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?
Love Fox news
lol
you're kidding - right?
@shockwaverider No - I watch it every nite - love Hannity
@iamjc I know what Fox news is, I've just never come close to anyone who actually watches it.
@shockwaverider About 1.3 million daily viewers - nearly double of CNN
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is when I ask the question... Define trust?
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
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.
Lies and omissions provided by the oil , chemical and arms industries
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.
MSM has lost all respect. they are all coluded even the BBC...in 911. they ALL LIE and follow NWO script. BBC reported LIVE that WT building 7 came down 20 minutes before it came down.
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.
Even the ones that I trust, I am still on the alert for any other information that might be available. One person cannot ever have all the facts.
Inherently flawed, because advertisers and individually biased editers control content.