What do you consider legitimate sources?

[Smurf]

If everyone could tell me exactly what news organizations or whatever, they would consider legitimate sources?

For me, I mostly trust any most mainstream news organizations to an extent. Even CNN and FOX can't bend the truth too much, but I will need to double check things if I see them there. CTV is one of the best mainstream news channels out there, and BBC I trust, I would also trust the larger news organizations in most other modern countries, except on issues of national controversy (like Japan and China arn't exactly nice to each other, ect.)

I also trust reports by most international organizations, the red cross, amnesty international. The UN usually doesn't falsify anything, the IMF and World bank are pure evil though and anything they do say I will be checking, not because I think they lie, just because they're so obviously biased.

I also have trust for a large number of independant organizations, like Indymedia, eXile, and such. (except eXile's not really news) and will only check their sources if I'm arguing with someone who I think won't trust them.

 

[TRCSF]

It often depends on what they're reporting and what they're backing it up with.

Although I usually watch with a skeptical eye anything that's owned by Rupert Murdoch or Rev. Moon.

So it's mostly a case by case business.

BBC and PBS are usually very reliable. The Christian Science Monitor is a great rag.

 

[Astronuc]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=434874&postcount=45

I posted some good links here.

BBC and PBS are usually very reliable. The Christian Science Monitor is a great rag.

I would agree. And add NPR (National Public Radio). These sources do occasionally get it wrong, but they try to correct the errors.

I don't consider the Drudgereport very reliable - it is more of a tabloid - but my conservative friends like it (and FOX news as well ).

 

[TRCSF]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=434874&postcount=45

I don't consider the Drudgereport very reliable - it is more of a tabloid - but my conservative friends like it (and FOX news as well ).

Yeah, for a lot of people if the media tells them what they want to hear it magically becomes "reliable."

There was a recent study in the reliability of major US news networks that found out that Fox viewers were the least informed on important issues.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Pengwuino]

There was a recent study in the reliability of major US news networks that found out that Fox viewers were the least informed on important issues.

I'm not surprised.

What does teh reliability of a news network have to do with how much their viewers know?

 

[Smurf]

What does teh reliability of a news network have to do with how much their viewers know?

If it's reliable it would stand to reason that a large number of it's viewers would be accurately informed on imporant events (that we assume they've reported on - being a major news organization)

 

[Pengwuino]

If it's reliable it would stand to reason that a large number of it's viewers would be accurately informed on imporant events (that we assume they've reported on - being a major news organization)

Well seeing as hwo half the crap on fox news is the latest celebrity court case and "Whos dumbass kid is missing now"... i can see why they probably don't know as much. However, this has nothing to do with reliability.

 

[TRCSF]

Well seeing as hwo half the crap on fox news is the latest celebrity court case and "Whos dumbass kid is missing now"... i can see why they probably don't know as much. However, this has nothing to do with reliability.

Pengwuino, if a news network is spending half it's time on celebrity trials and missing Aruba girls, and its viewers know nothing about current events, then it's not a reliable news network.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino, if a news network is spending half it's time on celebrity trials and missing Aruba girls, and its viewers know nothing about current events, then it's not a reliable news network.

Hmm... "least informed" turned into "know nothing" pretty quick there. Again, your logic is flawed. Reliability is the accuracy of a news stations broadcasts.

 

[Smurf]

If fox news doesn't report important events that makes them more of a tabloid. Thefore I think it's accurate to say that they're an unreliable news source.

 

[TRCSF]

Hmm... "least informed" turned into "know nothing" pretty quick there. Again, your logic is flawed. Reliability is the accuracy of a news stations broadcasts.

Reliable means being able to depend upon, in this case to provide it's viewers with accurate, important current event stories.

"Least informed," "know nothing..." You're arguing semantics.

Fox viewers is dumb.

 

[SOS2008]

Hmm... "least informed" turned into "know nothing" pretty quick there. Again, your logic is flawed. Reliability is the accuracy of a news stations broadcasts.

It's more than that--the point being made is what is deemed newsworthy. For example, a recent FOX news alert was: "Roberts is a gentleman" which is not newsworthy let alone qualifying as an alert. The ticker tape that runs at the bottom of the screen rarely if ever is newsworthy. But to satisfy your question, FOX often does provide not reliable, accurate news, but rather right-wing sensationalism.

This just happened today: A manger in my office has one son in the military serving in Korea. One of her other sons (in his 20s) had to be corrected today--he thought Clinton started the recent war in Iraq, for Christ's sake!

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow, childish!

Reliable means being able to provide its viewers with accurate information. Its content is irrelevant. You base a bathroom scale's reliability on how accurate its readings are, not how many times it will give you a reading. Same with a computer. A computer is reliable not because it has a lot of room and can do a lot of things, but because it can do things accurately and precisely.

I think I'd rather listen to a news source that doesn't lie then one that wants to throw as much info as possible to you without much verification.

