Do you believe ANY news source?

[Writer]

If so, what are they?

[Cant trust em]

1. If you say no, what is the point of any of this? NT

[EFerrari]

2. Not really. I tend to trust Amy's reports and Moyers

and a few others. But, if it's important to me, I check the story across outlets and even platforms. Sometimes even bad reporting can yield information if you compare it to other reports.

[marketcrazy1]

3. I only believe

what i can INDEPENDENTLY verify, they ALL have an agenda. there is no "news" just manipulated opinions, sound bites and spin!!

[tekisui]

4. No one 100%. I try to distinguish between fact and opinion, within

a story.

[old guy]

5. If tortured I would say McClatchy.

However, I could be lying to make you stop.

[bemildred]

6. Religion is faith based, the real world is not. nt

[rcrush]

7. Not really

I just look at all the news with a "Its probably bullshit" attitude and just see how it plays out. Some of it is obvious bullshit and some of it isnt. MSNBC gets embarassing sometimes with their gushing and fawning over Obama. I wish Chris Matthews would try to report the news without a hard on.

[1]

8. i only believe those that report news in a way that aligns with my world view...

[stop the bleeding]

9. DU is who I trust. nt

[stray cat]

16. they get their news from other sites or their own opinions by and large

[stop the bleeding]

18. Not to be snarky, but duh!?

[Still Sensible]

10. I think in this day and age one should use

all sources available. The internet has become a great place to look deeper than other media at events and topics, but you have to wade through a lot of bullshit... and it takes a lot of time to separate truth from fiction. At least with the MSM you cn start with an understanding of their tilt and compensate. On the Net, even individual sites' biases are often more fluid than constant.

Generally the MSM are better just being on the scene of events, telling us facts as they know them (qualifying things that they are reporting which are not verified), and just staying out of the way... showing us the pictures, talking to people involved in the events, and letting the news happen (as opposed to making the news or influencing it). That is why what Fox has always been, and others have become in an effort to compete with Fox, has been such a tragedy to the fourth estate.

As soon as there is political spin to be had, however, the mass media of today generally veers off course and more often than not it is with a pronounced rightward tilt. Best recent example I can think of was David Gergen's comments on CNN about Obama "overdoing it" in his encounter with Chavez. Gergen is as middle of the road as CNN has and usually I find his insight and commentary useful, but even he fell into it with that crap. Heck, he was on Reagan's team when Reagan was laughing and joking with Gorbachev and others for Pete's sake! He was also on Clinton's team a decade ago.

[Mike 03]

11. If several dependable sources report the same thing at the same time, sure. If they

have footage of an event happening.

I believed Mumbai happened because they showed it.

It's paranoid and strange to say that no news sources are believable.

We just need to use a combination of discernment and common sense. Verify with overseas sources.

[ThomWV]

12. No

Not a one of them.

[LanternWaste]

13. Yup... NPR, BBC America and ABC.

Yup... NPR, BBC America and ABC. That's not without qualification, mind you. I realize every business and every person has a unique bias and worldview (and I'm afraid that applies to all of us, too), and that those biases can induce some to over- or under report a particular story. And of course, my own inflated sense of judgment has a say on whether I may or may not believe a particular story to be absolutely accurate. But all things being equal, I'll buy what they have to say until I see evidence to the contrary.

As with all things in life, we must rely on a little bit of faith (trust in that of which we do not have absolute knowledge) to get anything done.

ed: sp

[Uncle Joe]

14. Today, I believe Bill Moyers is the best, willing to tackle controversial, yet critical issues

in an in depth, intelligent manner. Critical issues of which the corporate media either give short shrift too, warp, or totally ignore.

Moyers listens well instead of trying to spin or manipulate the message by hogging the air time, while also asking good, sound, logical questions of his guests, simultaneously treating them with some respect.

I would also give NOW on PBS honorable mention and Tavis Smiley is pretty good.

I used to like The News Hour more, but I'm detecting too much subtle spin in their practices; who gets the last word, and the interrupting at critical momentum points of liberal or progressive voices, I currently place them in a somewhat fading third place.

Washington Week in Review is too inbred with their point of view, the McLaughlin Report is to journalism what professional wrestling is to sports.

Of the corporate media NBC, is probably the best, but that's not saying too much.

I'm allergic to FAUX News and have decided to hold off repairs on my digital television until June 12th, because they quit telecasting by analog means and I find their total absence on my older television to be quite refreshing.

P.S. I like the BBC as well for a nightly news supplement.

[stray cat]

15. many more than random opinions expressed with no basis on web sites

[recoveringdittohed]

17. ESPN and Comedy Central

are two news sources I feel have credibility. Also, I find Keith Olbermann (an ESPN alum), Rachel Maddow and Bill Moyers generally credible.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I give a lot of credence to sources going against their known bias.

If a source that I know to be anti-Dreyfussard reports something that supports the Dreyfussard position, I tend to trust it.

I treat anyone telling me anything that I think they would want me to believe with much more suspicion.

[emilyg]

20. BBC, Christian Sc. Monitor.