NEWS SOURCES

[TGS]

Just to piggy back on RT, they're no different than the Iranian state news or Xinhua.

CNN is putting out a tremendous amount of misrepresentations, a significant amount of half-truths, and even some total lies to serve an agenda and condition a population (propaganda)......but they're at least free to report things that happen even when the US Gov't doesn't like the publicity of whatever event is being reported.

[P30]

Thank you, @JDD, for giving examples. Next step for me would be to verify them. But without having done so yet: Maybe RT US is just not as good as RT Germany. RT Germany also is not suitable as the only news source. But at least it's not worse than my experience of CNN and most western mainstream media (especially not worse than German MSM).

[TGS]

(especially not worse than German MSM).

How do you characterize your MSM? What are the issues surrounding the media in Germany?

[P30]

How do you characterize your MSM? What are the issues surrounding the media in Germany?

They always say something like: "Russia is the devil. Germany is crap. Merkel is cool. Trump sucks, Hillary would be much better. Save the climate. Refugees will pay your retirement pensions. Pay more taxes. Buy more shit. Turn in your guns. If you don't believe us or say something else, you're a nazi!"

And of course: "Freedom is slavery. War is peace."

And of course: I see all this quite differently.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

Thank you, @JDD, for giving examples. Next step for me would be to verify them. But without having done so yet: Maybe RT US is just not as good as RT Germany. RT Germany also is not suitable as the only news source. But at least it's not worse than my experience of CNN and most western mainstream media (especially not worse than German MSM).

Your experience carries with it the illusion of the central position.

Objectively, however, there is a world of difference between state run media (RT) and -- for all its many flaws -- free media (most western sources).

[TheRoland]

Thank you, @JDD, for giving examples. Next step for me would be to verify them. But without having done so yet: Maybe RT US is just not as good as RT Germany. RT Germany also is not suitable as the only news source. But at least it's not worse than my experience of CNN and most western mainstream media (especially not worse than German MSM).

Meaning no offense, you only think this because RT Germany is targeted at you, so it's specifically designed to appear like something you, personally, should trust.

[Torsius]

I have been enjoying thedispatch.com. They are a new center-right site with a concise daily email newsletter. And so far they are completely subscriber supported with no ads.

[JAD]

Meanwhile I've removed the blabla about my humble scientific degree and experience. Too late, Blues has already quoted it. I don't want to try to speak as if I had authority. This contradicts one of Mr. deGrasse Tyson's rules. Makes me only ridiculous as Blues has already expressed.

Don’t sweat it, P, we know you’re a solid dude.

[RevolverRob]

The critical thing to learn about reading the news - is that you have to know how to find the slant.

That’s why multiple sources remains the only true solution. Pick two right leaners, two left leaners, and two mostly independents (like the CS Monitor and, believe it or not, Al Jazeera). Consistency in the story let’s you know, in effect, what the facts are, everything else is spin.

Learning to read spin isn’t easy, but isn’t hard, either. Once you know what it looks like, it is easy to spot.

[Joe in PNG]

The critical thing to learn about reading the news - is that you have to know how to find the slant.

That’s why multiple sources remains the only true solution. Pick two right leaners, two left leaners, and two mostly independents (like the CS Monitor and, believe it or not, Al Jazeera). Consistency in the story let’s you know, in effect, what the facts are, everything else is spin.

Learning to read spin isn’t easy, but isn’t hard, either. Once you know what it looks like, it is easy to spot.

The right tends to go right into insults and childish names (Obummer, ect).
The left is a bit more sophisticated about it's slant, but it's there. People and ideas they like tend to get more positive wording and phrasing, usually accompanied by more flattering photos.
One classic trick is to humanize the person you're flattering in the beginning of an article, usually via a quick & flattering description of the surroundings of the interview or the person's dress/ body language/ pets/ ect.
People they don't like get saddled with more negative wording and adjectives, plus reminders of things that may be controversial or negative. Photos will be unflattering.

Another trick is to put something negative in the headlines, then basically say you didn't mean it after the fold, or it's unfounded ect.

And, as always, Gell-Mann amnesia comes into play. If a news source buggers up something you know about, why do we tend to trust them on everything else?