What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

News source ideas please (1 Viewer)

supermike80

Footballguy
Yourr going at it wrong.  All wrong.  Stop trying to find biases on either side.  They exist.  Be better at spotting them and self filtering them.  Cnn is trash. Total and complete trash but I still browse their website.   However I know when I do I will be shown a complete liberal view.  I try to filter that out and just get the info.  Then I might bounce over to fox to see their biased opinion.  Finally I use my own mind to decide whats more true 

 

The Z Machine

Footballguy
Yourr going at it wrong.  All wrong.  Stop trying to find biases on either side.  They exist.  Be better at spotting them and self filtering them.  Cnn is trash. Total and complete trash but I still browse their website.   However I know when I do I will be shown a complete liberal view.  I try to filter that out and just get the info.  Then I might bounce over to fox to see their biased opinion.  Finally I use my own mind to decide whats more true 
Why reward such terrible reporting with your clicks and attention when there are better sites?

 

KarmaPolice

Footballguy
Why reward such terrible reporting with your clicks and attention when there are better sites?
This is why I wouldn't recommend this approach as well, you are voting with those clicks.  CNN and Fox don't give 2 craps why you are there, they just care you are there.    

My other issue I have, and I see this sentiment in these threads (not saying mike is doing this just adding on a thought), is that people are saying things like "I watch CNN/Fox to expand my thinking and keep up with what the other side is thinking".   I like the impulse to be open to other opinions, but most of us still say that those sites are extreme and don't really represent what most of us think - so why use them in an attempt to see what the other "side" is saying?  

 

KarmaPolice

Footballguy
Then use the 1% :shrug:  
Also a good point.   

I get the argument that there are probably topics or articles that BBC/Reuters/AP etc... don't cover.    I still think you would get coverage of most things if you choose to stick to a handful of news sites.  

 

supermike80

Footballguy
Then use the 1% :shrug:  
As I said, rather than rely on the media to do my thinking for me, like so many of you guys seem to need for some reason, I;'ll just do it myself.   I like that idea better.  I don't need to be led.  remember...thats a liberal thing.

 

sho nuff

Footballguy
And weighing CNN and Fox is not much the issue.  One can weed out the bias there...not really a problem.  I don't think many have an issue there.  May avoid them anyway, but not saying its tough to weed things out.  I would not seek them out or read over them daily...but if a link pops up in a search, I would not necessarily avoid them if there was not a better source covering the story.

Its the fringe sites that are all bias that it seems people are saying just completely avoid.  If I search a topic and the only ones reporting it is GatewayPundit, OANN and the like...probably best to avoid as the story likely lacks anything resembling facts.

 

The Commish

Footballguy
As I said, rather than rely on the media to do my thinking for me, like so many of you guys seem to need for some reason, I;'ll just do it myself.   I like that idea better.  I don't need to be led.  remember...thats a liberal thing.
Yeah....think for yourself, that's good.  That's not what was being addressed.  It was the fact that you waste time on CNN.  That's an independent thought.  I dunno...you just got through talking about how you go to CNN...maybe you didn't know we could see these sorts of things? (Oh, to the bold above, there's mountains of evidence out there validating this isn't unqiue to "liberals".  Some people are even going as far as using it as their "defense" to try and get them out of some pretty substantial legal troubles.

Yourr going at it wrong.  All wrong.  Stop trying to find biases on either side.  They exist.  Be better at spotting them and self filtering them.  Cnn is trash. Total and complete trash but I still browse their website.   However I know when I do I will be shown a complete liberal view.  I try to filter that out and just get the info.  Then I might bounce over to fox to see their biased opinion.  Finally I use my own mind to decide whats more true 


Then someone asked you why you'd go there.  It's a valid question.   No idea why anyone goes to that site honestly. and you responded:

Because I truly don't feel any are "better"  99% of the media is biased in my opinion these days.   
All I did was suggest you go to the 1% you claim is not biased (I disagree with that by the way....all media has some form of bias).  All you're doing by going to CNN is ensuring they stay the way they are.  It's illogical to go there unless your goal is to keep our media platforms like they are.

