Andalusia
@Andalusia
11 Years5,000+ Posts
Comments: 372 · Posts: 6468 · Topics: 165
Best news/information sources
The publisher of Foreign Affairs is that one think tank from DC that has probably the most reach in shaping US foreign policy and has been pretty much instrumental in many of the blunders the US has undertaken in the last 20-30 years. Them and Project for the new American century with fat Kagan at the helm or somewhere near.
Look up members of the Council of Foreign Relations (publisher of the magazine you read). If you need any more proof on the objectivity or lack there of...it's there.
There is no mainstream unbiased source. Alt media is the way to go, but you need to scrutinize from where you get info because some are just wackos.
Look up members of the Council of Foreign Relations (publisher of the magazine you read). If you need any more proof on the objectivity or lack there of...it's there.
There is no mainstream unbiased source. Alt media is the way to go, but you need to scrutinize from where you get info because some are just wackos.
Well fuck.
Which sources or publications do you recommend?
Which sources or publications do you recommend?
Oooh! I know, *cough* not trying to plug anything or whatever...
Seriously I'm biased cause I like these sources but part of why I like them is because they give you the facts and if ever mistaken will correct and fix the reporting. As for unbiased that depends on what you really mean by that. All these places have leanings and ideals but they presettge truth as it stands.
The Young Turks I've mentioned these guys a lot on here but they're the only media live streaming news program I consistently watch. They give factual reporting and break it down then they give their stances. They livestream everyday, there's a website, app, podcast.
Some of the following tend to be incorporated or will occasionally guest speaker on TYT.
The Damage Report
Secular Talk
The Humanist Report
All these are visual/audio sources that can be found on YT and other social media platforms.
As for typical written sources, Vox is pretty good, Huffington Post is mostly accurate, BBC, PBS, etc.
But I've stressed it before, make sure to check with multiple sources to make sure you're getting a reliable reporting.
Seriously I'm biased cause I like these sources but part of why I like them is because they give you the facts and if ever mistaken will correct and fix the reporting. As for unbiased that depends on what you really mean by that. All these places have leanings and ideals but they presettge truth as it stands.
The Young Turks I've mentioned these guys a lot on here but they're the only media live streaming news program I consistently watch. They give factual reporting and break it down then they give their stances. They livestream everyday, there's a website, app, podcast.
Some of the following tend to be incorporated or will occasionally guest speaker on TYT.
The Damage Report
Secular Talk
The Humanist Report
All these are visual/audio sources that can be found on YT and other social media platforms.
As for typical written sources, Vox is pretty good, Huffington Post is mostly accurate, BBC, PBS, etc.
But I've stressed it before, make sure to check with multiple sources to make sure you're getting a reliable reporting.
Posted by PontusPosted by FireStarterPosted by Pontus
National Review
Fox News
Lol that's a joke yeah?
They are more unbiased than fake news sources.click to expand
Um Fox News literally makes stuff up..lol
Posted by PontusPosted by FireStarterPosted by PontusPosted by FireStarterPosted by Pontus
National Review
Fox News
Lol that's a joke yeah?
They are more unbiased than fake news sources.
Um Fox News literally makes stuff up..lol
We have to agree to disagree.click to expand
Sure, good ol' alternative facts amirite?
In all honesty, its getting to the point where you have to be like the residents of the old Soviet Union with respect to TASS and Pravda-pay attention to what is not being said.
There used to be a site aggregator of raw news feeds, where the reports weren't going through an editorial filter. Cant remember the site address, but I remember seeing stories being reported on the alphabet networks two days later and they would barely resemble the raw news feeds. Gave a totally different picture that fit a narrative, rather than just reporting what happened.
I've heard that OANN as far as reporting news is pretty good, but the opinion segments are "right wing". Havent checked it out yet. It's a pay service.
Written sources I like Reason, the Federalist, and the Cato Institute. Reason and Cato are libertarian, so you have to read them keeping that in mind.
There used to be a site aggregator of raw news feeds, where the reports weren't going through an editorial filter. Cant remember the site address, but I remember seeing stories being reported on the alphabet networks two days later and they would barely resemble the raw news feeds. Gave a totally different picture that fit a narrative, rather than just reporting what happened.
I've heard that OANN as far as reporting news is pretty good, but the opinion segments are "right wing". Havent checked it out yet. It's a pay service.