 

[Pengwuino]

FOX often does provide not reliable, accurate news, but rather right-wing sensationalism.

And CNN provides left-wing sensationalism. Who are you trying to kid? Sensationalism is the only reason these companies stay in business. Real news isn't worthy of a 24/7 cable network in TV viewer standards.

 

[Smurf]

Wow, childish!

Reliable means being able to provide its viewers with accurate information. Its content is irrelevant. You base a bathroom scale's reliability on how accurate its readings are, not how many times it will give you a reading. Same with a computer. A computer is reliable not because it has a lot of room and can do a lot of things, but because it can do things accurately and precisely.

I think I'd rather listen to a news source that doesn't lie then one that wants to throw as much info as possible to you without much verification.

I don't know Pengwuino I wouldn't call my scale reliable if it didn't give me a reading half the time :rofl: Even if it was perfectly accurate the times that it did.

Same with my computer.

 

[Smurf]

And CNN provides left-wing sensationalism. Who are you trying to kid? Sensationalism is the only reason these companies stay in business. Real news isn't worthy of a 24/7 cable network in TV viewer standards.

I don't know why you're bashing CNN, non of the liberals like CNN either, they're not going to defend it. (Left-wing? since when did sensationalism have a political agenda?)

 

[TRCSF]

And CNN provides left-wing sensationalism. Who are you trying to kid? Sensationalism is the only reason these companies stay in business. Real news isn't worthy of a 24/7 cable network in TV viewer standards.

CNN is almost as bad as Fox. But since you just said that Fox News was all about celebrity trials and missing girls, it seems a bit duplicitious to try and link liberal media with sensationalism.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't know why you're bashing CNN, non of the liberals like CNN either, they're not going to defend it. (Left-wing? since when did sensationalism have a political agenda?)

Well I typically see liberals defend CNN as some sort of FOX superior (other forums mainly). And normally, if your sensationalising something, you tend to stick to one political agenda. You start looking insane if you air a story saying Bush stabbed a black person 20 years right after you air a story saying Ted Kennedy smokes crack. Gotta keep your news somewaht sane :D

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't know Pengwuino I wouldn't call my scale reliable if it didn't give me a reading half the time :rofl: Even if it was perfectly accurate the times that it did.

Same with my computer.

Our scale rules. Its digital, perfect everytime... i think. Sometimes i wake up having lost 4 pounds from when i went to sleep...

 

[Smurf]

Our scale rules. Its digital, perfect everytime... i think. Sometimes i wake up having lost 4 pounds from when i went to sleep...

Wet your bed again? It happens...

 

[TRCSF]

Wet your bed again? It happens...

What is it the kids say these days? Oh, yeah. Pwned!1!

 

[Pengwuino]

Wet your bed again? It happens...

Its either that or I'm going on very long jogs at night and avoiding death at every street intersection. The sweat on my pants makes me think the latter is the true cause.

 

[Joel]

If everyone could tell me exactly what news organizations or whatever, they would consider legitimate sources?

I think it is important to think of sources in a bit more diverse fassion and I would not rule out any source, without considering its merits for the specific issue at hand. It is really up to whomever uses the source to use it in such a fassion that it doesn't lose its legitimacy. For example, a democratic organization's leadership holds a different kind of legitimacy than an authoritan organization's leadership and it is up to each and everyone (especially the one presenting the views) to understand to what extent these leaderships are representative of their organization.

With that said, I do think a 'big picture' can be constructed once enough sources has been examined. However, ideally I don't think we should disassociate any piece of (social) knowledge from its source, call it a 'fact' and forget its origin.

 

[alexandra]

With that said, I do think a 'big picture' can be constructed once enough sources has been examined. However, ideally I don't think we should disassociate any piece of (social) knowledge from its source, call it a 'fact' and forget its origin.

Excellent point, Joel. As Nietzsche wrote, "There are no facts, only interpretations".

To me, credible sources of information are those that both question the status quo and that do so on the basis of intensive research. Sources of information that do not question what is happening and do not try to get at the underlying implications and reasons for events are not good sources of information. On the other hand, I get annoyed by 'rants' that criticize whatever event without providing evidence for what they are saying - such rants are useless.

alex

 

[kat]

I don't trust any of the media outlets to portray the news accurately. The BBC, CNN..NPR ...Fox...ABC, NBC, CBS have all been found lacking. I prefer to read the news reports and then attempt to validate the report using public documents and actual transcripts of the speeches, court cases...etc.

 

[jcsd]

FOX News, Free Republic, LittleGreenFootballs, The Beano, etc.

 

[Skyhunter]

If I suspect a story is false or misleading I go to media matters. They are great at debunking.

 

[kat]

If I suspect a story is false or misleading I go to media matters. They are great at debunking.

Heh. That explains a lot. :yuck:

 

[Skyhunter]

Heh. That explains a lot. :yuck:

Yes, they do.

 

[Smurf]

Yes, they do.

:rofl: :rofl: Coy, arn't we?