, J4L said:

From what I understand, CNN and the New York Times used to be impartial, but now they have developed a left-wing agenda, just like NBC, CBC, Macleans, and ABC. FOX and Rebel media tend to be right wing.  I trust CTV. They are usually fairly impartial.  Global News is also pretty fair.  I like the National Post, but many have said they are right-of-centre.

The Rebel cannot be compared to the rest of the Canadian media that you mentioned above. The Canadian bought off media are all pro alt-left liberal and pro liberal party and they can never be trusted in what they report anymore. The Rebel is the only conservative alternative news outlet that does tell it like it is. Try it sometimes, you might learn something for a change that the other liberal side does not want you to hear or know about. I promise you that it will not bite. It has not bitten me as of yet.

The alt-left liberal Canadian media are terrified of Bernier because Bernier tells it like it is. Comrade Trudeau is trying to keep Bernier from being able to attend the election debates coming up soon. Why? It is because comrade knows that Bernier is going to tell the people what they need to hear and Trudeau does not want we the people to hear what bernier has to tell them and give them the other side of the story. Why is Trudeau afraid of some honest competition? I guess it is because all comrades hate honest and truthful competition. Just saying. 

[scribblet]

Putting this here rather than another thread..

More bias in the press as opined by this U.K. writer in the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/27/thought-britain-had-biased-left-wing-media-spent-time-canada/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

I thought Britain had biased, Left-wing media – until I spent time in Canada

[taxme]

On 4/14/2018 at 2:19 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

It's difficult these days to know what sources of media to trust. Some other threads have been started on particular genres of news--the main stream media, or particular sources--but the bigger question is HOW do you know what or whom to trust? What makes a source trustworthy, anyway? It's easy to say "oh, because they're telling the truth." But how can you tell? We sit here at our computers, isolated from the world at large, and a small cadre of journalists (or other nefarious persons) are making the decisions for us of what "truth" actually is.

Part of the problem, of course, is that people don't always want to believe the truth, they want to hear what they want to hear or read what they want to read. It's so easy to deceive. And we all do that, even if some of us would like to think that we happen to be the smartest person in the room; the one person among many capable of actually seeing through the bullshit. But that is unlikely, as there are so few people like that. At the end of the day we're all equally vulnerable to bullshit.

So how can you tell who is reputable and who isn't? Whom--and what--can we trust, and how do we know?

The Canadian media cannot be trusted anymore. They have now been bought off, and have to now be loyal to the present day government in power. Canadians will only get what the dear leader Trudeau wants them to hear and know. What goes on behind closed doors with liberal politics will not be opened to we the people. Our futures lie with political correct leftist liberal hacks who will do everything within their power to stop all truths getting to we the people. Scandals will continue to happen, and there is nothing that can be done about them. We saw that already happening where Trudeau committed many crimes and pretty much got away with them. Canada has become a deep state controlled country where we the people will do as we are told or else. Canada is not a free country anymore. It is fast becoming a communist one. But this is what the people want, and Trudeau is only to happy to give it to them. Sad to say but I do not trust most Canadians with my freedom anymore. Many of them scare the hell out of me. They appear to be oh so communistic. Just saying. 

[Cannucklehead]

7 minutes ago, taxme said:

The Canadian media cannot be trusted anymore. They have now been bought off, and have to now be loyal to the present day government in power. Canadians will only get what the dear leader Trudeau wants them to hear and know. What goes on behind closed doors with liberal politics will not be opened to we the people. Our futures lie with political correct leftist liberal hacks who will do everything within their power to stop all truths getting to we the people. Scandals will continue to happen, and there is nothing that can be done about them. We saw that already happening where Trudeau committed many crimes and pretty much got away with them. Canada has become a deep state controlled country where we the people will do as we are told or else. Canada is not a free country anymore. It is fast becoming a communist one. But this is what the people want, and Trudeau is only to happy to give it to them. Sad to say but I do not trust most Canadians with my freedom anymore. Many of them scare the hell out of me. They appear to be oh so communistic. Just saying. 

Funny how no one complained about any of this when Harper was pm for 9 years.  

 

In Canada, the Canada Elections Act includes provisions for free-time election broadcasts (in addition to paid advertising) during Canadian federal elections, on all licensed terrestrial television and radio networks; notably, however, none of Canada's main English-language private television networks (CTV, Global and City) actually operates under a network license anymore, meaning that in actual practice in the 2010s this provision applies only to CBC Television and the French-language networks in Quebec.^[3] CBC Television formerly broadcast the regular weekly series The Nation's Business, in which Members of Parliament from all parties could give a short speech on a political issue, but this series no longer airs.

 

Next thing you know they'll start complaining that Trudeau gets a free house too.  

Edited November 1, 2019 by Cannucklehead

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Funny how no one complained about any of this when Harper was pm for 9 years.  

