What are the best sources to finding "truth in media"?

I use factcheck.org for political ads and campaign statements.

I usually find NPR to be truthful.

DemocracyNow! is a great source of real news. But after searching for real news about the latest Wikileaks dump, I found what the rest of the world (not America) is saying about it and it was eye-opening. I especially was touched by what the Kenyan government (a new democracy) had to say about their friendship with America not being based on any temporary players in Washington. For those interested: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

@iamthemob websites like Fact Check and Democracy Now will get you unbiased reports if you think George Soros is a saint (Both sites are associated in some way with him and Soros is part of the more liberal faction of the democrat party). Sadly there are few outlets even “truth checkers” that don’t have some bias. I suppose it depends on what kind of truth you want.

I enjoy the BBC.

I take a look at a variety of media sources just to see what they say. Some have an agenda and are clearly biased others try to report honestly. The BBC is mostly pretty reliable but I wouldn’t completely trust any organisation, I find it easier to trust individual reporters who have experienced first hand what they describe.

Great question, and this is very important to me. I generally listen to NPR, BBC, and PBS, I like watching This Week on Sunday mornings on ABC, and read material on Politico, Factcheck (when relevant), Politifact, and The Economist. I like Google’s aggregate news, but always need to consider the source of the article.

I’m unfamiliar with Democracy Now, but I’ll check it out.

That said, I can’t honestly say I “trust” any of those sources completely. Bias creeps in, even when the organization has the intention of minimizing it. So the best approximation of truth I can get is by being very familiar with the source of a news article, and then reading it in multiple sources. Generally after doing that I feel I have a decent idea of what the real story is. AND EVEN THEN, I still maintain some skepticism.

Usually this is only a problem with heavily politicized issues, like global warming, immigration, health care reform, or, well, politics. If I happen to see an article on Fox News about a 60 car pile up on the interstate, I don’t worry Fox is biased in those instances. In fact, that’s all I regard outlets like Fox, MSNBC, or The Washington Times as useful for: just reporting accidents and murders and things. I don’t trust their numbers.

Although I’m aware of the liberal biases in The New York Time and Washington Post, I feel I can still gain useful information from them as long as I keep the bias in the front of my mind. Many of their journalists are very professional.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I also watch a lot of C-SPAN (1–3). I like hearing what was said in a hearing before the media spins it. Many times I’ve watched something live, then later that day seen it taken out of context in the news. That was an eye-opener.

Your head and your gut.

The reason we have so much difficulty discerning what is real and unbiased in the media is because we have spent the last few decades letting the media tell us what is real and unbiased.

and payed them pretty fucking well for the privilege to boot

@Blondesjon “Your head and your gut”

Based on what facts though? If you see a set of economic numbers on CNN, how can you use your head and gut to determine how accurate those numbers are?

I would add that even unbiased media give us a distorted view of what is going on in the world today as they are obsessed with ‘breaking news’ and jump from story to story without following up properly. Coverage of Afghanistan is really poor which is shocking considering we have been at war there for ten years and billions of pounds of our money has been spent there. When did you last hear an interview with an Afghan from a reporter who was not embedded with the military. Coverage of Vietnam I remember was far superior.

BBC and WSJ are pretty straight forward. Nothing but the facts mam!

@Blondesjon , I understand what you mean. No one media outlet has all the truth, you have to wade through them all then use your powers of logic and intuition.
Or just follow the money (Cui bono)

I like the tone the answers have taken. I believe the phrase we’re looking for is ‘critical thinking’ about whatever we hear. Research is good, too:)

@papayalily , @flutherother The BBC has mostly greatly informative and entertaining media but be aware that it also has biases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

@Odysseus I know. It’s just so much better when compared with Fox, MSNBC, and the incompetence of CNN.

I think that @Ivy has a point – perhaps the question should have been phrased as “What are the best ways to find ‘truth in media’?”

@cockswain . . . Based on my own little piece of the universe.

In my experience 90% of the major “news” of the world has little or nothing to do with my day to day existence. Sure, the issues are fun to debate and drunkenly philosophize over, but when it comes to me getting out of bed, getting in my car, going to work, and doing what I do, they don’t change my routine. No clanging bells in my head and no sinking feeling in my gut. It’s just a bunch of filler, usually aimed at selling us fear by using “facts” that can never really be proven one way or the other.

The 10% of news items that do give me pause are the ones that will fuck up my day. These normally include natural disasters (hard to spin) and the obituaries (again, hard to spin).

When I see a set of economic numbers on CNN my head and my gut tell me that I can grab the remote or go online and find many different sets of economic numbers describing the exact same thing. My head and my gut tell me that I am simply following a trail of bullshit to nothing but a much larger pile of bullshit. This seems to hold true for what passes for “news” today.

@Odysseus Being unbiased is an ideal that can never be fully attained in practice but I don’t know of any news organisation that tries harder to avoid bias than the BBC.

“When I see a set of economic numbers on CNN my head and my gut tell me that I can grab the remote or go online and find many different sets of economic numbers describing the exact same thing. My head and my gut tell me that I am simply following a trail of bullshit to nothing but a much larger pile of bullshit. This seems to hold true for what passes for “news” today.”

I like what you said, particularly the quoted bit. So this is what drives me nuts. If I really want to get at the heart of something, it can take me hours, only to still realize I may not have the truth. Usually I just end up realizing, “Hey, this source is biasing the numbers this way, and this source is downplaying these numbers.”

It sucks.

Like @cockswain says – the main problem I have is trying to figure it out.

And let’s say you do. Good luck getting someone else convinced, let alone hundreds of thousands of people.

I’m depressed.

@cockswain . . . That’s why you only check the weather and the obits. You know that one will never be right and the other is never wrong.

