Journalism, is it still a credible source?

[Sunray Breaker]

Hello all...Some of you remember me, some don't. But I'm here to ask a serious question.

I consider myself to be a recovering truther and there is one question that's plagued my mind for sometime.

Is there such a thing as credible journalism anymore?

It seems that one of the hardest things to grasp when I originally tried to debate with the people on this site, and I was sort of pushing my "twoofer" rhetoric, that I noticed that even the most mainstream articles and even (from what I percieved at least) the most credible news source that I knew of (Reuter's, CNN, BBC, Wallstreet Journal) had several articles on here that seem to have been either debunked or refuted with ease.

It begs the question, Is there any actual credible journalism that can be trusted? I'm of course not reffering to scientific journals and the like, as they tend to be pretty solid.

But when it comes to general news, how can one really know what stories to take seriously and which ones not to? It's become such a profit game, that it seems any outlet will simply push the scariest story to sell their papers, but in actuality they never really seem interested in reporting something that isn't either exciting or panic enducing.

I mean seriously, even the credible news sources seem to give a lot of credit to Gerald Celente and he's quite the fear monger.

It seems, according the skeptics, that hardly any of the stuff that he, or any of the other doom and gloomers getting head line news, are totally wrong.

Same with the Oil Crisis....Apparently, according to skeptics, that's mainly BS too...

What say the skeptics on the ethics of journalism and what would you consider to be good sources of information?

I want to LEARN how to conduct proper research, I want to know where to go, so that I don't end up falling for another rediculous trick, like the Twoof Movement.

Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on modern journalism as it is today and what your opinions are in regards to their "moral" (for lack of a better term) accountability.

[rjh01]

Sorry, but the best of sources can be wrong and that is just on the simple stuff. I tend to want information from two independent sources before I will believe it.

If it is wrong then getting answers can be hard. Those people do not like others asking questions. They just want to live in their fantasy world. That is the difference. If they are right then they do not mind answering questions, which are sensible and build on what you (and others) already know.

[Darth Rotor]

Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on modern journalism as it is today and what your opinions are in regards to their "moral" (for lack of a better term) accountability.
I think what's called for is the whole Skeptical bit.

Get a second opinion, and for news reports, check out of they were all from "reuters" or "AP" or whatever, since some stories are basically the same story picked up by numerous media outlets over a wire service.

DR

[Sunray Breaker]

That is a good I idea. There's been an epidemic lately of people that seem to buy into a lot of insane news hype.

I tried to convice a "twoofer" that his news clippings and articles would not stand up in a court room or a lab...I'm yet to hear his reply.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not just a matter of sources. You've also got to have some ability to doubt stories that are unparsimonious.

When I lived in Ecuador right when their economy was collapsing, several people told me that the U.S. was offering to buy the Galapagos Islands for some tens of billions of dollars. They insisted that the story came from reputable newspapers (though I never saw the newspaper stories). I rejected the story out of hand as making no sense at all. Too many things would've had to happen that didn't for that story to ring true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, most extraordinary claims are made based on the shakiest of evidence (anecdotes, rumors, gossip, etc.)

[Sunray Breaker]

I do wish there was a sort of skeptics version of the news. Because I liek to keep an eye on what's going on, but there's so much agenda pushing and fear mongering in the name of profit (or so it seems) that it seems there really is nowhere you can go to get general, straight forward, fact based news.

Hence my being here all the time.

[Darth Rotor]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, most extraordinary claims are made based on the shakiest of evidence (anecdotes, rumors, gossip, etc.)
For example, the claims that I am a handsome devil, made by my wife, require extraodinary evidence that is rarely to hand, other than a mostly finshed bottle of wine.

Claims that I am the Devil might actually have more evidence to support it, now that I (oh crap) think of it! :jaw-dropp

[Darth Rotor]

I do wish there was a sort of skeptics version of the news. Because I liek to keep an eye on what's going on, but there
Me too. Fewer trees would die, for one thing, and thus carbon dioxide mitigation would have a slightly better chance. :D Down side? More unemployed journalism majors, who'd be bumming around for a job and making stuff up on their resumes, rather than in their articles.

[Mac53]

Any type of media is just out there as a business. They have a niche like any other successful business. They provide drama, in everyday life.

The news is always the same, because people want to hear the same thigns over again, it comforts them. If something works why change it? If your making millions why change it? if people are more interested in the war in iraq then the children killed there then you either do two things. You close your company or you report about the heroes of war.

That being said, even if we are provided with all information and all sides, people generally speculate but it's accepted speculation...

Anyone source can make a mistake, some sort of error that can throw off a piece of information. May it be because of a bad source, a misquote or what ever.

Personally i feel thee is nothing wrong with CTs because they are just a theory that lacks evidence. The problem i feel most people have as i do is this...when people run around all over any media be it internet, or other (TV etc) and claim they have found the truth and its fact and etc etc.

Sadly all CTs are just possibilities, i have yet to see anyone come out with here is a chemical test on the core columns from the rumble of the WTC. What they come up with is a scientist saying "that looks like molten metal". There is a difference between the two and that's the reason the journalist are not as credible. They just shoot out the possible theory's that are most supported. They in the words of David Icke (Who use ot be a BBC presenter) repeat what the party in question told them and then the journalist tells you. (repeaters).

