Memo shows Trump tried to end investigation in Feb.

by Coded Logic 134 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    Simon
    I'm only asking if you believe there is any source that can be trusted to present only the facts, with little or no spin.

    You cannot say because it depends on the story very often.

    CNN for instance can report with incredible accuracy and pull in innumerable experts on an issue. If a plane crashes, they are on it and after a few weeks of ever more detailed coverage and expert explanation you feel like you are a crash investigator.

    But point them at a BLM protest and they practically turn into demonstrators.

    Those are the points where you have to listen to more than a single outlet and not limit your news to one "trusted" source. Listen to the other side, the truth might be somewhere in between. It might be someplace at either end, that's where you need to look for a source with no real skin in the game or for people on the other side speaking up - there are for instance many conservative commentators that of course are critical of Clinton but will also call out Trumps failures and faults too - listen to them more than the ones who won't.

    Also important is to look for outlets that want to inform and have proper discussion, not a Jerry Springer conflict contrived shouting match which makes great theatre and might win ratings as entertainment but doesn't educate anyone.

    PBS seems pretty good at allowing panelists to speak and must have rules about not shouting over each other that CNN could do well to follow.

  • Spoletta
    Spoletta

    Simon.

    I totally agree with you, I do make an effort to see both sides of the story, and find it's not difficult to discern the truth if you weigh the facts dispassionately. There are commentators on Fox that don't occupy the prime time slots, who are much less prejudiced in their viewpoints, unlike Hannity and Carlson, just as there are anchors on CNN that go for the "Big" story.

    The question is, how do you deal with those who choose only to believe one side?

    NPR is an excellent source for a fairly unbiased presentation of facts, yet I think you'll agree that it's constantly presented by some on the right as "liberal". Why is that so? It's my opinion that there's an intrinsic feeling by some conservatives that the plain unvarnished truth is not their friend. Again, that's just my opinion.

    I've been wrong in this forum about some things that I picked up from my research, and I think you'll find that each time it was pointed out to me, I admitted it and apologized.

    I've been a little snarky at times when someone has gotten under my skin, but have never called anyone the kind of names that I've been labeled by some individuals.

    So, I would still welcome any suggestions of news sources that we can all trust (to some degree), and will try to limit my comments to examples that are trustworthy. This will include videos of statements, documents that are proven to exist, and named events and sources from intelligence agencies and the media that are accepted by the majority as being factual. That's the best I can do.

    Thanks.

  • Simon
    Simon
    So, I would still welcome any suggestions of news sources that we can all trust (to some degree), and will try to limit my comments to examples that are trustworthy.

    What I was saying is: there is no such thing.

    You can't say "News Channel XYZ is trustworthy". They might be even 80-90% of the time, but even then you can't then say everything they say is true just because they said it. Likewise, you can't say that something is a lie just because of the source reporting it.

    Often news channels are groups of reporters and you have to look at their views and agenda's too. Some reports are unable to be objective on some issues. I think years ago there were better editorial standards but now everything is a race to produce click-bait to make money.

    Bias sells.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    Yes, but it's a way from having uncovered some evidence. Unless someone is putting their name to it, then it's just an unsubstantiated rumour (sic).

    Journalist only publish if they have at least two credible sources that can corroborate a story. You're just trying to marginalize the enormous impact of the report be redefining it with a weaker and pejorative term (i.e. "unsubstantiated rumor").

    This is not an honest way to engage in debate.

  • Spoletta
    Spoletta

    What I was saying is: there is no such thing.

    Sadly, you may be right. So I'll keep on keeping on, with the hope that (as Trump would say), I'll be vindicated in the end.