Written sources I like Reason, the Federalist, and the Cato Institute. Reason and Cato are libertarian, so you have to read them keeping that in mind.
May i critique the suggestions provided?
Well even if i may not, i will 😄
Firestarter's list should go to the chopping block immediately, that all goes under umbrella of the big 6 corporations that manage the info stream, they're all another hand of the government. Maybe the Young Turks don't fall into this category but it could all be connected through holdings to one of those 6 companies.
Fox is just another side of the same government hand, catering to another segment of the population. idk National Review, but i'm assuming since it's got the word "National" it's right leaning.
If it's big and American it's not good. These people are too "in it" to not push narratives that help with their intentions.
Example, very fresh: Trump wants to pull out of Syria, first president after idk iirc Kennedy that wants to stop a war, well all media, left, right erupt in an uproar.
Here you can see the unified stance of them all, how they basically all serve the same purpose.
You're given some choice in how to run the interior policy of the country and it's internal issues, so that they can run foreign policy and play hegemon.
Example 2: All US media house except some niche one called One American News (iirc) were pushing for a proper entry of the US into Syrian war (another Iraq) after allegations of chemical weapons use which were later proven to be fabricated.
Reuters similar case, founder's family is connected to the British crown. Some count or something. Family still owns the majority.
BBC another example of the arm of the government, they post smear stories in line with UK Foreign ministry stance on a particular country.
RT, probably the best suggestion if you want a (very) critical view of America, because it's Russians. On the same hand, don't expect to see any stories covering what's wrong in Russia apart from the cosmetics. Like all above...an extended hand of the government.
An example of this: For the Example 2 from above RT would tell you the financing of the people who staged chemical attacks could be traced to western NGO's and the equipment they were receiving (read weapons, other military stuff) could be traced to publicly known Pentagon and CIA programmes.
Well even if i may not, i will 😄
Firestarter's list should go to the chopping block immediately, that all goes under umbrella of the big 6 corporations that manage the info stream, they're all another hand of the government. Maybe the Young Turks don't fall into this category but it could all be connected through holdings to one of those 6 companies.
Fox is just another side of the same government hand, catering to another segment of the population. idk National Review, but i'm assuming since it's got the word "National" it's right leaning.
If it's big and American it's not good. These people are too "in it" to not push narratives that help with their intentions.
Example, very fresh: Trump wants to pull out of Syria, first president after idk iirc Kennedy that wants to stop a war, well all media, left, right erupt in an uproar.
Here you can see the unified stance of them all, how they basically all serve the same purpose.
You're given some choice in how to run the interior policy of the country and it's internal issues, so that they can run foreign policy and play hegemon.
Example 2: All US media house except some niche one called One American News (iirc) were pushing for a proper entry of the US into Syrian war (another Iraq) after allegations of chemical weapons use which were later proven to be fabricated.
Reuters similar case, founder's family is connected to the British crown. Some count or something. Family still owns the majority.
BBC another example of the arm of the government, they post smear stories in line with UK Foreign ministry stance on a particular country.
RT, probably the best suggestion if you want a (very) critical view of America, because it's Russians. On the same hand, don't expect to see any stories covering what's wrong in Russia apart from the cosmetics. Like all above...an extended hand of the government.
An example of this: For the Example 2 from above RT would tell you the financing of the people who staged chemical attacks could be traced to western NGO's and the equipment they were receiving (read weapons, other military stuff) could be traced to publicly known Pentagon and CIA programmes.
When you'll be fed up of the endless fabricated shit from the western media conglomerates, broaden your horizon
http://www.pravdareport.com/
https://sputniknews.com/
https://www.rt.com/
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/
http://en.granma.cu/
http://www.pravdareport.com/
https://sputniknews.com/
https://www.rt.com/
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/
http://en.granma.cu/
I try to avoid reading the news altogether mostly cause it gives me indigestion, but I feel if you just read the same story from at least 2-3 different sources the truth is usually somewhere in there if you look closely 😂
😐
😐
Posted by maiden
wall street journal. it sound stereotypical but a finance publication is only going to cover the political/social stuff which affects markets and regulations = just what affects money = just news, only the activity going down.
That used to be true. But the editorial page started to sound like the Washington Post and New York Times.
Slowly that's been creeping into other parts of the paper.
It's still a good source, but I fear it's going to suffer the fate of other papers unless they are vigilant about their integrity.
Posted by Mr_Pinchy
May i critique the suggestions provided?
