[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

Politics, news, culture, society - no shills allowed

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.


File: 1428500414843.jpg (263.1 KB, 718x721, 718:721, beaver.jpg)

123a9c No.10103

How can you tell if a news source is reliable? It's fairly easy to detect when it isn't as you only need to look for discrepancies, obvious biases in the comments of writers or outright lies. But reliability itself is not so easily detected.

To give an example, some people have linked Veterans Today on /pol/ before. I repeat, each time, that it's not a reliable source. The people the paper refers to as "eminent figures in their domain" are all writers for it, when it's not the owner himself. It's like if a guy wrote "The Russians have nuked Poland", and when asked for a source on that, he said "This guy" and pointed to himself.

However, what got the people on /pol/ to think Veterans Today was a reliable source? It's easy to dismiss it as confirmation bias: VT says what /pol/ wants to hear and so /pol/ believes it. However, I'm willing to think it's more complicated than that.

What about you? What helps you decide that a news organization is reliable? And have you found one?

f978a7 No.10112

alright news sources are the only ones without a marxist/jewish spin.

topconservativenews
veteranstoday

f978a7 No.10113

>>10112
alt right*

123a9c No.10114

>>10112

Can you tell me precisely what makes you think they're reliable? Or is it solely that they haven't given you a reason not to trust them?

f978a7 No.10117

>>10114
its mostly topical news, its not deep analytical pieces, but for things like black on white crime cases, police shootings of nigs, race/cultural tensions these are reliable. any information is sourced and pertinent.

best thing you can do is check em out yourself.

also http://mpcdot.com/forums has good resources for this kind of things.

31a0fd No.10119

>>10103
These days, in the age of mass media conglomeration, you can't really be sure of what is totally genuine and honest, but rather, the degree of how genuine it is. There is no tried-and-true source of information. The journos present you with a jigsaw puzzle, a scavenger hunt, a riddle, and you have to navigate their maze. Media, to exist, to produce, must be owned and accounted for, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the development of an agenda is only a matter of time.

Take it as you see it, and piece it together on your own. That said, just remember the old trick of misdirection, as it gets the job done most often, and even then be sure to remember that the most important things that go on, you will not hear about (case in point: the trans pacific partnership).

123a9c No.10120

>>10119

There is truth to that, and it's very much what I do. To give an example:

American news source: Russian army has bombed a Ukrainian town and killed civilians.

Russian news source: Crimean rebels have bombed a Ukrainian military convoy, collateral damage reported.

Truth: Some guys bombed something in Ukraine and people died.

5a8e71 No.10123

RT News is an excellent non-biased source when it comes to Western issues as long as the news don't involve Russia I would say.

dde488 No.10166

>>10103
Best one I've found so far is Junge Freiheit. They most certainly are biased (they are German National Conservatives) and do not hide it, but I have yet to catch them proclaiming outright falsehoods or censoring important details of a news story in order to shill for their cause.

I don't trust Veterans Today at all. They do provide 'sources' for many of their claims, but their sources almost always highly dubious. In particular, I remember one piece about the financial system of the Third Reich they ran, based on sources that amounted to little more than hearsay. It was completely torn apart by Rodney Martin, providing actual German texts of law and other historical documents as historical proof.

a2b933 No.10251

Don't trust what you read or hear.

Trust what you SEE.

a2b933 No.10254

>>10251
And another thing, the media exist to make money and profits for their shareholders. They don't actually have a responsibility of any kind to give you factual reporting or information. Although they're required to have sources to back up what they report, we have seen with the Rolling Stone fake gang rape story that sources aren't required to write a story.

0711eb No.10264

>>10251
Close. Trust none of what you hear or read, and half of what you see.

TV is full of false sights.

85ba25 No.10270

File: 1428520302796.jpeg (28.09 KB, 530x482, 265:241, excellent.jpeg)

>>10103
>How can you tell if a news source is reliable?

Fucking AAA+++ thread right here.

God bless you OP. God bless you and your entire family tree.

5ff7c9 No.10276

>>10103

Oh hey it's that beaver

glad to see you post here, based beaver

724553 No.10296

Basically, use comon sense and do your own research.

