Credible Websites/News Agencies

poncho · Mar 16, 2006

Which websites and or news agencies do you find to be credible sources of information and why?

Ed Edwards · Mar 16, 2006

Bad site
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
They buy 'news articles' without checking them from fiction authors.

Bad site
http://watch.pair.com/
Dominionist theology (they are trying to take over the
world so Jesus can come back, i.e. post-mills)

Bad site
http://www.whale.to/
what nation is 'to'???
conspiracy site
their HOAX SITE is a hoot
http://www.whale.to/b/hoax.html

Bad site
http://www.texemarrs.com/
At least he has replaced his 40s picture
with his 70's picture. That 40s picture did him
good for 30 years
-- conspiracy site, especially the GREAT SATANIC C.

poncho · Mar 17, 2006

Which websites and or news agencies do you find to be credible sources of information and why?
Click to expand...

KenH · Mar 17, 2006

The Assoiciated Press. Seems to give the news pretty straightforwardly.

www.ipsnews.net - Gives a worldwide span of news.

Ed Edwards · Mar 17, 2006

Good sources of information assume their readers are competent
to check other sources of information AND WILL.
So these sources make sure that what they report is checkable.
Today, with the internet, there is really no reason to frequent
places that don't bother to do this.

Bad sources of information assume their readers are idiots and
won't notice that they made up what they discuss.
Especially bad are agencies that buy stories from people
and don't bother to check to see if anybody else is 'covering
the story'.

poncho · Mar 17, 2006

Good sources of information assume their readers are competent
to check other sources of information AND WILL.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's say they do assume this and they do have readers that are competent enough to check other sources and are willing, what percentage of these competent readers would you say do take the time to check other sources, does this include the average competent working people, the busy mom's and dad's that work away from home all day? How many of these competent readers that are willing to check other sources would you say on average have the time to check other sources?

How often do you personally visit credible sources?

How many articles from these credible sources would you say you read on average when you visit them?

Do you always check other sources each time you read one of these articles?

Do you have any good sources of information you watch on tv? Do you check to see if others are running the same stories? Do you check other sources on the net after you viewed them on tv?

Are you willing to say that the tv news broadcasters rely on a competent audience that are willing to check other sources?

What percentage of viewers do you think are just average folks that are competent and willing to check other sources just turn on the tv to watch the news everyday while eating a cheeseburger and drinking a coca cola and never bother to check other sources? Or hear it over the radio?

So these sources make sure that what they report is checkable.
Click to expand...

For how long? I've seen most of the major mainstream sources run certain stories just once then they're gone, disappeared, not to be found, not in the archives, no cache nothing but dead links. In those cases I have gone to sites that make it a habit to cache stories like this and guess what those sites would probably be defined as bad sources but sometimes they are the only sources that have the stories. Are you willing to say that stories that have been wiped from the good sources archives are no longer credible because they have been cached on another site?

How many dead links would you say that you run across each time you are checking other sources Ed? I run into them all the time while I'm checking other sources.

Today, with the internet, there is really no reason to frequent
places that don't bother to do this.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you have some favorites you frequent that you consider to be good reliable trustworthy sources, so based on that assumption, do you find that you always check other sources on each story or article you read in these favorites that you frequent or would you say you check other sources most times, some times, or rarely?

Bad sources of information assume their readers are idiots and
won't notice that they made up what they discuss.
Click to expand...

Would you be kind enough to post a few links to the sources you consider to be good Ed Just in case there are some of those idiots you speak of lurking around BB that have never had the good fortune to stumble across them before. Even idiots deserve a chance to view good sources of information once in awhile, wouldn't you agree?

Especially bad are agencies that buy stories from people
and don't bother to check to see if anybody else is 'covering
the story'.
Click to expand...

Guess I'd have to agree with that, but how does one identify an agency that buys it's stories from people and don't check to see if anybody else is covering the story?

[ March 17, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

Dragoon68 · Mar 17, 2006

Sometimes www.foxnews.com!

Ed Edwards · Mar 18, 2006

Ed Edwards: //Good sources of information assume their readers are competent
to check other sources of information AND WILL.//

Poncho: //Okay, let's say they do assume this and they do have readers
that are competent enough to check other sources and are willing,
what percentage of these competent readers would you say do tak
the time to check other sources, does this include the average
competent working people, the busy mom's and dad's that work away
from home all day? How many of these competent readers that are
willing to check other sources would you say on average have the time
to check other sources?//

I don't think most have the time. That is why we network on the
BB (Baptist Board): if I don't check it, perhaps someone else will
and report in the topic. Also, there are opinions and facts
(black and white) and lots of shades of gray and even color

