43 3

Do you trust the Mainstream Media?

View Results
Lovewins 5 Apr 7

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Trust MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post and NY Times and NPR and PBS

I don't watch MSNBC any more, just way too far left in reporting, the rest you cited I agree with


I liked when Al Jazeera was on in the US, I wonder which politician got worked to get rid of them. OK I'm ready to be flamed.


So long as we exclude Fox and all extreme right wing media from the term "mainstream", I generally trust all of the others.


I trust myself, but the quality of information obtainable from the mainstream media is better than anywhere else. They and their news feeds such as Reuters and AP pay real journalists to do real research and investigation. If there's a better way of being informed, I've yet to hear of it.


I do my best to avoid mainstream media. When I do want to know more about a person or event, I try to hit up multiple sources to attempt to glean some semblance of truth. Even then, there’s a lot of reading between the lines required.


Mainstream media is all about the money.

Do you grow all your own food, because supermarkets are all about the money too?

Oooo, @NoTimeForBS. You're a real cynic.

Ironic, much?


This is when I ask the question... Define trust?


The only thing they are good at is reporting the glorified news. They make it sound like a Hollywood script the majority of the population is way undereducated and they believe the fiction pouring out of the mouths of the commentators like diarrhea of the brain.


Stick to the mainstream outlets, ignore 95% of what you see on Facebook, 99% of what you see in online sites/blogs (basically some guy in a room by himself), and, if it sounds really newsworthy,(tRump in murder/suicide pact with Putin!) go onlineand check several other national/international media outlets. nadif it still soundsover the top -snopes it. British websites and places like Reuters are usually better than American outlets for American news, but watch out for their basis as well. I stopped following a bunch of liberal sites because they were basically repeating each other with really annoying hyperbolicclickbait headlines. andconservative sites are even worse.

I quit watching NBC news, it's way too far left, the same as Fox is too far to the right. Unfortunately they are both mainstream medias.


Not really no. I listen to commentaries but I don't forget that it's opinions.


Some things on mainstream are fair and I don’t believe every single person on air is corrupt, but I certainly believe there is corporate control and bias. Certain networks are worse than others.

MsDee Level 5 Mar 5, 2019

I'm not an American, but I agree with list given by @sassygirl3869 and I watch these from afar.

I do not think lumping CNN and Fox together, as some do, as equally bad, is right. Fox is simply the commercial propaganda wing of the US conservative movement. It is not a news service at all. I agree with left wing criticism of CNN as corporate media. As Noam Chomsky has said, mainstream media in the US is about manufactured consent and dissent, providing so called news within a range that is acceptable to your country's elites. That said, CNNs anchors aren't just brainless mouthpieces; the range of contributors is impressive, and something like a balanced discussion is evident. Trump's half witted apologists are mouthing off on CNN all the time. It's just that nothing too progressive, challenging or critical of the power structure in the US gets a hearing. Also NBC is also interesting and leftish, in an acceptable way to power there. PBS is excellent, but again, nothing too radical folks. If you want to see discussion in the US about crazy ongoing wars, mindless expenditure on defence, rampant inequality and poverty, disgraceful corporate greed, political corporate corruption, crumbling infrastructure in the face of mindless wars and military spending, electoral systems that are antiquated, to put it mildly, and an out of control surveillance state, then you won't find it on US mainstream media. You need to go to new media, and the audiences they reach via alternate means. I certainly do.


YouTube is the last place to get news. MSM is propaganda paid by the donors and advertisers. Think there’s an exception? Think again.

Marz Level 7 Apr 7, 2018

Could you clarify what you mean by "last place", speaking of YouTube?

The Young Turks is the number one online news source (progressive). The Jimmy Dore Show is another progressive news source, but delivered by comedians. There's also The Humanist Report and Secular Talk for progressive news. All of these are funded by the viewers, not by corporations.

