Information Sources

[midcan5]

Is what I am reading an honest attempt at accuracy? Can the source of the information be trusted? Is the source biased? Who pays for the source of the information? For what purpose is the information provided? If the source is politically biased can the information still be trusted? What about information paid for by corporate and/or wealthy supporters? Are counterpoints allowed on the site? What do investigative journalism and fact finding sites have to say about the source and its information?

As we enter another election season disinformation will cloud the mediasphere. One will read the [pick one] are behind whatever item the 'dark money' and 501c3 entities deem divisive enough to promote as news or agitprop. The purpose of these funded sites will be to distract, distort, and confuse. And like advertising it be tested and repeated ad infinitum. Below are examples of some of these sites and benefactors. Comments welcome from all.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drudge-report/

Dark money example:

"The Federalist Society is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Top dollar funding mostly comes from right wing groups such as the Bradley Group and the Koch Foundation. In general, most donors come from the pro-business right."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2019/...alist-society/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=extreme+right+sites

Source info:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...C_Corporations


"Today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups... So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing." Philip K. Dick

[midcan5]

A few sites for the interested reader, both rate high in accurate reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/us

https://www.currentaffairs.org


While the New York Times and Washington Post are good papers too, I wanted to mention two you may not have read. Check them out.

[tsuke]

i think that whatever the source you should argue against the content rather than the messenger. I normally find that the people who argue with the messenger are those who have no argument against the content.

[midcan5]

i think that whatever the source you should argue against the content rather than the messenger. I normally find that the people who argue with the messenger are those who have no argument against the content.

But suppose the messenger always lies, do we have the time or are we willing to expend the effort to read lies and contradict them. There are many quotations from dictatorial regimes that if a lie is repeated often enough some come to believe it. No need for me to quote them.


"The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please." Hannah Arendt http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978...-an-interview/

[Legion]

ZG said it best:

Facts are facts. Numbers don't change depending on which website they happen to come from.

[midcan5]

Re: Topics in the News

For the interested reader see three ops from theGuardian, an excellent source of balanced reporting. What happened to independent thought in America, so much is now dark money supported.

'Of course Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. But unfortunately that's not a crime' Richard Wolffe
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...a-mueller-barr


''Whimsical, uninformed': French ambassador's parting verdict on Trump'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rdict-on-trump


'Mueller report: press secretary Sarah Sanders admitted to lying to reporters'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rs-lying-comey


"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

[Legion]

theGuardian, an excellent source of balanced reporting.

Some would disagree with that characterization, wouldn't they?

[midcan5]

If they got it wrong they got it wrong. Not proven yet. Doesn't change all of reality much does it. Some guy long ago said, 'he who never made a mistake can cast the first rebuttal'. And Greenwald yet, that is certainly ironic coming from you. Given Manafort's record of lying and cheating, is he really more believable?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...julian-assange

"There’s a lot at stake here. If The Guardian did get anything wrong, it would be an unwanted black eye for one of the English-speaking world’s most venerable news organizations, and it would help fuel the “fake news” narrative that Trumpworld so often resorts to when confronted with critical journalism. At the same time, if The Guardian stands by the piece but no other outlets corroborate it, the story won’t have the same level of impact as some of the other Russia-related bombshells that have come to light so far. That said, if any other major news outlet does match The Guardian’s reporting, it would take the scoop to the next level, possibly with major implications for the Mueller probe and, by extension, Trump’s presidency. A national-security reporter at a major U.S. news outlet summed the situation up like this: “If it’s right, it might be the biggest get this year. If it’s wrong, it might be the biggest gaffe.”

[Legion]

If they got it wrong they got it wrong.

That exculpatory statement seems to be at odds with your earlier declaration, doesn't it?

theGuardian, an excellent source of balanced reporting.

[Evmetro]

Is what I am reading an honest attempt at accuracy? Can the source of the information be trusted? Is the source biased? Who pays for the source of the information? For what purpose is the information provided? If the source is politically biased can the information still be trusted? What about information paid for by corporate and/or wealthy supporters? Are counterpoints allowed on the site? What do investigative journalism and fact finding sites have to say about the source and its information?