Yes, but then I end up feeling socially irresponsible by not attempting to find out what is going on the world. I’m certain this will torment me until I’m dead.

I’ve personally witnessed how the media, both local and national newspapers, as well as ESPN will play off of public opinion. In our situation, I have seen one newspaper journalist build a career on destroying a business and two families.

When the story went national, ESPN interviewed one of my family members with high credibility, and documentation for proof. They declined to show the clip, because it was not “news”. It was the truth, but it was not news. Remember that news isn’t news unless someone watches it, and that’s where the money is!

Instead they showed a clip of someone with no credibility, and hearsay for proof.

These days any news I hear I always ask myself, “How much of THIS STORY is the truth?”

You can find truth in any piece of misinformation if you know how to look. You need to understand the biases of the publishers of the “information.” Understanding their agendas and political leanings and religious points of view and all the rest, you can correct for these things in a report.

I like to consume progressive sources of the news—the New Yorker, my local paper, NPR, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, The Nation, The Sun Magazine. I like their biases and don’t feel the need to correct much, although I am aware that even if their hearts are in the right place, they could be wrong. I also trust the Wall Street Journal. I know they also hire progressive reporters, even if they don’t have that point of view, overall.

One thing I’ve noticed is how news media seem to all copy each other. So if one leads with news, the others all report it the next day. Not sure what that means.

Your best bet is to be very wide read; to have studied a lot of different subject areas, and to liberally apply the “smell test” to everything you learn about. If it smells fishy, it probably is. Of course, everyone has a differently abled nose.

i agree with most people in that there is not singular media outlet for “truth” for many reasons.

in my personal opinion: it’s all a waste of time. unless you are looking for information that is directly important to you, or you have the means to change something that you would like to change, there isn’t much point. i’d rather be focusing on something else.

“truth in media”, oxymoron?

@thetas49 – not really.

“Honest media” or “Truthful media” certainly. ;-)

but thruth is absolute and the media tends to be subjective, even if its an honest report it may not be the “absolute” truth.

Yes, oxymoron! Truth in media ~ military intelligence, peace keepers, the list is endless. It seems words no longer are required meaning. How can there be truth at all without meaning?

@thetas49 – “Absolute truth” is perhaps the greatest oxymoron of all.

Its what the “unbiased” judical court system is built on, and they’re never wrong, (ha ha ha ha)

“what secondary sources on the internet do you go to?”
First, you avoid “secondary sources”, especially on the internet.
That is if you really want the truth/ best information.

The source is not hard to find. Unless you are easily distracted and/or lazy.

@PoppingBoner – I wouldn’t consider any media source anything other than a “secondary source” in terms of reporting events. So I think it depends on what you consider a primary and secondary source, in this instance.

So, what are the ones that you recommend?

There are primary news sources. NBC, ABC, CBS
Primary medical resources. Sloan-Kettering Institute, Johns Hopkins University

That goes for science too.

The list is long. But you are a smart boy. I am sure you can figure it out. ;-)

@PoppingBoner – How are the networks “primary” sources? It seems like they’re the ones that are subject to the most bias.

Further, larger medical resources are often subject to funding pressures that might seriously bias their reporting.

What did you think was meant by “secondary sources,” if that’s the case?

I appreciate being deemed a smart boy, of course…but I feel I am smart enough to want to get my information from the least biased sources possible – and because there are so many, who knows how much I’m being fooled…

@PoppingBoner That’s not a primary source. A primary source is the original source. The networks might be the biggest, but they’re no less removed from the story than anyone else.

@iamthemob I just found a really eye-opening site with information that’s being withheld in the States. If you’re interested: http://www.zerohedge.com/

@iamthemob – You are right.

There is always fantasy land.

“they’re the ones that are subject to the most bias.”
You will never find the proper information that YOU want unless you come off the conspiracy bad wagon.

There are no absolutes. If that is what you are looking for. :-)
It’s all a numbers game.

@Ivy The government has withheld the info from us that Obama is a politician?

@PoppingBoner – I think the qualifications of “best sources,” “least biased,” etc. indicate that I myself am not looking for absolutes. ;-)

Also, I don’t think that there’s a hint of “conspiracy” at all in the posts here. Recognition of bias due to influences outside the source isn’t the “conspiracy bandwagon.” It’s more recognition of what’s right in front of us.

“It’s more recognition of what’s right in front of us.”

@iamthemob – Exactly! :-)

@PoppingBoner – Awesome. And any actual suggestions you now have will of course be appreciated.

Thanks! You being so quick witted. ;-)

Apparently you follow the understanding of ignorance being bliss.
Or you just appreciate fruity drinks.

Ok, now lets have more of that quick wit of yours.

I’ll try to unpack this:

(1) ignorance is indeed bliss. I prefer information to bliss.

(2) fruity drinks have their place and time.

(3) if you have substantive sources and reasons why you’d go to them, it would be appreciated.

I have found first hand reports to be the best source. Since I already know I cannot trust the news media, I have to find my own sources for news. It takes time. It takes a bit of networking, but it’s better than nothing. For those who do not understand what I’m talking about, read my first post.

The quality of media sources is reciprocally proportional to their use of polemics and sensationalism.

@mattbrowne – I think that is probably a pretty solid set of criteria to work with.

We recognise the truth because it affects us more profoundly than bias and spin.

Actually, if you are biased to begin with, you won’t know it. That’s why racists don’t recognize themselves.

@snowberry – Excellent point!

Then it’s only a matter of the right people finding each other. Combine a biased person with a biased journalist, now, that’s what sells news! It’s not the truth, but it’s news, and it sells much much better than the truth.

I.e. Fox News :-/

Or any other news show, including ESPN, or any newspaper in the country (per personal experience)/