Poncho: //
1. How often do you personally visit credible sources?//

When it appears a story might be credible, I check it out.
After 45 years of studying Conspiracy Theory, I have a pretty good
'quick analysis' standard. Plus, I know many of the Conspiracy
Theory people of promenance and know the things they say.
Many of them, to avoid lawsuits ask questions instead of making
statements. For example, if I say "Does Poncho smoke wierd stuff?"
I know (but don't say) that the answer is very likely 'No'.
Being a BB poster of repute, the odds are 90% no, 9% only smokes
'normal' tobacco, 1% actually smokes pot. So I know the answer,
but most people will really wonder if my answer is YES

BTW, I might also mention. I check all scriptures I run across
of posts that I might respond to. It sure is hard when I have to
check 15-16 different versions before I find it (if I find it at
all, some folks cheat ) The person making the post should not only
list book, Chapter, and Verse(s) but also the Version.

Poncho: //
2. How many articles from these credible sources would you say you
read on average when you visit them?//

14, if I find credibility quickly. Nothing like briefing myself
up on the important

Poncho: //
3. Do you always check other sources each time you read one of these articles?

Usually, I am, as you described, busy, busy, busy.

saturneptune · Mar 18, 2006

I agree with Ed. If fox would report news instead of 10,000 murder and rape cases, they would be the closest. Most news in baloney.

Ed Edwards · Mar 18, 2006

It is just easier to list the bad places:
Bad sources of information:

911 Lies Group:
http://www.911truth.org/
Where guesses are truth and
where speculation comes written in stone

misinformation wars:
http://www.infowars.com/
where the one-eyed man is king

Today's news:
Belarusian State Security Committee Chairman Stepan Sukhorenko has accused the opposition of conspiring to stage a coup, news agencies said Thursday. Sukharenko said he had evidence that the United States and Georgia were backing efforts to overthrow the country’s current regime by force in Sunday’s presidential elections.

That Stepan said it is probably true, but hardly a harbinger
of anything except Sukhorenko-ology

Searches on Googole for:
Terry Schaivo,
Terri Schaivo,
Terry Schiavo, and the correct
Terry Schiavo
all list this site first. So this site has paid Google
for that honor. How cute, first on a list when you mispell
a persons name. How cool is that?

America's last real newspaper
http://www.americanfreepress.net/
where fiction is truth and truth is paid for by the word
(this is the site that invented the term 'neo-con')
Neo-Conservative Trotskyites will love it thaough

For lovers of anti-Semetism
http://www.barrychamish.com/
(Yuck!)

Dragoon68 · Mar 18, 2006

Originally posted by saturneptune:
... Most news in baloney.
Click to expand...

I agree with that!

Daisy · Mar 18, 2006

I like Google News because quite often, you can find 258 alternate sources. Of course, 247 of those will reference the same original source or use the exact phrasing without attribution. Like the Associated Press, Reuters reports facts with very little editorializing and has covers most of the world, not just my little corner of it.

The New York Times and the Washington Post do good original reporting. Those papers (is that an anachronist term?) attempt to be accurate. I think the so-called liberal bias of the reporters is more than compensated for by two equal and opposite appetites - first to fawn on the rich, famous and powerful, second to bring down the rich, famous and powerful.

The New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly do excellent longer research articles, complete with fact-checking. The Texas Monthly seems very good, but I'm not familiar enough to judge.

The Village Voice has some really good reporters but the focus is undeniably liberal rather than conservative.

NPR doesn't give headline news much, but they interview a wide variety of people. C-Span's Washington Journal would be better if there were not so many callers (I think).

The Wall Street Journal has well-researched, fascinating articles but their editorials are, well, misguided.

poncho · Mar 19, 2006

My point is that most folks don't bother to check other sources, if they see the same story aired on two, three or all the networks then it is taken to be the truth, no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary.

Take Saddam for example the government climbed on it's soap box and strongly proclaimed Saddam was an imminent threat in front of the cameras and the networks all ran with it and we went to war occupied another country and started building bases there. Nevermind the government's own documents (PNAC) have claimed from the begining that Saddam was only the immediate justification for "a wider role in middle eastern affairs".

The people in the government and media know that the great majority of people will not read their documents or check their sources. They're to busy just trying to make a living and paying their ever increasing debts.

Another example, I was watching CSPAN the other day a question was asked of Marine Gen. Peter Pace. The question was something like this, "Why does the government keep saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom and democracy when the terrorists keep saying they hate us because of our actions"?

General Pace didin't even attempt to answer the question but chose instead to say that he has seen no evidence of the terrorists wanting to meet with our government or military to discuss differences.

The person that asked the question seemed to be satisfied that General Pace answered the question. I'm left wondering yet, why is it that our government and media keep saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom and democracy when the terrorists themselves seem to pretty much agree that it is our actions they hate?

