Where is the News?

[shazeep]

It seems appropriate, with all of the claims of "I never heard/read that" going around right now, to post links of reliable news sources, with their pros and cons.

RT has a live feed, based in NY, a subsidiary of Russian Gov, Larry King and others have gravitated there. I find their news to be just bad news from "the other" pov, but note the several tabs above the live feed, for which version one wants; and RT News has decent International coverage. RT US is a good source to fact-check Fox or CNN, etc. I think their financial/dollar news is particularly relevant right now, and presents a more accurate picture of the dollar.

RT "shows" are award winning, and several are really good. Find "shows" on the black bar above the live feed. RT is also available on YouTube.

http://rt.com/on-air/

[n david]

Originally Posted by shazeep

RT US is a good source to fact-check Fox or CNN, etc.

[shazeep]

well, you no doubt prefer lies for news, and voted Fox 'most popular' in the face of good evidence that they tell truth approx 18% of the time. I note that they were the vanguards of the court case to establish that network news is not required to disseminate the truth. I'm seeing that many people are bailing on mainstream media, and looking for somewhere to go. Laugh now...but while you are giggling maniacally, do you have any rebuttal of any news item on RT? I think you are just noise, wadr. Prove me wrong. (cue crickets)

[n david]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, you no doubt prefer lies for news, and voted Fox 'most popular' in the face of good evidence that they tell truth approx 18% of the time.

I don't have cable tv, so I don't watch FoxNews.

In fact, I don't like listening to Hannity and I think O'Reilly is an arrogant, self-righteous blowhard. But anyway...

Let's talk about that 18% thing you liberals keep pushing. This was a "study" done by the liberal-leaning Pundifact.

First, here's what Pundifact says about itself:

Pundifact is dedicated to checking the accuracy of claims by pundits, columnists, bloggers, political analysts, the hosts and guests of talk shows, and other members of the media.

We define a pundit as someone who offers analysis or opinions on the news, particularly politics and public policy. One can engage in punditry by writing, blogging or appearing on radio or TV.

Pundifact's "study" was sampling 83 statements made by pundits on the various FoxNews shows. That number hardly amounts to a "study," and should earn a "Pants on Fire" rating.

One of the statement it claims is "False" shows the absurdity and errancy of this so-called "study."

1) "In 2007, when Nancy Pelosi met with President Assad of Syria, 'nobody got upset.'"
Pundifact marks that as a "False" statement. What they left out is the context in which Hannity made that statement. Pundifact pointed out that the Bush administration, along with several Republican members of Congress and conservative newspapers were upset, which is why it claims Hannity lied.

But Hannity wasn't talking about the Bush administration, Republicans or conservatives. We all know what their opinions were. Hannity was referring to the Democrats and liberals who were calling the 47 Republicans traitors, but were completely silent in 2007 with Pelosi.

Here's one they labeled "Pants on Fire."

2) Tucker Carlson: "Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns."
Pundifact added up ages 0-17 from 2011 and declared Carlson as "Pants on Fire" because gun deaths totaled 102 and bathtub deaths totaled 93. That, and Carlson was knocked because there wasn't any data from the previous year, and none since 2011.

I didn't realize "children" included teenagers. Between 0-9 years of age, Carlson was correct, more children died in accidental bathtub drownings than were accidently shot.

One more labeled "False" against George Will who said this about Ebola:

3) "There are doctors who are saying that in a sneeze or some cough, some of the airborne particles can be infectious."
Pundifact labeled it false, even though the CDC says this on its website:

"Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease."

So George Will did not lie, nor was he wrong about what he said.

This Pundifact "study" is rubbish. They take a single statement out of context and try to claim it's a lie. It's stupid, misleading and earns a "Pants on Fire" rating itself.

[n david]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, you no doubt prefer lies for news, and voted Fox 'most popular' in the face of good evidence that they tell truth approx 18% of the time. I note that they were the vanguards of the court case to establish that network news is not required to disseminate the truth. I'm seeing that many people are bailing on mainstream media, and looking for somewhere to go. Laugh now...but while you are giggling maniacally, do you have any rebuttal of any news item on RT?

The bold is a lie.

Originally Posted by shazeep

I think you are just noise, wadr. Prove me wrong. (cue crickets)

Looks like you had a case of premature cricket cue'ing. May want to speak with your Dr about that.

[n david]

Sorry, but the claim that Russian Government State-owned television news is a good source to fact-check other news outlets is hilarious. Putin approves of your propaganda.

[shazeep]

well, i am anarchist, and so view all governments as susceptible to, and serving satan. 1Sam8 will explain my position better than i could. Imo, the epitaph is currently being written on the US gov, and Putin just happens to be the enemy of my enemy--if in fact he nationalizes the Rothschild bank.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if that turned out to be some deception also; but nonetheless, if it serves Russia--at the moment--to illuminate the truth of our regime as they see it, then i might be more benefitted by watching RT than a bunch of proven liars. At the moment.

By all means, please post your own favorite alternative sources of news, and let's stop yakking up this page, shall we? Or don't; i can already see that this was a bad idea

[shazeep]

ah, ok. you want to address the court case, where they pushed for truth in broadcasting being nullified? i can dig it up if you like

[n david]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah, ok. you want to address the court case, where they pushed for truth in broadcasting being nullified? i can dig it up if you like

C'mon, Shazy. I expect this kind of tripe from Light or even JD, but not you. I mean, here you are, the resident professor on News Trustworthiness and you post this junk?

Posting this forces me to ask: Do you know what you're even posting about here? Do you even know the court case?

1) This case had nothing to do with the Fox News Channel.
2) They didn't "push for truth in broadcasting" to be "nullified."
3) Go read up the case and you find it was an editorial dispute between a local affiliate and a married couple who were fired from that station.

I remember that chain email and online posts several years ago, claiming something about FoxNews winning a court decision allowing it to lie or that it didn't have to be truthful when reporting the news.

That wasn't even the truth!

You've got to do better than that, Shazy. I mean, if you're going to post these kinds of things, at least read up on them to verify if it's actually true or not.

[n david]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah, ok. you want to address the court case, where they pushed for truth in broadcasting being nullified? i can dig it up if you like

I think you're getting your news from Brian Williams.



That was a COMPLETELY FALSE report! Dude, even Snopes rated it False!

The claim that Fox News legally won the "right to lie" has been repeated across the internet despite its being factually inaccurate on more than one level.

First, the case from which the rumor stemmed resulted in a Florida appeals court ruling in February 2003, not 2004. More germane to the rumor, however, is the fact that the case at hand did not involve the national Fox News cable channel (the case substantially predates the Fox News cable channel's current 24-hour coverage), but rather a local Tampa Bay television station (WTVT) that was an affiliate station of the Fox network.

Another common misconception is that Fox News invoked First Amendment protections in order to retain the "right to lie" during the lengthy legal battle between the couple and the Florida Fox affiliate. There was no mention of any such claim in the appeals court decision, and Akre herself does not corroborate it. Ultimately, the FCC concluded in 2007 that the conflict between Akre and Wilson and the affiliate boiled down to an "editorial dispute ... rather than a deliberate effort by [WTVT] to distort news."