In your opinion, who is more trustworthy and why?

Padawanbater2 said:

That's actually what sparked this thread. I have a similar sentiment, but feel that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. have a well established track record of malicious intent that has been pretty clearly demonstrated to be true, so while open source outlets might fuck up and get the story wrong, the intent to misinform the reader isn't there. They might fuck it up, but they're trying their best, while established "news agencies" get it right, but usually are not trying their best to get the viewer the most accurate information.

Click to expand...

Total amateurs "trying their best" is a really low standard. Assuming those amateurs have no intent to misinform is a mistake. Any crackpot can post any lies he wants on the internet. Look at the loons we see here. If nothing else, the "pros" are usually held accountable for their mistakes, while anonymous posters can just assume a new identity and continue on.

londonfog said:

bad poll.. you have to place FOX as a separate option

Click to expand...

All major American media is controlled by a small group of people.

You need to look at Canadian media to get a truthful story.

VILEPLUME said:

All major American media is controlled by a small group of people.

You need to look at Canadian media to get a truthful story.

Click to expand...

So, the Canadian media is not controlled? It doesn't cow-tow to advertisers? These advertisers don't lobby your Parliament.

Grow a spine.

Totoe said:

NPR and PBS are the two best outlets.

Click to expand...

Oh, and these are not controlled by the congressional purse stings?

I never said they were removed from bias, just that they are the most transparent and thus the closest thing to true journalism that we get.

Totoe said:

I never said they were removed from bias, just that they are the most transparent and thus the closest thing to true journalism that we get.

Click to expand...

But, you say it as fact and not opinion. To me CNN is more transparent. But, for true see through, we have to watch closely and triagulate all sources. You have your bias, here, is all.

no option for reputable sources like the newswires who keep it on point and dont have to try and fill time with conjecture and guesswork?

what about waiting for the scientific, investigative, or real journalistic reports?

the trayvon martin killing for example was pure clusterfuck, with the right screaming it was self defense, and the left calling it racist murder by a "white hispanic"

i didnt decide based on the early reports, and after the facts were in i call it murder. but based on prejudice and ignorance, not hate or racism.

if trayvon had been roadhauled or lynched or otherwise killed as spectacle and warning, then yes, you could call it racist and hateful. zimmie was just a doofus assclown with a pistol that was too big for his britches. he would have shot a cholo just as soon as a hoodrat.

Padawanbater2 said:

Sure, but confirmation of a story coming from thousands of independent sources means there are built in filters to ensure true information is what gets reported, of course there are mistakes, like any system, but like I said before, both systems (open source & traditional outlets) have faults, but one is actively promoting a certain opinion while the other is presenting the combined efforts of many peoples opinions With traditional media outlets you have a much smaller group of people deciding what gets reported on ---> what the viewer sees.

Click to expand...

With social media you just have a larger group of individuals and groups promoting more agendas. I don't see it as being anymore accurate. Probably less accurate, as no one is held accountable. You are correct that it makes it harder to cover up a story.

ChesusRice said:

CNN is Journalism
Fox and MSnbc not so much. Those 2 outlets practice omission in their reporting to slant the story

Click to expand...

CNN is so journalistic they fired all of their investigative team. Score another stupid post for Cheesus.