Well even if i may not, i will 😄
Firestarter's list should go to the chopping block immediately, that all goes under umbrella of the big 6 corporations that manage the info stream, they're all another hand of the government. Maybe the Young Turks don't fall into this category but it could all be connected through holdings to one of those 6 companies.
Fox is just another side of the same government hand, catering to another segment of the population. idk National Review, but i'm assuming since it's got the word "National" it's right leaning.
If it's big and American it's not good. These people are too "in it" to not push narratives that help with their intentions.
Example, very fresh: Trump wants to pull out of Syria, first president after idk iirc Kennedy that wants to stop a war, well all media, left, right erupt in an uproar.
Here you can see the unified stance of them all, how they basically all serve the same purpose.
You're given some choice in how to run the interior policy of the country and it's internal issues, so that they can run foreign policy and play hegemon.
Example 2: All US media house except some niche one called One American News (iirc) were pushing for a proper entry of the US into Syrian war (another Iraq) after allegations of chemical weapons use which were later proven to be fabricated.
Reuters similar case, founder's family is connected to the British crown. Some count or something. Family still owns the majority.
BBC another example of the arm of the government, they post smear stories in line with UK Foreign ministry stance on a particular country.
RT, probably the best suggestion if you want a (very) critical view of America, because it's Russians. On the same hand, don't expect to see any stories covering what's wrong in Russia apart from the cosmetics. Like all above...an extended hand of the government.
An example of this: For the Example 2 from above RT would tell you the financing of the people who staged chemical attacks could be traced to western NGO's and the equipment they were receiving (read weapons, other military stuff) could be traced to publicly known Pentagon and CIA programmes.
Yeah this isn't factual....lol
Posted by FireStarterPosted by Mr_Pinchy
May i critique the suggestions provided?
Well even if i may not, i will 😄
Firestarter's list should go to the chopping block immediately, that all goes under umbrella of the big 6 corporations that manage the info stream, they're all another hand of the government. Maybe the Young Turks don't fall into this category but it could all be connected through holdings to one of those 6 companies.
Fox is just another side of the same government hand, catering to another segment of the population. idk National Review, but i'm assuming since it's got the word "National" it's right leaning.
If it's big and American it's not good. These people are too "in it" to not push narratives that help with their intentions.
Example, very fresh: Trump wants to pull out of Syria, first president after idk iirc Kennedy that wants to stop a war, well all media, left, right erupt in an uproar.
Here you can see the unified stance of them all, how they basically all serve the same purpose.
You're given some choice in how to run the interior policy of the country and it's internal issues, so that they can run foreign policy and play hegemon.
Example 2: All US media house except some niche one called One American News (iirc) were pushing for a proper entry of the US into Syrian war (another Iraq) after allegations of chemical weapons use which were later proven to be fabricated.
Reuters similar case, founder's family is connected to the British crown. Some count or something. Family still owns the majority.
BBC another example of the arm of the government, they post smear stories in line with UK Foreign ministry stance on a particular country.
RT, probably the best suggestion if you want a (very) critical view of America, because it's Russians. On the same hand, don't expect to see any stories covering what's wrong in Russia apart from the cosmetics. Like all above...an extended hand of the government.
An example of this: For the Example 2 from above RT would tell you the financing of the people who staged chemical attacks could be traced to western NGO's and the equipment they were receiving (read weapons, other military stuff) could be traced to publicly known Pentagon and CIA programmes.
Yeah this isn't factual....lolclick to expand
Disprove any of it.
#edit: Or just read some other stuff too.
Posted by hydorah
When you'll be fed up of the endless fabricated shit from the western media conglomerates, broaden your horizon
http://www.pravdareport.com/
https://sputniknews.com/
https://www.rt.com/
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/
http://en.granma.cu/
Sometimes, but really only sometimes the op-ed's from Global times are spectacular foaming off the mouth, long winded, complexly worded bashing of anyone that disagrees with the Chines communist party.
Posted by maiden
the economist is long gone
Owned by Rothschild's (bankers) and Agnelli's (owners of FiatChrysler one of the largest car companies in the world)
Just lol right....
Posted by Mr_PinchyPosted by FireStarterPosted by Mr_Pinchy
May i critique the suggestions provided?
