Most medial sources not just the MSM are a mixed bag. Various educational institutes and think tanks put out information we sometimes turn to. Journals use different writers of varying skills.
I thought it could be both interesting and informative to discuss.
Evaluating Sources
Tue, 2021-11-02 00:53
#1
Evaluating Sources
Thu, 2022-09-22 14:48
#2
This source claims to be non-partisan but from the list of articles seems very left and very good to me. Any opinions?
In the first six months of publication, Byline Times had published nearly 800 stories by over 130 journalists and writers with major news revelations from the US, Hong Kong, China, Myanmar, India, Ukraine, and Russia. Byline Times broke the story of the Brexit Party’s PayPal funding scandal which was followed up by many other papers and became subject of the DCMS select committee inquiry.
Byline Times was born out the crowdfunding site Byline.com which has a long tradition of breaking investigative news stories, from the conflict of interest of then culture minister John Whittingdale and the papers over his hidden ‘dominatrix’, crowdfunding the No 1 iTunes hit podcast Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder, to James Patrick’s early revelations about Russian interference in the US, UK and European elections which led to the book Alternative War.
Byline Times is brought to you by a dedicated team of journalists and contributors – producing independent, fearless, investigative and thought-provoking journalism not found in the established media.
Byline Times does not intend to report the daily news cycle. That’s for others. Our aim is to concentrate on ‘what the papers don’t say’. We will follow the story wherever it goes, without fear or favour. No PR company, advertiser or press baron can influence the stories we choose to cover. Our integrity comes from our editorial independence.
While the newspaper is not politically partisan, it is not neutral and stands against corruption, injustice and the erosion of truth and the rule of law. Accurate information is the lifeblood of a democracy and, although everyone is welcome to their own opinions, facts cannot be debated.
Accuracy also requires us to report our country more fairly. Byline Times believes many communities and regions are misrepresented in the media because they are under-represented. We hope to give a voice to those not provided a platform elsewhere.
Our full-time, founding team
- Peter Jukes and Stephen Colegrave | Founders and Executive Editors
- Hardeep Matharu | Editor
- Ella Baddeley | Head of Operations
- Our full-time, reporting team:
- Sam Bright | Investigations Editor
- Adam Bienkov | Political Editor
- Sian Norris | Chief Social and European Affairs Reporter
- Nafeez Ahmed | Special Investigations and Global Trends Reporter
- Sascha Lavin | Byline Intelligence Team Reporter
Thu, 2022-09-22 15:00
#3
Thanks. I now know where your disdain for the concept of Ukrainian separatists comes from.
Thu, 2022-09-22 15:30
#4
This is the first time I have come across the publication. I searched "bylinetimes" and this thread is the only one that came up. I have never used this site as a source.
It would be nice if you could be constructive and add more information about this source if you find it questionable rather than using the thread to try take a shot at me.
I don't distain Ukrainian separatists anymore than I do Quebec separatists. I do distain turning to violence to force their views on others.
You distain factual information that contradicts your preferred view of the world. I see now that it suits your purposes for sites not to be evaluated so you can just dismiss them as propaganda and turn to moonofalabama for your information.
Thu, 2022-09-22 15:57
#5
One of the ways I evaluate sources is to check if their stories ever hit sites like BBC or CNN that are more cautious in their reporting.
For example, in the spring, this story appeared.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/two-russian-soldiers-die-after-eating-poisone...
It was also covered by https://www.thetimes.co.uk/, newsweek, skynews Australia, and even the Toronto Star referred it within a list of ways civilians were fighting back.
The story started with 2 soldiers dying and then later 28 becoming sick was tacked on. I wondered if Ukrainians had stocked a store or something but the story said it was a Ukrainian grandmother.
There were no names of individuals or the place it happened and no explanation as to how the information got to the media.
Any such story would definitely make it to mainstream news so when it didn't I knew it wasn't true and that the publications could not be used as a source for that story or any other. The Star is an exception because they stated the information came from an intercepted phone call of a Russian soldier speaking to his wife and they didn't offer any other source. That puts it on us to decide if we think it is or isn't credible.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2022/05/12/from-poisoned-pie-to-oiled...
In an intercepted telephone conversation between a Russian soldier and his girlfriend, a recording of which was released on March 19 by Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine’s Interior Ministry, the soldier claims that an old Ukrainian woman fed the soldiers pies laced with poison that killed eight of them.
“When the war began, the Russian army did not expect such resistance and they had try rations for only three days,” said Zhemchugov, the partisan. “Starting from the fourth day, the Russian army was starving. They had to go and make contract with locals and there were such cases.”
Thu, 2022-09-22 16:43
#6
I assume all mainstream news has an establishment bias which is expressed through what topics they cover and the approach that they take. Even a mainstream source from India is is reflecting the establishment (not government) views on topics. Mainstream news is owned by the rich and powerful. We may get opposing news but they will be the opposing views within the rich and powerful. They investigate what owners want them to and priorize viewership over views.
I still think they are necessary and valuable sources for factual information and a variety of curated viewpoints. It's just important to know how to extract facts and explore the story from multiple sources.
X said Y is Z, means X said it not that it is true. We are left to judge the credibility of X on our own. Bias can be expressed indirectly through choice of what to report on and framing to lend more or less weight to X 's credibility.
Scare quotes can be used to insinate rather than state offering plausible deniability.
Biased though it may be we need people to trust factual information from the MSM. The only way to communicate coherently is if we are doing it from agreed upon facts. Disagreeing on objective facts and how they can be determined is dangerous.
It leads to people believing modern day preachers and snake oil salesmen. It led to people believing Sandy Hook was a hoax. It has led to millions of people believing Trump and electing him because he tells it like it is. He shoots from the hip.
I don't really know there is a war in Ukraine. I'm not there. I don't know anyone who is personally there. I believe it because it is reported by the mainstream news. I can find all kinds of youtube videos showing the war from a multitude of people and angles but I am not dependent on them to know a war is happening.
If we reject the MSM entirely rather than focusing on how to extra facts and recognize bias we leave people forced to depend on people they know and respect to tell them the truth about what is happening. It could be their preacher or a charismatic person drawing them into a group; a mega-church, Qanon, preppers.
Wholehearted denunciation of the MSM is not benign. It is malignant whether or not it is intended to be so.
Thu, 2022-09-22 18:13
#7
One of the ways I evaluate sources is to check if their stories ever hit sites like BBC or CNN that are more cautious in their reporting.
Indeed they both make sure their spook handlers will like what is published.
Thu, 2022-09-22 18:29
#8
They do more than that. They state whether or they have evidence for what they are saying and what that evidence is.
That you think spies are ordering CNN and BBC what to report tells me you just fell down a rabbit hole.
Thu, 2022-09-22 18:36
#9
I think that the BBC and CNN regularly report stories that are fed to them by various spy agencies, especially when it comes to manufacturing consent for war. WMD's, viagra for troops to rape better and babies in incubators are just a few of the hits from the past that got reported by them.That you think spies are ordering CNN and BBC what to report tells me you just fell down a rabbit hole.