4 ms·

There is no such thing as a reputable news source. Generally speaking when someone points to a "reputable news source" they are referring to a establishment new

There is no such thing as a reputable news source. Generally speaking when someone points to a "reputable news source" they are referring to a establishment news source. If a claim is important to you verify it to the best of your ability, otherwise consider all news as opinion. If you have a better one, sure share that. However dismissing entire publication out of hand is how the establishment controls narratives.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> There is no such thing as a reputable news source. There is no room to say "they're all as bad as each other." There are however disreputable sources, and the daily mail is one of them. See link above.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  This opinion about alternative news sources you have, where did it come from? Perhaps one of those trustworthy news sources or experts you are to never question? By closing yourself off to alternative news sources entirely you are allowing yourself to only consume the mainstream narrative. This is why I push back on dismissals based on the source, don't be so lazy, explain what you think they got wrong without appealing to authority.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
    I ventured no opinion about "alternative news sources" in general, just on the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is not even an "alternative news source" in any way, it's just owned by a different billionaire to the rest. Since you ask, most I don't trust it because of the sensationalism, the nakedly partisan fearmongering, the dumbed-down mean-spirited hate-filled reactionary world-view, the criminal phone hacking, and the habit of stealing images from people's social media and using them without permission, attribution, or payment. Please don't use loaded language like "don't be so lazy", "you are to never question", it's borderline insulting. Especially when using lazy stereotypes about "your opinion comes from mainstream media", which again is a ludicrous defence of the Daily Mail > are allowing yourself to only consume the mainstream narrative. This is tinfoil hat stuff. But sure, go ahead name an "alternative news source" that you think is really good? Let's see what "unbiased" looks like to you.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      If we dismissed news organizations that have biases we would have no articles to comment on. News is inherently editorial, you can't cover everything so you have to pick and choose what is "important". Guess what? Things that make news organizations owners, advertisers or preferred political candidates look bad is often found to be less "important" than things that make them look good. It's just how humans work. You don't go to college and get paid low wages to report on the unbiased truth, you do it to push for whatever your personal definition of good is. We can utilize this human flaw to our advantage. A newspaper owned by one billionaire might on occasion dig up some dirt on another. If we just dismiss them then we will miss it and sometimes it checks out.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        > A newspaper owned by one billionaire might on occasion dig up some dirt on another. This does not describe the story above in any way. A choice of billionaires is a very poor menu. I don't "just dismiss them for that reason", I gave some reasons above. What do you mean by "alternative news sources" ? Give an example.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

> There is no such thing as a reputable news source. There is no room to say "they're all as bad as each other." There are however disreputable sources, and the daily mail is one of them. See link above.

willcipriano 3y ago
This opinion about alternative news sources you have, where did it come from? Perhaps one of those trustworthy news sources or experts you are to never question? By closing yourself off to alternative news sources entirely you are allowing yourself to only consume the mainstream narrative. This is why I push back on dismissals based on the source, don't be so lazy, explain what you think they got wrong without appealing to authority.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  I ventured no opinion about "alternative news sources" in general, just on the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is not even an "alternative news source" in any way, it's just owned by a different billionaire to the rest. Since you ask, most I don't trust it because of the sensationalism, the nakedly partisan fearmongering, the dumbed-down mean-spirited hate-filled reactionary world-view, the criminal phone hacking, and the habit of stealing images from people's social media and using them without permission, attribution, or payment. Please don't use loaded language like "don't be so lazy", "you are to never question", it's borderline insulting. Especially when using lazy stereotypes about "your opinion comes from mainstream media", which again is a ludicrous defence of the Daily Mail > are allowing yourself to only consume the mainstream narrative. This is tinfoil hat stuff. But sure, go ahead name an "alternative news source" that you think is really good? Let's see what "unbiased" looks like to you.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    If we dismissed news organizations that have biases we would have no articles to comment on. News is inherently editorial, you can't cover everything so you have to pick and choose what is "important". Guess what? Things that make news organizations owners, advertisers or preferred political candidates look bad is often found to be less "important" than things that make them look good. It's just how humans work. You don't go to college and get paid low wages to report on the unbiased truth, you do it to push for whatever your personal definition of good is. We can utilize this human flaw to our advantage. A newspaper owned by one billionaire might on occasion dig up some dirt on another. If we just dismiss them then we will miss it and sometimes it checks out.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
      > A newspaper owned by one billionaire might on occasion dig up some dirt on another. This does not describe the story above in any way. A choice of billionaires is a very poor menu. I don't "just dismiss them for that reason", I gave some reasons above. What do you mean by "alternative news sources" ? Give an example.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]