Well even if i may not, i will 😄
Firestarter's list should go to the chopping block immediately, that all goes under umbrella of the big 6 corporations that manage the info stream, they're all another hand of the government. Maybe the Young Turks don't fall into this category but it could all be connected through holdings to one of those 6 companies.
Fox is just another side of the same government hand, catering to another segment of the population. idk National Review, but i'm assuming since it's got the word "National" it's right leaning.
If it's big and American it's not good. These people are too "in it" to not push narratives that help with their intentions.
Example, very fresh: Trump wants to pull out of Syria, first president after idk iirc Kennedy that wants to stop a war, well all media, left, right erupt in an uproar.
Here you can see the unified stance of them all, how they basically all serve the same purpose.
You're given some choice in how to run the interior policy of the country and it's internal issues, so that they can run foreign policy and play hegemon.
Example 2: All US media house except some niche one called One American News (iirc) were pushing for a proper entry of the US into Syrian war (another Iraq) after allegations of chemical weapons use which were later proven to be fabricated.
Reuters similar case, founder's family is connected to the British crown. Some count or something. Family still owns the majority.
BBC another example of the arm of the government, they post smear stories in line with UK Foreign ministry stance on a particular country.
RT, probably the best suggestion if you want a (very) critical view of America, because it's Russians. On the same hand, don't expect to see any stories covering what's wrong in Russia apart from the cosmetics. Like all above...an extended hand of the government.
An example of this: For the Example 2 from above RT would tell you the financing of the people who staged chemical attacks could be traced to western NGO's and the equipment they were receiving (read weapons, other military stuff) could be traced to publicly known Pentagon and CIA programmes.
Yeah this isn't factual....lol
Disprove any of it.click to expand
I'll only focus on the critique that has to do with my post. And I will point out why it's not factual, disproving is more difficult as your critique is full of vague baseless statements and a bit of subjective opinion and assumption.
First what are these 6 big corporations you're referencing?
Second, all the visual sources I linked are independent, non mainstream, and most, and especially The Young Turks is funded by it's subscription membership. Which is made up of real citizens in this country. Completely unconnected to corporations and the government. You don't even know this yet you're apparently able to give an accurate "critique".
The above applies pretty much to Vox as well. But saying anything that's big and American is bad is untrue and illogical. Lots of sources have biases and narratives, what is important is if they can separate that from the facts of the situation. The other written sources I provided, for the most part accomplish this. And therefore can be called credible, like I said, double check sources. Hell even CNN and MSNBC report accurately without worrying about their personal investments, every now and then. And though they have problems they should be given credit when they do their job.
And I want to tackle the Trump pulling out from Syria issue. Are there folks on both political sides that aren't happy about this? Yeah. Are some of the reasons why due to corruption that both sides share? Well duh. Is all the outcry because they're all a collective group "serving the same purpose" no, not necessarily. Fyi The Young Turks we're happy, like I'd argue most American citizens, at the pulling of our troops. However they are concerned as to the reason why, since trump has proven in the past that not only is he an uncompassionate, selfish, asshole, but has had the opposite stance of situation in the past. And being suspicious of that is warranted.
The timing of this thread was interesting, because I just read this this morning:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/10/january-2019-when-media-fact-checkers-finally-jump/
Just because some source labels itself a "fact check" site doesn't make it so.
From the article:
"Within the first minute of Mr. Trump’s address, The Washington Post posted a political argument under the “Fact-Check” heading. Given that the post is time-stamped 9:02 p.m., the Post had to have been pre-written and published to time with the speech that had yet-to-be delivered."
How about that? Fact checking a speech that hadn't yet been made. That certainly enhances credibility.
But what is commonly called the MSM (main street media) has been perfectly happy to continually do this. Why? Because they believe their viewers are stupid.
But there's trouble in paradise! Later in the article this came up:
" "The Associated Press dared to fact check a claim from the Democrats’ response that Mr. Trump was responsible for the partial government shutdown.
“Democrats put the blame for the shutdown on Trump. But it takes two to tango. Trump’s demand for $ 5.7 billion for his border wall is one reason for the budget impasse. The Democrats refusal to approve the money is another,” the AP accurately wrote.
Democrats on Twitter were not pleased." (if one is truly interested in facts, who the fuck cares whether or not Democrats are happy?)
Anyway, you can read the article. I thought it was pretty good.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/10/january-2019-when-media-fact-checkers-finally-jump/
Just because some source labels itself a "fact check" site doesn't make it so.
