Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[egduj]

1. What links do you recommend?

[Codeine]

3. He's mad because someone's link to some filthy Saudi rag

blaming ISIS on a Zionist cabal got slapped down by a jury.

[Hekate]

4. I wonder if RT is next on his list of approved sources. I have such a sense of deja vu with this one

[giftedgirl77]

5. Oh look a newbie complaining about a hide another newbie

got it must be Wednesday.

[Codeine]

6. Damned Jewish jurors.

Mossad has its hand in everything!

[giftedgirl77]

7. I couldn't even click on the link to see the paper but I saw

the meltdown happen. Saw people warning them to delete & then boom it was gone.

[elias49]

8. Boy you have a lousy attitude.

Do you only complain? Isn't that trollish?
Good grief...if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all for a change.
Much appreciated.

[Codeine]

10. I'm amazing. My posts are pure gold.

Accept the inevitable and jump on the Codeine bandwagon; all the cool kids are doing it.

[Codeine]

11. Zionism is hardly an undiscussed topic at DU.

Choose your sources with a bit more care and you won't look like a poster boy for the Johnny Joozdidit Army. There's a pretty low tolerance for straight-up Antisemitism here.

And making claims like the UK government being in the employ of the Rothschilds ain't helping your cause, bub.

[Codeine]

13. That link is fine. It's a legitimate topic

and a legitimate source. You've added some questionable editorial comment of your own (Rothschild and Murdoch, among others, own a very small minority stake in the GoGas subsidiary, and let's not paint Assad as some kind of humanist icon) but your link is not problematic.

[tech3149]

14. One of the arguments I use to challenge those that seem misinformed

is to ask how many sources they use to develop their opinion. Of course the follow up is what those sources are and what and who support their operation. Invariably, the range of sources is very limited and the most easily available.
Commercial broadcast news media in this country is less than junk food news, it's downright toxic. Print media can and does actually provide some accurate and useful information but it's usually hidden in the details. That's the beauty of print media! You can go back and read it over and over again to see the importance of the minor detail or how that minor change in language is being used to influence your interpretation. The most important thing about using multiple sources is to compare what is being left out of the story. Quite often the question that isn't asked is the one that reveals the truth.
I also prefer the written word because all the distractions of graphics and the psychological impact of images to instill some emotional response not related to the facts is too often used to distract from the reality of a situation.

Sorry to go off on a tangent but I think it needed to be said.
Your question at it's heart is "why do you keep listening to people who have been so wrong for so long?"

The only answers I can offer is that it is much easier to accept a story that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable and/or confirms your worldview, or that you are not willing to invest the energy to research and dispute what you are being told is reality.
To the following poster, there are no specific links that we could offer that would be entirely reliable sources of information on any subject. We all have our own biases on everything in life we have to deal with. They may not be conscious or consistent, or even obvious, but they are there. Those biases may provide a truly insightful interpretation of a certain situation but be entirely distort the interpretation of another situation based on some minor, in that persons perception, difference.