Most honest, reliable source of news?

[betheman]

Im trying to forman opinion on the sh!t going off in palestine at the moment, Im also aware of media bias and although we have the good old BBC here in the UK, I simply dont trust it anymore, which sites/sources of news have memebers found to be genuine and close to the real deal?

 

[Machina29]

Great question. To be honest, I don't really have a news source that I trust at the moment. In the US, they all have a pro-Israel bias. I always think it's funny how people in the US call Fox News biased and either ignore or are oblivious to the bias of the other sources.

 

[Epimanes]

Take every news source with a grain of salt. Unless its something obvious in the news that cant be hidden or "altered" to the best interests of the viewers to manipulate their perspectives. A great example is an Oil Spill .. cant hide that .... so it wont matter what news source is telling you.

*shrugs*

 

[Bible_Belt]

News is a commodity that is bought and sold. Biases come about not from some sinister plan, but simply from a competition for ratings. People who watch Fox news want a right-wing bias; that's why they watch. Here are two headlines from today. It's hard to tell that they are talking about the same story.

http://www.foxnews.com/
"Experts say Hamas' provocative attacks on Israel aren't drawing Arab nations to its side"

http://www.aljazeera.com/
Israeli airstrikes continue to pound Gaza
Civilians killed and media centre targeted for a second time as death toll in the Palestinian territory passes 100 mark.

All you can do is read both sides and judge for yourself. http://www.guardiannews.com/ is another site to get a liberal point of view on the news.

 

[wait_out]

Black Flag Cafe... haunted by war correspondents and other assorted miscreants

 

[Quiksilver]

All news sources have bias ... Its good to hear both bias and then determine best estimate of facts/truth from that.

I'd have to say drudgereport.com is the best source for random news that I've found. Yes there is bias, but it is bias in both directions.

For good economic news, zerohedge.com has the luxury of being anonymous yet intelligent contributors, who arent forced to say what their editors/boss wants them to say. (ie. the Goldman economist who wants to say the truth but is gagged by his company, so publishes anonymously on ZH.)
They are however, long on gloom.

Other than that ...

Associated Press.

Reuters.

Bloomberg.

^ Those are relatively unbiased, but they do have bias depending on particular authors. They tend to have a bias toward Status Quo'ism, Protectionism... <-- They won't rock the boat with news articles, even if it means not publishing truthful news...

News sources with heavy bias:

Fox = pro-zionist, pro-outsourcing, pro-wars of aggression, pro big government.

MSNBC, PBS, CNN, ABC, etc = pro-socialist/communist, anti-national, pro-outsourcing, anti-capitalist (but pro MNC), anti-culture, pro-altruist, anti-gun, pro big-government.

BBC, Huffington Post = Pro-socialist/communist, anti-borders, anti-economy, anti-gun, AGW theory propagandists, ''green'' agenda, agenda 21, pro-global government.

Al-Jazeera pretends to be unbiased, but I believe it was created by the CIA so you have to assume that it is a propaganda mouthpiece on certain issues, at certain times. (ie. 85% accurate, 15% propaganda). Recently it has been sympathetic to Islamic uprisings, which is consistent with the US civilian government (Clinton, Panetta, Obama, CIA) agenda.

RussiaToday is in a unique position of factual and unbiased criticism of many of the above establishments, however they have an Anti-US government, Pro-Russia bias. They are more trustworthy than some of the above establishments as long as you understand they derive benefit from shining a light into the dark corners of Western propaganda machines. You can trust what they say about others, not about themselves.

Infowars ... Tends to cover important issues and probably 40% accurate but tends to imbellish and exaggerate certain aspects, much like RussiaToday. They would be better off (and less popular) if they would stick to the facts and reporting rather than inserting emotion and opinion into articles proclaimed as unbiased.


You can still find some good authors in The Telegraph, although The Guardian is editorially compromised.



--------

That is generally the state of large news organizations these days ... They have government contracts and large numbers of young authors/staffers, who tend to have a pro-Socialist bias, but with an anomalous love of large too-big-too-fail corporations ... Either that, or a "citizen of the world" loathing of national cultures, any type of borders, etc.

^ 95% of large corporate media are redistributionists, pro wealthy elite and pro poor, anti middle class.

Culturally, they also tend to be Pro-collectivism, Anti-individualism ...

Once you understand the environment/landscape of corporate media these days, you'll be able to learn how to be a skilled hunter of the seed of truth within the bias.


-----

Re Israel/Gaza, its a multi-decade "who pushed who first" conflict, where the real power-brokers on both sides have an interest in maintaining and prolonging the conflict for their own purposes. The civilians both in Gaza and Israel are caught in the middle, and both populations are victims.