 

supermike80

Footballguy
Yeah....think for yourself, that's good.  That's not what was being addressed.  It was the fact that you waste time on CNN.  That's an independent thought.  I dunno...you just got through talking about how you go to CNN...maybe you didn't know we could see these sorts of things? (Oh, to the bold above, there's mountains of evidence out there validating this isn't unqiue to "liberals".  Some people are even going as far as using it as their "defense" to try and get them out of some pretty substantial legal troubles.

Then someone asked you why you'd go there.  It's a valid question.   No idea why anyone goes to that site honestly. and you responded:

All I did was suggest you go to the 1% you claim is not biased (I disagree with that by the way....all media has some form of bias).  All you're doing by going to CNN is ensuring they stay the way they are.  It's illogical to go there unless your goal is to keep our media platforms like they are.
Wow....You put a lot of work into that.  Kudos.   I'm impressed.

Biased media is everywhere and it isn't changing.  So while it sounds really neato and cool to think by not clicking you can make it go away, you can't.  And half the time you guys think you are checking out unbiased media but you are so biased in your thinking you don't even know it.  

But I'm giving you an A++ on your response.   Well done.  

 

The Commish

Footballguy
Wow....You put a lot of work into that.  Kudos.   I'm impressed.

Biased media is everywhere and it isn't changing.  So while it sounds really neato and cool to think by not clicking you can make it go away, you can't.  And half the time you guys think you are checking out unbiased media but you are so biased in your thinking you don't even know it.  

But I'm giving you an A++ on your response.   Well done.  
:lol:   shove shove moooooooooooooooooove...

No one said we can make it go away.  What was said is you don't have to go to it.  I'd like to address the third sentence but it makes no sense so I'll just ignore it.  CNN is the PERFECT example that renders the second part of your first statement completely false....it's changed a lot and it's because they realized their audience demanded it.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

supermike80

Footballguy
:lol:   shove shove moooooooooooooooooove...

No one said we can make it go away.  What was said is you don't have to go to it.  I'd like to address the third sentence but it makes no sense so I'll just ignore it.  CNN is the PERFECT example that renders the second part of your first statement completely false....it's changed a lot and it's because they realized their audience demanded it.  
Good call.   Thanks for straightening me out on that

 

Mene

Footballguy
My daily clicks go AP - Reuters - Reason - CNN - Fox News.  I listen to Breaking Points (Krystal and Saagar) when I can as well.  AP and Reuters are great for straight news, CNN/Fox are to see what the daily Left/Right outrage is going to be, and Reason is interesting for the libertarian view.

As has been mentioned, I just don't see any value stepping out onto the fringes.  It's just fuel for the outrage machine.

 

The Dude

Footballguy
As I said, rather than rely on the media to do my thinking for me, like so many of you guys seem to need for some reason, I;'ll just do it myself.   I like that idea better.  I don't need to be led.  remember...thats a liberal thing.


Not my intent to knock you on this but if you are taking in 2 sources that you feel are weighted right and left and trying to form your own opinion - it's still garbage in, garbage out - per your perspective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

greenmountaingoat

Footballguy
I agree and didn't write before but the "Clicks = rewarding bad behavior so therefore avoid" is part of what's driving me to ask the questions. This has been my stance on Fox News for a few years. (Huffpo, I think I'm going to delete my following as a result of this exercise and where I'm aiming).

@supermike80, I appreciate your comment though my stance on the click thing plus...I'm not sure I have the interest or mental acuity to follow through in a meaningful way on your suggestion. It seems more sensible to me to give a few spots on the roster to fact-based no or slight right biased sources. Fully digesting two sides of propaganda-lite seems bonkers to me, aside from putting cash in their pockets. 