As well, it good just to check many sources, use some logic, reasoning and come up with a good answer.

Here is an example. You use ot be a troother as i was too, i would assume that you would og to a site such as prisonplanet.com or whatever and look at the evidence there. I stopped being a troother when i went on google type in Alex Jones Fraud, liar, Jesuit, CIA agent and what ever. You can pretty much see who has a god rep and who is just a con artist.

You can also look at the person through research...

Lets say we compare:

David Icke vs Alex Jones

David makes very little if any money of his stuff. He has lots of free stuff available other then the live events and the books he has which are like 10-15 bucks each.(Not sure got them at library, never read them tho :)).

He has been traveling around the world talking to many people from different backgrounds. He is very open person and some of his presentations don't emphasize a conspiracy at all but him explain reality or what ever.

Alex Jones is much the opposite. He yells at people who correct his mistakes on his Daily? radio show? He sells a types of worthless fear based movies for like 40-50 bucks when he can just upload ot a site and just let free downloads happen...He charges for other things as well.

His background and his character are just untrustworthy and most of his stuff is a "fear the NWO and Obey me and i will help you..stock up on products because the NWO is here." etc.

From that one can conclude that David is a better source of information he has taken massive ridicule made mistakes and admitted them as he got more information.

Sometimes you need to do reads books and more books and sources on those books and things like that to come to a small conclusion.

So i think that if you want to do good research into what ever subject it is, don't expect some 1 hours reading of some article but rather heavy research into a single topic. Essentially becoming a lawyer or a scientist and do experiments etc.

And to conclude the media is biased to a certain point of view, no matter
how you look at it.

Sorry for rant, i like to explain my **** :)

[Sunray Breaker]

Definitely. Alex Jone sis one of the worst is the business. The worst part is how he has people utterly convinced of his nonsense and they all fall in line.

It amazes me how you can pretict what a truther will say before they say it. They have the exact same rant, no matter who you talk to.

I've already lost a few friends because of my decision, buut they'll HOPEFULLY pick up on it sooner or later, only time will tell

[Darth Rotor]

Any type of media is just out there as a business. They have a niche like any other successful business. They provide drama, in everyday life.

The news is always the same, because people want to hear the same thigns over again, it comforts them. If something works why change it? If your making millions why change it? if people are more interested in the war in iraq then the children killed there then you either do two things. You close your company or you report about the heroes of war.

That being said, even if we are provided with all information and all sides, people generally speculate but it's accepted speculation...

And to conclude the media is biased to a certain point of view, no matter
how you look at it.

Sorry for rant, i like to explain my **** :)
Was reading a WW II era book this weekend that pointed very clearly to the US newspapers of the day having open and very clear biases.

The Luce owned papers, the papers owned by Charles Marsh, and the Hearst Papers were mentioned as contrasts to one another.

Their editorial slant wasn't hidden. What seems dishonest among news organs today is the pretense of objectivity. If you assume a news report holds a bias, at least you won't be fooled as often as if you don't. :cool:

[quarky]

Journalism has definitely taken a hit. The best newspapers are going down, or being sold to high bidders with political agendas. Even news magazines are going extinct.

[Darth Rotor]

Journalism has definitely taken a hit. The best newspapers are going down, or being sold to high bidders with political agendas. Even news magazines are going extinct.

Did you bother to read my post? Bias in journalism is an imbedded habit in America, if not elsewhere. You might want to look up Luce, Hearst, Scrippes, Howard, Marsh (among others) to get an idea of where their political sympathies lay, and how they used their position as press barons in relation to that.

(Does Murdoch do something similar? Does Berlusconi, in Italy? )

[quarky]

I read a lot, but only remember things for a few minutes.

Yes, I know its always been biased, but news has been shifting towards entertainment, as opposed to journalistic sounding propaganda. The "Daily Show" now is a major news source for lots of young folks. Walter Cronkite is dead.

[shadron]

Did you bother to read my post? Bias in journalism is an imbedded habit in America, if not elsewhere. You might want to look up Luce, Hearst, Scrippes, Howard, Marsh (among others) to get an idea of where their political sympathies lay, and how they used their position as press barons in relation to that.

(Does Murdoch do something similar? Does Berlusconi, in Italy? )

Do bears cop in the woods?

[Fnord]

Re-Posted from another thread, but parts bear repeating in this one, and with only minor changes:

.
Professional Journalist: An otherwise ordinary reporter with a by-line, a regular paying job as a reporter, and at least two years at university towards a journalism degree.

Journalist: An otherwise ordinary reporter with a by-line and a regular, paying job.

Citizen Journalist: An otherwise ordinary citizen with a grudge, Internet access, and no job.

...

Reporter: That class of over-worked, underpaid hacks that put in their time, earn their chops, and really know what they're doing, but whose credit is taken by members of the "Journalist" class.

[Greg_in_CO]

The recent King's Dominion UFO story that CNN ran was pathetic. It took all of 15 seconds on Google to show that it was a giant smoke ring from the park's volcano ride.