I’m in the US so Reuters, NPR, AP. But there are so many “news” websites around anymore I usually take everything I read with a dose of skepticism and I look at Snopes and MediaBiasFactCheck often.
There is no independent media. This doesn’t mean that there is no value in consuming it. If some source tells you they are “unbiased”, independent from advertisers/funding or free of (private) agenda they either intentionally lie or lack self-reflection.
If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.
I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.
I’m in the US so Reuters, NPR, AP. But there are so many “news” websites around anymore I usually take everything I read with a dose of skepticism and I look at Snopes and MediaBiasFactCheck often.
deleted by creator
Yes please asses the credibility of their articles based on their associations with shady companies instead of the contents plausibility.
deleted by creator
Doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t judge a book by its publisher.
deleted by creator
There is no independent media. This doesn’t mean that there is no value in consuming it. If some source tells you they are “unbiased”, independent from advertisers/funding or free of (private) agenda they either intentionally lie or lack self-reflection.
deleted by creator
If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.
Basically they’re better than nothing.
deleted by creator
I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
deleted by creator
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
deleted by creator
Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.