NEWS SOURCES

[P30]

RT and its many tendrils sometimes do some very fine reporting, investigation and analysis.

I agree and like that you see it so.

Trouble is, most of that's purely to lend cover to all the disinformation.

Example?

RT [...] But don't mistake it for a legit news source.

Is CNN a "legit news source"? Is RT worse than CNN?

I think, enough truth is only in the mix. And the mix exposes contradictions. And then the evidence of western mainstream media is rarely superior. So then I know that I don't know. But I know, war is shit. So I don't buy the war-mongering of western mainstream media.

[blues]

Is CNN a "legit news source"? Is RT worse than CNN?

I think, enough important truth is only in the mix. And the mix exposes contradictions. And then the evidence of western main stream media is rarely superior. So then I know that I don't know. But I know war is shit. So I don't buy the war mongering of western main stream media.

It can be legit if the "news" being reported doesn't conflict with an obvious agenda. (Same for FOX and most all of the outlets.)

I'll be damned if I can tell you a news outlet I trust.

Generally I try to go to the Associated Press, Reuters or some other news wire before it gets bent and remolded into something that fits a narrative.

Sad state of affairs.

[vcdgrips]

BBC+PBS+NPR+WSJ+the Guardian+FOX + CNN + 24-48 hours of the passage of time= a decent handle on what is happening in the world

[P30]

Also very important: Dare to think for yourself!

Don't drown in the information overflow with so many false and irrelevant informations.

[farscott]

I tend to go after as many sources as I can and use the aggregate to determine/decipher a story. Certain outlets get tossed on certain subjects and used for others. For example, stories on bloomberg.com on guns and NYT stories on culture are ignored while Bloomberg financial stories and NYT investigative stories are read.

[blues]

Also very important: Dare to think for yourself!

Don't drown in the information overflow with so many false and irrelevant informations.

And consider other sources besides Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[P30]

Avoid ad hominem. His 5 rules are great. Very simple and very useful just like the Cooper rules.

[blues]

Avoid ad hominem. His 5 rules are great. Very simple and very useful just like the Cooper rules. I've got a master degree in computer science (the German equivalent), physics as minor subject. And on the way I experienced that this 5 rules really help in science. And not only there, also in everyday life.

Jawohl, mein Herr!

(My scholarships were for astrophysics...look where that got me.)

[P30]

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.

[JDD]

I agree and like that you see it so.


Example?


Is CNN a "legit news source"? Is RT worse than CNN?

I think, enough truth is only in the mix. And the mix exposes contradictions. And then the evidence of western mainstream media is rarely superior. So then I know that I don't know. But I know, war is shit. So I don't buy the war-mongering of western mainstream media.

Yes.

RT is a state run media outlet. It is literal textbook propaganda, from the home of the masters of it, much like CCTV. Of course, there is good material they produce, because clear an accurate reporting muddies the waters when they produce BS. People that count on them as a source have to be educated enough on whatever issue is at hand to know if they are being fed solid reporting, or the Moscow party line...

If you want examples of straight up deliberately misleading coverage, look for issues where Moscow is trying to advance a position poorly supported by reality/facts. A good concrete example would be the coverage of the shoot-down of MH17 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/29...putin-ukraine/), or the way they covered the Russian assassination attempts in the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...scandal-russia), or more recently the way they have covered the Syria war generally, or specific incidents in it like the Feb 7th battle where 300 + Russian mercs died attacking a unit with U.S. troops embedded in it. (https://taskandpurpose.com/russia-me...defeat-details , https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/06...ian-civil-war/)

Please don't read this as an endorsement of CNN (I have my severe issues with their coverage), but RT is one of the clearest examples of a purveyor of unreliable information there is for someone looking for basic sources for an issue. There is value in reading it as a weathervane on Russian policy and positions, but it is worse than nothing as a primary source. Their various taglines and marketing strategies are centered around the fact that they are going to provide a different perspective from everyone else sometimes... unfortunately, that is because those are the times they are going to be peddling Russian lies.