Veterans today is a jewish honeypot/disinformation site.

Proof:

http://ppia.wikia.com/wiki/Veterans_Today
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911disinfo/veterans-today-is-disinfo/


Just read their articles. Satanist conspiracies and nukes destroying the WTC towers and other retarded shit.

Basically, this website was just made to discredit anyone who doesn't buy the official government stories and to disorient anyone who researches what really happened with controversial events.

4f4de8 No.10341

>>10296
I always felt bad for people that still repost VT. I used to read it half a decade ago but it always "spooked" me.

If anybody needs more info showing Gordon Duff to be untrustworthy, let me know I can dig up some bizarre shit about his business dealings (the businesses look like textbook CIA fronts)

5a8e71 No.10346

>>10296
>>10341

Discrediting everything written on his website is exactly what he wants you to do by associating the rest of the sensible stuff with kookery. Don't fall for this bullshit, try to sort the few diamonds from the pile of shit yourself. Use your own common sense to judge if the information posted is fake or not. Same thing applies to people like Alex Jones, they're controlled opposition, and you're falling into their tactics.

4f4de8 No.10347

Another untrustworthy source is American Free Press (AFP). Although not everybody there is a shill and some of the decent ones (John Friend) fell-out and broke away.

I don't find any news sources to be trustworthy. MSM literally publishes fake news every single day, I mean fake like a movie. Most of the alt-media is up to no good and constantly mixing good with bad. Then there are individual bloggers and researchers that do good research but ultimately don't have the means to root out the truth.

Nobody is right all of the time, so you pretty much have to cherry-pick what you believe, even though that's clearly also a flawed way to find the truth.

Lately I find myself thinking that there's really no such thing as news, and that the sane thing to do is ignore anything that isn't within your local sphere of influence. That's no fun though

4f4de8 No.10348

>>10346
VT has so much crazy stuff I choose to ignore it completely. If some of it gains traction I'll see it elsewhere. VT is "BeforeItsNews" tier.

But yes, see >>10347 where I say you pretty much have to cherry-pick your news

5ff7c9 No.10357

>>10346

If they're doing disinfo tactics, why listen to the site at all? Just use a better source.

11eb4d No.10363

>>10103
>How can you tell if a news source is reliable?

The quickest way is to check what other stories they have on their site. If you're unsure of something on a site like, say thinkprogress.org you can look at the other stories, see their tone and generally get a good feel of what they are. This is actually pretty important because if you link someone there you could embarrass yourself if in addition to a legitimate-sounding topic they have the wildest UFO/911 conspiracy stories.

The second thing to do to get an idea of the site is look it up on wikipedia. Of course wikipedia has a heavy bias but it's a quick way to see who owns a site, where it's based out of and other basic stuff.

One thing to remember though is that there are many news sites out there that are reliable, but they're also heavily biased. They put out truthful information but context is everything. Like Russia Today has good info, in many cases first hand video and such but expect a pro-Kremlin bias.

a2b933 No.10386

>>10346
>Discrediting everything written on his website is exactly what he wants you to do by associating the rest of the sensible stuff with kookery. Don't fall for this bullshit, try to sort the few diamonds from the pile of shit yourself. Use your own common sense to judge if the information posted is fake or not. Same thing applies to people like Alex Jones, they're controlled opposition, and you're falling into their tactics.
Underrated post.

This +1.

2ada8c No.10490

>>10103
how about cross referencing and using some rational skepticism?
does it advance jewish interests? who is connected? who is talking about it? who suddenly stopped talking about related things once it happened?

you dont just 100% trust ANYTHING do you?

2ada8c No.10491

File: 1428549291486.png (873.21 KB, 851x1132, 851:1132, 1424564646321.png)

>>10296
>Basically, this website was just made to discredit anyone who doesn't buy the official government stories and to disorient anyone who researches what really happened with controversial events.
why would someone go to all that trouble and spend all that money to confuse people?

is there a group of people that literally control the issue of currency grow money on trees or something?



Delete Post [ ]
[]
[Return][Go to top][Catalog]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]