 

In Canada, the Canada Elections Act includes provisions for free-time election broadcasts (in addition to paid advertising) during Canadian federal elections, on all licensed terrestrial television and radio networks; notably, however, none of Canada's main English-language private television networks (CTV, Global and City) actually operates under a network license anymore, meaning that in actual practice in the 2010s this provision applies only to CBC Television and the French-language networks in Quebec.^[3] CBC Television formerly broadcast the regular weekly series The Nation's Business, in which Members of Parliament from all parties could give a short speech on a political issue, but this series no longer airs.

 

Next thing you know they'll start complaining that Trudeau gets a free house too.  

It's funny how the people on the left sure did a hell of lot of whining and crying about what Harper said or done for nine years. At least Harper did not buy off the Canadian media like Trudeau did. The government pretty much now owns all of the Canadian news media, except for The Rebel media that will not be bought off by any Canadian government politician like Trudeau. The Rebel is the only real and true conservative Canadian news media left in Canada where one can get the other side of the story. The media party(CTV/CBC/Global)now are on Trudeau's payroll. This sure looks to me like we now have our own communist Pravda news media in Canada today. 

It has been the liberals from Quebec who have been occupying the people's house the most who have all been lucky enough to get to live in it for free. At least Trump does not take  a salary for being the President of America. It's too bad that millionaire Trudeau would not do the same. I guess that he thinks that he is so great for Canada that he should get paid for trying to make Canada a hell hole. IMHO, a vote for the liberals was a vote to abolish old Canada. But hey, who cares about old Canada anymore, eh? Trudeau is not my PM. 

[OftenWrong]

Certainly media that can be altered cannot be trusted. Only non-alterable media can be trusted. I only trust what's in printed books, and then only before 1995.

Therefore trust only paper media, my friends, not the screen. Trust nothing on a liquid-crystal display. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by OftenWrong

[dialamah]

Lies can be spread on paper, too.  Prior to radio, that was the primary method.  Trusting media was possible prior to social media, but now someone can say something online, and have it picked up and spread like wildfire.  Twitter users seem to prefer spreading fake news, and maybe that's also true of other platforms. 

The problem of fake news might not be the MSM or Russian bots or any manipulation by "elites", but by the masses who prefer lies over truth.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Lies can be spread on paper, too.  Prior to radio, that was the primary method.  Trusting media was possible prior to social media, but now someone can say something online, and have it picked up and spread like wildfire.  Twitter users seem to prefer spreading fake news, and maybe that's also true of other platforms. 

The problem of fake news might not be the MSM or Russian bots or any manipulation by "elites", but by the masses who prefer lies over truth.  

Not so much lies over truth, I think, but confirmation of preconceptions.  I was recently guilty of that myself.  It wasn't that I wanted to believe a lie, I just thought that what I read sounded so reasonable.  So I believed it.  It wasn't true.  At least, not wholly, and not as reported.

It does behoove us to get confirmation these days.  Especially if one is going to argue about it.

Edited November 15, 2019 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Not so much lies over truth, I think, but confimation of preconceptions.  I was recently guilty of that myself.  It wasn't that I wanted to believe a lie, I just thought that what I read sounded so reasonable.  So I believed it.  It wasn't true.  At least, not wholly, and not as reported.

It does behoove us to get confirmation these days.  Especially if one is going to argue about it.

At least you're trying.   I've gotten to the point where if something makes me have "feels", the very next thought is to wonder its true.  The most common "feels" sought by people who deliberately spread misinformation is anger or "victimhood"; those emotions drive most people to innocently spread the misinformation.   I find I'm skipping over more and more stories because it's quickly clear that its geared for emotional response instead information.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

At least you're trying.   I've gotten to the point where if something makes me have "feels", the very next thought is to wonder its true.  The most common "feels" sought by people who deliberately spread misinformation is anger or "victimhood"; those emotions drive most people to innocently spread the misinformation.   I find I'm skipping over more and more stories because it's quickly clear that its geared for emotional response instead information.

Yes, notwithstanding my last faux pas, I find myself putting things into Google just to see whose name comes up on the first page.  If I don't see one of the MSM I trust I use scepticism going forward.

[Argus]

This is how Russian disinformation works. It's not simply trolling. On the contrary, it builds its audience through stuff that audience would like and appreciate, then starts adding in the stuff to turn that audience against others. It's not some dumb Russian who can't speak English properly posting memes. It's more sophisticated than that.

Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,” as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy.

Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously.