Its significance is general instability in the entire region, whereby ALL the local populations will suffer indefinitely, but for Vulture Inc. corporations, there is money to be made and conflicts to finance.

It's being played up recently because Israel is trying to prevent the Palestinians from being recognized by the UN as a state actor.

Therefore with the current frame of conflict in the past two weeks, Israel is largely the aggressor in that they have escalated the use of force rather than trying to broker peace .. For the reason stated above.

Re the missiles being fired into Israel from Gaza, its a war so you have to expect the other side will fight back. Neither Gazans nor Israelis occupy the moral high ground. They both have an agenda to cleanse the other side if they can.

The only disparity is Israel is technologically far more advanced.

Both sides (Islam vs Zionism) have something to be gained by sustained conflict.

 

[Quiksilver]

Take every news source with a grain of salt. Unless its something obvious in the news that cant be hidden or "altered" to the best interests of the viewers to manipulate their perspectives. A great example is an Oil Spill .. cant hide that .... so it wont matter what news source is telling you.

*shrugs*

Actually Corexit was a great way to hide the Gulf oil spill, and a lot of the media refrained from mentioning it. It also prevented oxidation of the oil, meaning it will be around for longer and have more sustained ecological fallout.

Sometimes what the media doesn't say is as revealing as what it does.

 

[backbreaker]

you know your girl is a ***** when:

you tell her that you want to watch the BBC channel and she tells you that's in but she prefers anal scenes

 

[donking]

Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, MsNBC, CBS all owned by jews. Same "people" who push feminism, communism, socialism, diversity programs, affirmative action, welfare state etc. America was strong when they weren't here. Now look at it.

Foreign news reports are likely to be more reliable.

 

[Quiksilver]

I'm glad you found it funny, but there was no contradiction.

Stating a fact (that Palestinians have committed acts of terrorism, and that Jews have killed civilians in their counter raids), does not mean it is biased.

In looking at what is going on in the Middle East, being unbiased does not mean ignoring the truth.

The term 'terrorism' in its popular usage is a 21st century propagandist buzzword.

Since the popular rise of democratic governance, it is assumed that The People take full responsibility for the actions of their government. (The People tell their government when to go to war).

Therefore, The People become legitimate targets in warfare and many acts of Terrorism are really just offensive or retaliatory/revenge attacks in an ongoing war.

ie. If your elected representative, on your behalf, signs a declaration of war against another country, that means YOU are a legitimate target in that war, regardless of whether you or not you are wearing a uniform or holding a gun.



If that isn't the case then all sides/parties in the wars of the last couple decades, are engaged in terrorism and directly or indirectly targeting civilian populations for short or long-term political motives.

 

[donking]

Frenemy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

 

[Quiksilver]

1. Yes, in many cases, The People can be held responsible for the actions of their government, just like the owner of a viscious dog can be held responsible even when it breaks off the leash and attacks a stranger.

If the USA goes to war with Iran, then both the Iranian people AND the American people are legitimate targets of war.

Sometimes, The People have a duty to overthrow a government if it becomes dangerous and destructive. If they don't, they will undoubtedly become targets for revenge, ''terrorism'', and strategic military strikes and even invasion.

That isn't a guarantee that overthrowing a government behaving like an off-leash viscious dog is easy, or even possible.

The point is that people ARE held responsible for the actions of their government, whether you like it or not.

..

I also do not recognize "International Law" since it precludes an International government with authority to enforce the law, something I am philosophically opposed to with the current generation of bureaucrats and power hungry politicians/policy makers.

..

Of course terrorism has been occuring for thousands of years, but its popular usage, like saying "9/11 was a terrorist attack" is the propagandist buzzword.

In reality, Western subversive behavior in the Middle East during the 1990s caused the World Trade Organization and Pentagon to become legitimite military targets.

Moreso, even attacking a shopping mall would have been a legitimite civilian target, since those civilians representatives are responsible for setting Middle East foreign policy. And if our government is broken and is not responding to the will of The People, then it is The People's responsibility to overthrow it, peacefully or violently. Either that, or accept the consequences of NOT overthrowing it.

9/11 was an indirect retaliation in an ongoing Middle East power struggle.




If you shoot at someone (for whatever reason), you cannot call it "terrorism" when they shoot back.

 

[azanon]

Of the large National US stations, it's CNN all the way for just straight news. About half of the US accuses CNN of being lefty. These are the same people who would say Fox News is not biased though, so consider the source.

If you want left heavy bias, MSNBC, and if you want right-wing bias, Fox News.