And how is it that half the people (I say half because of the recent polls showing half do not) find what the government says in front of the media's cameras to be credible when their own written documents stand in contradiction to what they have been saying?

Ed Edwards · Mar 20, 2006

Poncho: //My point is that most folks don't bother to check other sources, if they see the same story aired on two, three or all the networks then it is taken to be the truth, no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary. //

I think you have a problem with FACT and OPINION.
You can find most any opinion on the world wide web you want to find.

Your example of why the radical self-mutulating Muslims want
to 'get America' is totally one of OPINION.
The fact is that the suicidal radical fringe of Muslims want
to get even with America.

The year that Terri Schiavo had her feeding tube pulled for the
last time and she died her presss
death on the last day of March 2005.
Here are the Google 'hits':

15 March 411,000
21 March 948,000
23 March 1,410,000
27 March 2,980,000
1 April 7,120,000
3 April 13,200,000
5 April 11,800,000
9 April 12,500,000
11 April 10,2000,000
16 April 6,220,000
21 April 5,160,000
...
19 Mar 2006 5,220,000
(this may be rising for the 1st Anniversery of
her 'press' death) But notice that the activity
peacked nine days after something might have been
done about the situation.

Needless to say, this is a lot of varied opinion.
I don't think the www is a valid source of information
or opinion. But it is a good commentary on those who can't
tell the difference between facts and opinion,
at least, i think so

P.S. before I omitted this conspiracy site:
http://www.blogsforterri.com/

But I did discuss it saying:

Searches on Googole for:
Terry Schaivo,
Terri Schaivo,
Terry Schiavo, and the correct
Terry Schiavo
all list this site first. So this site has paid Google
for that honor. How cute, first on a list when you mispell
a persons name. How cool is that?

rbell · Mar 20, 2006

The New York Times and the Washington Post do good original reporting. Those papers (is that an anachronist term?) attempt to be accurate.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The NY Times has been discredited on several occasions recently for plagiarism, shoddy fact-checking, and some out-and-out agenda pushing.

DeeJay · Mar 20, 2006

I get all my serious news from:

www.theonion.com

They report the stuff nobody else does.

In no other paper have I read about such important stories such as this.

ROTATION OF EARTH PLUNGES ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT INTO DARKNESS

New York--Millions of eyewitness watch in stunned horror Tuesday as they watch light drain from the sky...........

At approx. 4:20pm est the sun began to lower from its position in the sky in a westerly trajection, eventually disipearing behind the horizon.
Click to expand...

Why dont you read about this stuff in the main stream media. What are they hidding

[ March 20, 2006, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: DeeJay ]

poncho · Mar 20, 2006

I think you have a problem with FACT and OPINION.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken.

You can find most any opinion on the world wide web you want to find.
Click to expand...

One can find alot of facts there also. For instance one can figure out that the neocons have been lying in front of the cameras all along simply by reading what they were saying they wanted to do before they were empowered. They've been doing just what they had planned to do all along, but giving us entirely different reasons for why they are doing it. That's called deception in my book.

Your example of why the radical self-mutulating Muslims want to 'get America' is totally one of OPINION.
Click to expand...

First of all this isn't "my" opinion. This is what the "terrorists" have been saying all along. They hate our government because of it's actions and intervention into their affairs.

The fact is that the suicidal radical fringe of Muslims want to get even with America.
Click to expand...

So which is it Ed? Do they want to get even with America for our governments actions like they've been saying or our freedom like our government and media have been saying? What do the "facts" tell you?

But it is a good commentary on those who can't tell the difference between facts and opinion, at least, i think so
Click to expand...

You just can't resist the temptation to use cheap shots like this can you? This type of behavior doesn't add to your credibility...imo.

Daisy · Mar 20, 2006

Originally posted by rbell:
I disagree. The NY Times has been discredited on several occasions recently for plagiarism, shoddy fact-checking, and some out-and-out agenda pushing.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they always succeeded, only that they attempt it - which is more than a lot of papers do (never mind tv & radio news). The Jason Blair affair was several years ago and not only was he fired but Harold Raines, the editor, was as well.

The agenda they admitted to pushing was the Bush administration's.

Credible Websites/News Agencies

poncho Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

poncho Well-Known Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

poncho Well-Known Member

Dragoon68 Active Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

saturneptune New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Dragoon68 Active Member

Daisy New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

rbell Active Member

DeeJay New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Daisy New Member

Useful Searches

Credible Websites/News Agencies

poncho Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

poncho Well-Known Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

poncho Well-Known Member

Dragoon68 Active Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

saturneptune New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Dragoon68 Active Member

Daisy New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

rbell Active Member

DeeJay New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Daisy New Member