On August 22, 2019, @IamTyraJackson received almost 290,000 likes on Twitter for a single tweet. Put in perspective, the typical tweet President Trump sends to his 67 million followers gets about 100,000 likes. That viral tweet by @IamTyraJackson was innocent: an uplifting pair of images of former pro football player Warrick Dunn and a description of his inspiring charity work building houses for single mothers. For an anonymous account that had only existed for only a few months, “Tyra” knew her audience well. Warrick’s former coach, Tony Dungy, retweeted it, as did the rapper and producer Chuck D. Hundreds of thousands of real users viewed Tyra’s tweet and connected with its message. For “Tyra,” however, inspiring messages like this were a tool for a very different purpose.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/

Edited November 27, 2019 by Argus

[taxme]

On 8/11/2019 at 6:54 AM, scribblet said:

I used to watch CNN as they were fairly middle of the road but not anymore, they've gone completely off the rails.

Looks to me like you are ready for some FOX News for a change where you can get the other side of the story. The other side of the story that the Canadian media does not want you to know or hear about. The alt-left American media, and the Canadian bought off MSM are not able to brainwash me anymore with their lies and bull chit. I can now take them on with confidence, and I am always willing to take their lies and bull chit on.  Too bad more Canadians would not do the same thing and watch FOX News or The Rebel or the conservative RightEdition websites.  

[Argus]

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that even India is involved in online disinformation campaigns. This shows to what extent some of these efforts go.

A global network of pro-Indian fake websites and think-tanks is aimed at influencing decision-making in Europe, researchers say.

The co-ordinated network of 265 sites operates across 65 countries, according to a report by Brussels-based NGO, EU Disinfo Lab.

The researchers traced the websites to an Indian company, Srivastava Group.

The network was also found to involve groups responsible for anti-Pakistan lobbying events in Europe.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50749764

[Argus]

I was watching an interview between Coleman Hughes and Douglas Murray. He starts the video with a recommendation for Groundnews.

"Media bias is one of the great problems facing our democracy. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how much time you spend consuming news. If your news diet is unbalanced you are very likely developing a false story of the important news of the day."

Every story has links to the news organizations covering it, and sorts them from far left to far right. It indicates the level of coverage from left vs right. I particularly like the blindspot page, which shows you stories one side or the other are ignoring.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

I was watching an interview between Coleman Hughes and Douglas Murray. He starts the video with a recommendation for Groundnews.

"Media bias is one of the great problems facing our democracy. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how much time you spend consuming news. If your news diet is unbalanced you are very likely developing a false story of the important news of the day."

Every story has links to the news organizations covering it, and sorts them from far left to far right. It indicates the level of coverage from left vs right. I particularly like the blindspot page, which shows you stories one side or the other are ignoring.

What fun!

[Argus]

How do you take sides without saying you're taking sides? As always, the CBC shows the way! Erin O'Toole made an announcement today advising all Canadians to get a vaccine shot. Sounds reasonable. Can't have that! So the CBC, instead of simply reporting that, also adds in what some back bench Tory MP from nowhere Alberta said yesterday and plays them up both equally in order to give the breathless impression this is another example of how the Conservatives are 'tearing each other apart' as many of the Canadian media have been eagerly and excitedly reporting the last couple of weeks. In fact, they aren't even contradicting each other, and even Trudeau has expressed opposition to mandatory vaccinations for all Canadians.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/otoole-mandatory-vaccine-1.6137392

[Argus]

China is engaged in an online disinformation campaign aimed at convincing people that the Corona virus was developed and released by the United States. This campaign has been fairly successful in China, and they are now moving it overseas through the creation of fake facebook and twitter entities.

Experts say Beijing is seeking to bring non-Chinese audiences into the dispute about Covid-19 origins to further muddy the waters.

A clear example unfolded in July, when Chinese state media outlets began relentlessly reporting on criticism written in a Facebook post by "Wilson Edwards", a user claiming to be a Swiss scientist.

"Mr Edwards" argued that Washington was "so obsessed with attacking China on the origin-tracing issue that it is reluctant to open its eyes to the data and findings."

But the Swiss embassy in China later said that there is no registry of a Swiss citizen with the name, and urged Chinese media to remove "false" news reports.

Experts believe "Wilson Edwards" likely does not exist, but is instead a fictitious propaganda profile. His Facebook page was launched on the day that he published the Covid-19 post. A new Twitter account under the name of "Wilson Edwards" also tweeted out the same message on that day.

The "Wilson Edwards" story appears to have first been reported through an obscure Fiji-based Chinese-English bilingual outlet, the Voice of South Pacific.

Though it is unclear whether Voice of South Pacific is backed by the Chinese state, its mobile app is developed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of state news agency China News Service, the first major Chinese state-owned outlet to report on Edwards' claims.

The BBC found that even before Edwards' Facebook post drew wide media attention, it had been shared by hundreds of Facebook accounts which claim to be based in Southeast Asia, for example, "Eastman Tyla" in Malaysia and "Tyree Schmidt" in Indonesia.

"Tyla" and "Schmidt" also circulated a long and identical list of pro-China news stories on their Facebook pages, praising Beijing's handling of the pandemic.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58273322