I browse my apple news feed for an hour or two per night, a small portion of which is political/ national/ world news. If I end up dumping 3 sites and adding 3 sites that help me develop a more balanced overall worldview, that's probably a good thing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

supermike80

Footballguy
Not my intent to knock you on this but if you are taking in 2 sources that you feel are weighted right and left and trying to form your own opinion - it's still garbage in, garbage out - per your perspective.
The BIAS is garbage, yes.  I agree

 

supermike80

Footballguy
I agree and didn't write before but the "Clicks = rewarding bad behavior so therefore avoid" is part of what's driving me to ask the questions. This has been my stance on Fox News for a few years. (Huffpo, I think I'm going to delete my following as a result of this exercise and where I'm aiming).

@supermike80, I appreciate your comment though my stance on the click thing plus...I'm not sure I have the interest or mental acuity to follow through in a meaningful way on your suggestion. It seems more sensible to me to give a few spots on the roster to fact-based no or slight right biased sources. Fully digesting two sides or propaganda-lite seems bonkers to me, aside from putting cash in their pockets. 

I browse my apple news feed for an hour or two per night, a small portion of which is political/ national/ world news. If I end up dumping 3 sites and adding 3 sites that help me develop a more balanced overall worldview, that's probably a good thing. 
I get all that and I was not trying to be difficult.  I think many people don't even know what sites are biased.  Heck we have had people on this  board say CNN, NY Times, WAPO are not biased AT ALL...Multiple times.  So it begs the question do people honestly even know what bias is or are they not seeing it when it feeds their personal tastes.   

I'm down with the no clicks means less revenue concept...I really am.   I get it.  I don't even see that being a factor because there will always be biased people seeking those sites for their daily feed.

 

KarmaPolice

Footballguy
To me the point is there are still a handful of sites to use that have factual reporting and minimal bias - a lot of the places already listed in the thread.     When you get to the Foxs and MSNBCs, then you are battling even more bias + adding in the element of unreliable reporting and facts.    People are way to focused on the bias/lean part of the equation (which is largely unavoidable), and not enough on that 2nd part of the equation, which IMO is the way more important element.   

That's where my beef comes in with comments coming in about having the ability to identify the bias and use your brain to exclude that.  Great, I think all of us have that ability, then you are still left with subpar factual reporting to also have to dig through.   Awesome if you have the time and desire to do all that, but I would guess that applies to very few people.  

 

supermike80

Footballguy
You could offer up some sites you read like the OP asked for. 
I said 99% of sites are biased.  You spent a ton of time finding, and reposting what I said...so now how am I supposed to provide a site the OP asked for when I said that?

I'm genuinely trying to figure out what you are after, and I think I might just quit, it's not happening for me.  

 

The General

Footballguy
I said 99% of sites are biased.  You spent a ton of time finding, and reposting what I said...so now how am I supposed to provide a site the OP asked for when I said that?

I'm genuinely trying to figure out what you are after, and I think I might just quit, it's not happening for me.  
I just said :lol:  - what sites do you read? 

TBH I skimmed what you wrote along with everyone’s posts in here just looking for media that I might not have heard or don’t frequent.

 

The Dude

Footballguy
The BIAS is garbage, yes.  I agree
but per your statement you are knowingly taking in two bias perspectives and deciding what your truth is

No offense but its not logical.  Two people could watch the same shows and have two wildly different ideas of what the truth is - thats not a way to find truth

 

supermike80

Footballguy
but per your statement you are knowingly taking in two bias perspectives and deciding what your truth is

No offense but its not logical.  Two people could watch the same shows and have two wildly different ideas of what the truth is - thats not a way to find truth
What?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.   Are you saying a person cannot take in two differing points of view and make his own decision based on hearing those opinions?   

As Joe would say  COME ON MAN

 

The Dude

Footballguy
What?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.   Are you saying a person cannot take in two differing points of view and make his own decision based on hearing those opinions?   

As Joe would say  COME ON MAN


I am saying that per your argument that CNN & Fox are both equally bias, if you take both of those in and compound with your own bias that you have a slim shot at reaching the truth.  You can have your own opinion - but it is going to be flawed more often than not when compared to the truth.

