Another reason not to trust what you hear on Fox News.

I don't trust anything I hear on any mainstream news network.
This is EXACTLY the problem! Not just with you, but with a lot of people. When you refuse to trust the mainstream network, you are opening yourself up to being manipulated by fringe news sources- who are under no obligation to even report the actual truth, let alone report things fairly or accurately. Instead, you are led down rabbit holes of fringe theories, conspiracy mongering bullshit, and even led into believing outright falsehoods, long after they have been debunked. Let's be honest- non-mainstream news networks often have an even more blatant agenda than you could ever accuse the mainstream networks of having. Like, one of them, I forget which one, claimed to be the "Pro Trump News Network." How is that NOT propaganda; if it claimed to be the "Pro Jinping" or "Pro Biden" or "Pro Putin" network, would you still trust them to be fair and factual?

Mainstream news media has accredited journalists who are educated and well versed in the facts they deliver. They are required to check their facts for accuracy. Non-mainstream news sources are not accredited, often are not well educated, and are under no obligation to fact-check what they report- which gets people in trouble when they believe things reported by these "News" channels that are blatantly not true.

What people need to learn how to do is sort out fact from opinion. Stick to only the presentation of facts. CNN is good at this. As is NPR. However, both networks also have pieces that are clearly opinion pieces, and are labeled as such. If you don't want news with spin- AVOID opinion pieces and editorials- stick to pure reporting of facts. Fox news is also rife with opinion pieces, the only difference being, they often fail to acknoledge them as such, and present speculative opinions as "Fact." Non-mainstream news sources are far, far worse than Fox in this regard- hence you cannot trust them.
 
Corroboration is key. Specifically for multiple non related sources

For example: CNN with fox

Bad example: hot air with brietbart
 
^^^ Hot air (FAUX) with Hot air (Bleitfart) is where BBs are born.

A mix of real news (ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, AP, UPI, CBC, USNews, local sources, etc.) makes you sane.
 
There should be a healthy dose of skepticism for any media that's owned by billionaires. There's also no such thing as "neutral" or "unbiased" news, the same as there's no such thing as "independent fact checkers". Far too many people seem to "pick a side" and then allow all the information from that media to be figuratively downloaded into their brains without question. It's really ridiculous. We need critical thinking from citizens.
 
There should be a healthy dose of skepticism for any media that's owned by billionaires. There's also no such thing as "neutral" or "unbiased" news, the same as there's no such thing as "independent fact checkers". Far too many people seem to "pick a side" and then allow all the information from that media to be figuratively downloaded into their brains without question. It's really ridiculous. We need critical thinking from citizens.
So you think all news is fake.
 
So you think all news is fake.
Biased is the word, not fake. Some news is fake.

The biggest lies are usually shrouded in truth. How else did Donald Trump's big lie about the 2020 election be so effective? The establishment did conspire to make him lose, the system is rigged in favor of the super rich, so behind the big lie are truths.
 
Biased is the word, not fake. Some news is fake.
So you've moved the needle then, all news is marketed towards the target audience. ie biased.

News is about making money. But earlier you painted all news questionable, if it was owned by Billionaires. I quote you: "There should be a healthy dose of skepticism for any media that's owned by billionaires."

Why should there be a dose of skepticism just by who the owners are?

Most news is not biased, however political news is almost always biased. Still most news, even political, is truth based, with a few outliers who do actually fabricate stories. Those publishers are easily identified.

Blanket statements can be as bad as those "news organisations" that do play fast and lose with the "facts".
 
So you've moved the needle then, all news is marketed towards the target audience. ie biased.

News is about making money. But earlier you painted all news questionable, if it was owned by Billionaires. I quote you: "There should be a healthy dose of skepticism for any media that's owned by billionaires."

Why should there be a dose of skepticism just by who the owners are?
Because the billionaires have nearly all the power in capitalist society. They pretend that their news is "unbiased" or "neutral" and "verified by independent fact checkers", so that they can create "public opinion". They do this in order to use "public opinion" to either get the victims of the capitalist system to consent to their own exploitation, or to be marginalized in society by those who sell out. A lot of control is done like this, rather than with brute force.

Most news is not biased, however political news is almost always biased. Still most news, even political, is truth based, with a few outliers who do actually fabricate stories. Those publishers are easily identified.
Everything's political. A lot of seemingly pointless news is used to distract people from the things that really matter.
 
Because the billionaires have nearly all the power in capitalist society. They pretend that their news is "unbiased" or "neutral" and "verified by independent fact checkers", so that they can create "public opinion". They do this in order to use "public opinion" to either get the victims of the capitalist system to consent to their own exploitation, or to be marginalized in society by those who sell out. A lot of control is done like this, rather than with brute force.
Sorry but I don't buy into your "capitalistic" rabbit hole. What you claim is they are doing this to gain more wealth. Well hell that's a lot of extra work. They just need to grease the pockets of the politicians, then they get what they want.
Everything's political. A lot of seemingly pointless news is used to distract people from the things that really matter.
A school bus getting broadsided by a drunk Semi truck driver is not political. People dying from falling of a cliff in a park is not political. A plane crashing is not political. Shall I continue into infinity?

Sorry not all news, not even 50% of it is political.
 
Sorry but I don't buy into your "capitalistic" rabbit hole. What you claim is they are doing this to gain more wealth. Well hell that's a lot of extra work. They just need to grease the pockets of the politicians, then they get what they want.

A school bus getting broadsided by a drunk Semi truck driver is not political. People dying from falling of a cliff in a park is not political. A plane crashing is not political. Shall I continue into infinity?

Sorry not all news, not even 50% of it is political.
Why did the semi truck driver do it? A hard time making financial ends meet, perhaps? Falling off a cliff? Where's the health and safety measures? Back to politics.
 
Why did the semi truck driver do it? A hard time making financial ends meet, perhaps? Falling off a cliff? Where's the health and safety measures? Back to politics.
The semi-truck driver hit the school bus because he was drunk and missed a stop sign, yes a very political story....
 
Why was he drunk? There must be a societal reason.
Keep grasping at straws. Most news is non political. The news that garners the most chatter on social media tends to be political. Perhaps you just view the wrong sources?
 
Back
Top