From the article:
"Within the first minute of Mr. Trump’s address, The Washington Post posted a political argument under the “Fact-Check” heading. Given that the post is time-stamped 9:02 p.m., the Post had to have been pre-written and published to time with the speech that had yet-to-be delivered."
How about that? Fact checking a speech that hadn't yet been made. That certainly enhances credibility.
But what is commonly called the MSM (main street media) has been perfectly happy to continually do this. Why? Because they believe their viewers are stupid.
But there's trouble in paradise! Later in the article this came up:
" "The Associated Press dared to fact check a claim from the Democrats’ response that Mr. Trump was responsible for the partial government shutdown.
“Democrats put the blame for the shutdown on Trump. But it takes two to tango. Trump’s demand for $ 5.7 billion for his border wall is one reason for the budget impasse. The Democrats refusal to approve the money is another,” the AP accurately wrote.
Democrats on Twitter were not pleased." (if one is truly interested in facts, who the fuck cares whether or not Democrats are happy?)
Anyway, you can read the article. I thought it was pretty good.
Right after I opened the link, the first title of the packs are "Deep fakes and the new disinformation war"
Welp. Time to submerge into that Atlantic ocean, i guess..
It's about to get worse
But i won't. 🙂
my resources of news are musicians and their music videos. They are the most real news ever.
Welp. Time to submerge into that Atlantic ocean, i guess..
It's about to get worse
But i won't. 🙂
my resources of news are musicians and their music videos. They are the most real news ever.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
Doing personal training classes with a female I trained with back in 2010.
Started up sessions. First sesh I was struggling with sit ups, she ‘playfully’ slaps my leg and says ‘my God blah blah, when was the last time you did sit ups blah blah’.
Verdic
Hi guys, so I stumbled upon this website:
https://mybirthday.ninja
And I found it quite interesting but still good as you can see what type of dog breed you are like, your type of flowers and gemstones, also complete with gemstones and elements.
Upon
https://i.imgur.com/tygLhGo.png
Here is the rules and format for the DXPIL Cup
RULES
For each match up you will get 5 questions. Every match up has a home team and an away team. The Home team can choose to answer 2 or 3 of the questions first depending
What’s the weirdest or worst experience you’ve had in an Uber/Lyft ?
Has anyone ever been in an accident in one?
How do you guys feel about this? Its so weird that we knew he married a 15 year old, was on film peeing on a 14 year old..... and we all just let it slide. I know I stayed listening to Ignition. Do you think we'd feel differently if these girls were white
post pictures if you want.
my choice: chris evans.
Why would a guy call himself daddy and calls you mommy ? Is there a meaning behind it all that’s missing. My bd will say don’t be mean to daddy mami. Is there an interest or something in that ?
I'm already in a relationship
:)
I'm bored on buzzfeed, and ran across a thread with crazy MIL stories. So go ahead, post yours, if you got them.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristatorres/people-shared-the-worst-thing-their-mother-in-law-ever-did
...on netflix currently. Amazing series!!
I'm on step on, clothes. Re-organizing feels good.
Gonna cry when I get to books/papers cause that part of my life/home is a chaotic mess.
I never get shut-up likes?
Is this because I'm a Leo Moon?
:-(
@_@
My boyfriend just moved in with me 2 weeks ago. He brought all his clothes and they're here at my place.
Everything seemed normal and I talked to him during the day and he told me "I'll see you tonight" when we talked on the phone during lunch time.
Toni
Give me some good stocks to watch or some financial advisement. Dont be "shellfish"
it's important
who do you hate.
post here
How will you misconduct your men's work when they give you absolutely nothing but sex and logical skills?
I need more woman-hood. I need female energy much more. When I am having a man, I am getting worse in value.
But when I have myself (a woman), I ha
Today, we have come to the last 2 nights of the year, just in time for the RESULTS of DXP Awards 2018!!!
So let's bring in the red carpet!
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o751SWrjLrR3Wnv9e/giphy.gif
The bottles of champagne!
https://media.giphy.com/med
I have to get a new car. My Acura was rear ended and declared totaled. I'm looking at these two. This Volvo or this BMW?! Experience with either brand?! Both 2017, white, AWD sedans with roughly same expert ratings.
This one I love but unsure of inter
Post them right here.
I used to subscribe to Foreign Affairs
https://www.foreignaffairs.com
But the articles were a bit dense for me after awhile :/