And to clarify something said earlier, Fox News is pro SMALL government. Again, these are tea bagging, right wingers that thing the government is of the devil.

 

[user43770]

Of the large National US stations, it's CNN all the way for just straight news. About half of the US accuses CNN of being lefty. These are the same people who would say Fox News is not biased though, so consider the source.

If you want left heavy bias, MSNBC, and if you want right-wing bias, Fox News.

And to clarify something said earlier, Fox News is pro SMALL government. Again, these are tea bagging, right wingers that thing the government is of the devil.

CNN leans left. If you haven't noticed that, it's probably because they're telling you what you want to hear.

And I will freely admit that Fox News is biased. They're pro Republican establishment. Current Republicans are pro BIG government. They would just rather spend the money on military endeavors than social programs.

 

[Quiksilver]

Well, since I live in Australia, I'll give you an example of my perspective...


If The People of Indonesia (through representatives) vote to pass a Declaration of War against Australia ...


Then I consider The People of Indonesia, as legitimate military targets.

..

Likewise, if The People of Indonesia allow their government to start a war of aggression against Australia, and the Indonesian People do not mount reasonable resistance against their own government to cease the war, then I again consider them legitimate millitary targets.

..

While the hordes of power-hungry lawyers, lobbyists and bureaucrats who invented the UN and "International Law" may say civilians are not legitimate targets, there are many Generals and Commanders who believe otherwise, who believe as I do.

Else, why did we bomb the crap out of Berlin, and bomb the crap out of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? That was back when we knew how to win wars.

-----

Sometimes not demanding "No" to a war your government starts, is as meaningful as saying "Yes" to it.

And if you have no ability to resist your government (disarmed), then that is The People's fault as well, for allowing themselves to be disarmed.

A pertinent quote: "You can ignore the consequences of your (in)actions, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring your (in)actions."

The German People allowed themselves to be disarmed. Allowed their government to launch blatant imperial war across Europe. Allowed their own citizens to be rounded up and exterminated.

Result: Many of them died for their apathy, inability to resist (disarmed), and not forcing their government to stop.

Let your government get too powerful and you will undoubtedly face consequences from within or abroad.

 

[donking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

 

[Quiksilver]

I appreciate your rational perspective too.

I perfectly understand your perspective. I'm just telling you that your perspective is old fashioned and out of date.

Whats wrong with 'old fashioned', and how is it out of date?

Fair enough. But if you were a military leader who targeted civilians you would open yourself to being prosecuted as a war criminal by either the international criminal court, the courts of Indonesia, or even the courts of your own country, Australia.

And people with education in Cambodia opened themselves to persecution, conviction and death at the hands of the 'authorities'.

Point being, merely because an institution is powerful, does not mean it is worthy of respect or obedience. Might works, but it is not necessarily Right.

But what you're advocating here is treasonous rebellion. This would just lead to more violence. The purpose of the Rome and Geneva agreements was to decrease the negative effects of war and create certain boundaries of more "civilized" warfare which would lead to less destruction and fewer lives lost.

The Colonial insurrection against King George was treasonous rebellion as well. The Libyan 'treasonous rebellion' and Syrian 'treasonous rebellion' are other examples. Treasonous Rebellion is not necessarily wrong or unjust. You sound like a Statist.


No system is perfect, and there will always be problems. But it's a step in the right direction: the governments of the world got together and agreed that something had to be done; we had to start somewhere and begin the process of trying to at least minimize the destructive potential of war. And most generals of all armies are well versed in the intricacies of international laws and customs of war. These military officers know full well that they have to avoid hitting civilian targets whenever they can, or else they too may be tried as war criminals, often by the courts of their own country.

By preventing citizens from being legitimate targets in war, you abdicate them of the huge responsibility of signing a declaration of war. Why "not" send your military to war, if you know you cannot be targetted by the other side?

For civilians to fully grasp the grave seriousness and distaste of war, they must be considered legitimate targets, elsewise it becomes a game of chess or a spectator sport.


The Rome and Geneva agreements forbidding the military targeting of civilian populations is meant to avoid the horrors experienced during the Second World War.

This is further separation of citizens from Government. The horrors experienced in WW2 were direct result of the citizens in various countries not taking responsibility for the actions of their governments. Maybe as a result of facing reality, the German citizens will think again before desiring military imperialism.


What happened to Germany during World War II, and the reasons behind it, is a fascinating topic that I myself can spend the next year talking about on So Souave. Needless to say, what happened in Germany is hopefully as much a thing of the past as are the razing of China by Ghengis Khan and the building of pyramids out of the heads of civilians by Tamerlane. We have to move forward in history.