As we enter another election season disinformation will cloud the mediasphere. One will read the [pick one] are behind whatever item the 'dark money' and 501c3 entities deem divisive enough to promote as news or agitprop. The purpose of these funded sites will be to distract, distort, and confuse. And like advertising it be tested and repeated ad infinitum. Below are examples of some of these sites and benefactors. Comments welcome from all.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drudge-report/

Dark money example:

"The Federalist Society is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Top dollar funding mostly comes from right wing groups such as the Bradley Group and the Koch Foundation. In general, most donors come from the pro-business right."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2019/...alist-society/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=extreme+right+sites

Source info:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...C_Corporations


"Today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups... So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing." Philip K. Dick

Keep in mind that "fact checking" does not mean checking facts. "Fact checking" is a lefty thing that is biased toward the left, and it only checks facts that can help the lefty cause. If you ever find yourself fact checking via a fact checking site, you will be reading lefty biased information.

[midcan5]

Keep in mind that "fact checking" does not mean checking facts. "Fact checking" is a lefty thing that is biased toward the left, and it only checks facts that can help the lefty cause. If you ever find yourself fact checking via a fact checking site, you will be reading lefty biased information.

So then everything you read is a fact? That is what you are saying, right? But suppose what you are reading is Agnotology how would you know that?

"Given a choice between their worldview and the facts, it's always interesting how many people toss the facts." Rebecca Solnit


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...s-not-Rational

[Evmetro]

So then everything you read is a fact? That is what you are saying, right? But suppose what you are reading is Agnotology how would you know that?

"Given a choice between their worldview and the facts, it's always interesting how many people toss the facts." Rebecca Solnit


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...s-not-Rational

I did not say this.

[midcan5]

I did not say this.

I should have said your sources are accurate while fact checking is biased. That is an opinion not a fact so you are correct. But how would you know if you already know?

For other readers, below are more sites that check whether something is true or false, and Pres Trump is over ten thousand lies in these few years. Amazing.


https://www.factcheck.org/
https://www.politifact.com/
https://www.opensecrets.org/
https://www.truthorfiction.com/
https://www.snopes.com/
https://www.polygraph.info/
https://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
https://www.propublica.org/


And reporting outlets:

https://billmoyers.com/story/10-inve...ets-to-follow/

Odd but sometimes interesting

https://www.boomlive.in/category/factcheck/
https://fit.thequint.com/


"A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact." Daniel Kahneman

[Evmetro]

I should have said your sources are accurate while fact checking is biased. That is an opinion not a fact so you are correct. But how would you know if you already know?

For other readers, below are more sites that check whether something is true or false, and Pres Trump is over ten thousand lies in these few years. Amazing.


https://www.factcheck.org/
https://www.politifact.com/
https://www.opensecrets.org/
https://www.truthorfiction.com/
https://www.snopes.com/
https://www.polygraph.info/
https://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
https://www.propublica.org/


And reporting outlets:

https://billmoyers.com/story/10-inve...ets-to-follow/

Odd but sometimes interesting

https://www.boomlive.in/category/factcheck/
https://fit.thequint.com/


"A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact." Daniel Kahneman

"Fact checking" sites are not sites that are set up for the altruistic purpose of presenting facts. Fact checking sites are there for the sole purpose of supporting lefty ideology. Never buy the euphemism that fact checking sites are there to check facts. The fact checking euphemism is a big lefty lie. I do not trust ANY media source, friend or foe. I use them all, but I trust none.

[midcan5]

"Fact checking" sites are not sites that are set up for the altruistic purpose of presenting facts. Fact checking sites are there for the sole purpose of supporting lefty ideology. Never buy the euphemism that fact checking sites are there to check facts. The fact checking euphemism is a big lefty lie. I do not trust ANY media source, friend or foe. I use them all, but I trust none.

Why would fact checking be leftist?


Thought this interesting.

https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-cont...ds-on-facebook