 

supermike80

Footballguy
I am saying that per your argument that CNN & Fox are both equally bias, if you take both of those in and compound with your own bias that you have a slim shot at reaching the truth.  You can have your own opinion - but it is going to be flawed more often than not when compared to the truth.
yeah...thats complete gibberish

 

djmich

Footballguy
I am saying that per your argument that CNN & Fox are both equally bias, if you take both of those in and compound with your own bias that you have a slim shot at reaching the truth.  You can have your own opinion - but it is going to be flawed more often than not when compared to the truth.
So all jury verdicts are flawed?

 

The Dude

Footballguy
So all jury verdicts are flawed?


It's a presentation of facts which is a different thing - not sure how much "bias" plays into that presentation.  Verdicts can certainly be wrong based on presentations.  And the verdict - or the process of getting to the verdict - is flawed if it doesn't get to the empirical truth.  

 

djmich

Footballguy
Yes. I'd imagine they are. Similar to democracy, jury verdicts are probably the worst system to determine guilt other than all the other ones tried.
Im not sure I’m understanding your last sentence, are you saying it’s the best system?

When you say you imagine they are flawed, in what percentage of cases would you say the guilty vs not guilty verdict is incorrect?

 

djmich

Footballguy
It's a presentation of facts which is a different thing - not sure how much "bias" plays into that presentation.  Verdicts can certainly be wrong based on presentations.  And the verdict - or the process of getting to the verdict - is flawed if it doesn't get to the empirical truth.  
I believe CNN is mostly factual.  Their presentation is biased (which facts they decide to present, in what light they present them, etc).

That sounds exactly like how a defense team would tackle a defense.  You don’t think the defense is biased in what information they use in defense of a client?

 

greenmountaingoat

Footballguy
On the one hand, if you're really putting a ton of effort into fact checking and/ or assuming that two seemingly opposing viewpoints with different agendas would somehow shed a reasonably comprehensive light onto an issue then I guess it works. That seems like a lot of score-keeping and again, not sure I have the mental acuity or attention span for that kind of binary approach. I guess we're all doing this on some level but I'm going for a less extreme version.

Opinions are more interesting that just straight up fiber so I can see the appeal. However it seems like the further from source reporting you go, the more you're exposing yourself to the possibility of being seriously misled.

I've combed through my follow list and weeded out a few of the outliers. Taking CNN (who I didn't realize I was following) Vox, Huffpo and Daily Beast and Washington Post out. Don't trust WaPo so why bother keeping them on the list. I didn't realize how bad CNN was, overall. I knew some of the anchors turned me off but didn't realize how far off they are in terms of overall grade. Huffpo and Daily Beast, I knew what they are and am getting out of that business. I honestly thought CNN was overall graded more like Reuters or whatever and that those anchors were outliers.

It's going to take me a while to get a sense of whether some of these other options have both basic news coverage and article types I enjoy.

I added (so far) Reuters, The Hill, BBC News, Axios (left of center apparently but I liked an article I found), PBS News hour, Al Jazeera, National Review, and Reason. I'm going to keep plucking through these and the other ideas suggested to see if they have content that interest me and allow my overall spin exposure to be a little more evened out.

There's probably a hundred more suggestions that I'll have to work my way through, some of which are not apple newsfeed but entire other endeavors that I'd have to look into. 

Again, I greatly appreciate folks contributions. This has been illuminating for me and I'm happy to have the benefit of the insight of other keen minds.

 

The Commish

Footballguy
I've said this a billion times here...each and every time met with the mocking :lmao:  or the passive aggressive "cry" or "laughing" emoji:

I've argued before that we can no longer call "the media" liberal. "The media" is defined as "the main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the internet) regarded collectively." In today’s context, "the media" is no longer The New York Times and The Washington Post, or NBC or CBS. The places people get their news now consist of hundreds of online news outlets, YouTube channels, podcasts, radio shows, social media platforms and, increasingly, private messaging apps.
It is absolutely absurd to continue this narrative, but I understand 100% why people are trying to.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top