If you're wondering by what I mean when I say "progressive", I mean that report political policies and how they effect people, not what someone was wearing or a tweet. They also cover civic engagement. They covered Bernie Sanders when the MSM didn't. Same with the march against DC corruption, the protesters getting beat by cops during wall street protests, and the Indians getting hosed during freezing temperature as they protested DAPL.


Inherently flawed, because advertisers and individually biased editers control content.


In Australia, I use public broadcasting as my news outlets.

Blogs, on the other hand, are the pinnacle of bespoke "news". Whatever I want to read and hear, I will go to my preferred blogs and enjoy their warm embrace of telling me exactly what I want to hear. But then there's Alex Jones, who is the best stand up comedian in the blogosphere. I love that guy, so funny.


I don't think they lie, well except Fox, but they chose what to show me based on their agenda. They also give their slant. They are run by corporations who have their own vested interest. This was so evident with Bernie in the primaries


Outside of the Onion and your local weather forcaster, what use are they? Really?


Nope, I don't trust any of them. I browse the web looking for solo journalists and any news reports they have, and then base a decision. In short, if money is involved in the equation (which all major media sources are in it for money, none operate for free), then it's a safe bet the public is not getting the truth/facts.

And you think "solo journalists", presumably not working for money, are the real deal?

@NoTimeForBS Never said that...I said I browse the net looking for such journalists and see what they have to say, and then form an opinion. That doesn't mean I believe them, as all human beings are capable of telling lies. Reread the first sentence in my first comment very carefully.

I thought I had read your post carefully enough and the sense of your second sentence was:
"if money is involved......[you are] not getting the truth/facts".
That wasn't qualified in any way.

@NoTimeForBS The first sentence of my original comment would have been enough to answer your query. Wasn't qualified you say? People have agendas, especially those in positions of power, and money fuels their respective agendas further. Where do you suppose the mainstream media sources get their funding from aside from maybe a few private donors? You got it...through ad revenue, and in turn said media sources could conceivably become swayed by the ad sourcers own agendas, think about it. Money has corrupted many people and continues to do so. I don't for one moment believe any of those in modern day journalism care about me receiving the truth on topics reported about.

"Where do you suppose the mainstream media sources get their funding from aside from maybe a few private donors?"
In my country the main 'mainstream' media source would be the BBC. It gets no money from advertisers and none from donors. It is entirely funded from taxes and end-users.
Let me assume you are only aware of US media (my apologies if that is not the case).
I took The New York Times as an example and looked at its revenue figures. As best I could ascertain, its quarterly revenue of £399m included digital subscriptions of $79m and paper sales of around $60m. In other words, about a third of its revenue is independent of advertisers or donors and without whom it would not really have a business. TV and web media will obviously be less end-user dependent, but in a non-monopoly they will also be not only free to, but almost obliged to critique one another's objectivity and independence, which is a wonderful corrective to systematic bias.
PS "qualified" can mean "limited" or "restricted".

@NoTimeForBS As I live in the US, I was strictly referring to the news sources in my country. While it may be true that some revenue comes from subscriptions, you still cannot forget about ad revenue all the same. No bias there, that's the truth. Regardless, money is still involved no matter which way you look at it, no telling for sure that there wouldn't be any corruption of facts while reporting on stories. Just a third of the way isn't good enough, not for me anyway, but keep in mind that's also just my opinion.


Sources need to be cited.


Independent news reports via the internet are much more reliable these days, I find, especially if you read a few and cross-check facts and follow up sources.

You really do have to take everything you read online with a grain of salt. Fortunately, the interwebs gives us the ability to check multiple sources from across the globe.


Listen to Democracy Now and read blogs.

BillF Level 7 Apr 7, 2018

It's becoming more about entertaining (and the ratings and income that come from that) than it is about being accurate. So you have to do your own research as well.

The need to be first with the news, rather than first with the facts hurts a lot of MSM coverage.


I think they show just what they want.
But definitely not FAUX...


I don't trust Fox whatsoever.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:52212
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.