No. We have to move in the right direction, which is not necessarily forward. You move on from mistakes, but you STAY with something that works. There is no rational reason to move away (forward) from something that works, except boredom or apathy.

Quiksilver, don't repeat the mistakes of the Palestinians who found out too late that violence is not always the answer, and that peaceful negotiation - no matter how frustrating - is always more preferable.

I don't know how the Gaza conflict relates to this discussion. Are you saying the Gazans should not fight/militarize and instead allow themselves to be forcibly evicted? Not saying they are smart for launching rockets, but there are always idiots in a conflict.


And this is the biggest problem with your point of view. Since so many countries in the world today possess nuclear weapons, targeting civilians is an unnecessary step up toward causing a global nuclear holocaust, in which we all die. That's it, no one survives.

What?

This is why placing parameters or boundaries on what can be done in case war does happen to break out is so important.

The aggressor in a conflict rarely respects legal constructs. The constructs only serve to prevent the victim of the aggression from mounting effective and lesson-learning retaliation.

I will go a step further and say that, because civilians are held responsible for the actions of their country, that they should be the primary target of military retaliation.

How else do you prevent Nation A from starting a war with Nation B, if you arent allowed to kill those who want the war, in Nation A?

Nation B ought to exterminate all the citizens in Nation A who voted to declare war against Nation B, to prevent it from occuring again.

--

Its a little different in non-democratic nations.

If Nation A is not democratic and their government attacks Nation B, then Nation B ought to hold the civilians in Nation A accountable for not rebelling and taking responsibility for their government.

--

If you want to understand my perspective, I explained it above with the Viscious Dog on a Leash analogy. The dog-walker is The People, the viscious dog is The Government & Military. On a leash, it is great for self-defense of The People and deterring attack. Off the leash, it is great for starting conflict.

Indeed, if you allow your viscious dog to attack others (willingly or unwillingly), you will face legal consequences.

If someone lets their dog off the leash and it attacks me, I'm going to assume that both the Dog and The Owner want me dead, and both have to be neutralized before I believe I'm safe. That means, both are legitimate targets for pro-active self-defense.




I believe I've made myself tediously clear.

 

[Quiksilver]

You're probably right, because many people and even states do not act rationally.



ie. if country A and C are allied. country A offensively offensively attacks country B. country B retaliates effectively and completely neutralizes the military and citizenry of country A.

in a rational world, country C would realize country A was the aggressor and not join in the attack on country B.

-----

What I am saying, in one sentence:

The aggressor in any conflict should face complete and thorough justice, including military and citizenry.

what you are saying is that when country A attacks B, that B should only retaliate against A's military, but spare A's citizens, even though A's citizens are the ones responsible for the attack.

The way I see it, you are talking about protecting the real criminals; the ones who initiated violence.

-----

Also I'm not impressed by this "times have changed" angle you have.

In 1776, 2+2=4

In 2012, 2+2=4

Heck if we go into another dark age in the next 500 years, and people begin to believe again that the world is flat, that does not make it correct.

What you are referring to is public opinion, which is not necessarily Correct or Right.

One million world leaders screaming at the top of their lungs "2 and 2 makes 5", does not make it so.

-----

If anything, I think we should be teaching our children about their responsibility related to their governments actions, especially foreign policy.

-----

with regards to gaza...

I think the people in Gaza shouldn't be launching rockets at Israel, but I also don't think they should let their homes be bulldozed. there are guerilla ways to resist that dont involve firing random, pitiful rockets across the border.

a major problem they have, is they arent allowed to leave. egypt will not take them, syria will not take them, israel of course will not take them. they are physically stuck.

 

[perseverance]

Al-Jazeera.

 

[Quiksilver]

Sure basic math hasn't changed, but the destructive power posed by military forces has. And this is why changes in military doctrine are also required.



What I'm referring to is the collective voice of virtually every major national leader in the world saying "it is important to stop targeting civilians during war so we don't make things worse than they already are." This is far more correct than mercilessly massacring millions of innocent people.



This is why, as a democracy, we have chosen to employ the method of peaceful elections to empower or remove political officials, rather than overthrowing them through violent means.

The age of the barbarian is over, like it or not.



Sanctions, unfortunately, are the least harmful way we can try to overthrow governments by removing popular support. But we do not actively try to target civilians. The same goes for drone strikes,they are used to target important leaders of terrorist groups.

How in the world do you get rid of the people who vote for war, if they aren't allowed to be targeted?

Sounds to me like trying to kill a weed without pulling the roots out.

And the age of the barbarian is not over, but to open that can of worms I'd have to have you define the term 'barbarian'.