BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?

Subject: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jun 18 - 09:51 PM

The Trump Administration goes on an on about "fake news," and many of us are convinced that Trump got himself elected with the help of "Fake News" outlets like Fox and (interestingly) the National Enquirer.

But I've often wondered, what news outlets can I trust, and why. I guess I generally trust the New York Times and the New Yorker; but I find I can still generally trust the Wall Street Journal, despite the fact that Murdoch owns it. The Washington Post has become a bit mindlessly liberal since Amazon's Jeff Bezos bought it - I still like it because it presents my side of the story, but I don't find it as objective as it used to be. And I still trust the Boston Globe. My local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, is a McClatchy publication that I can generally trust, but it's not outstanding.

I used to trust Time Magazine, but now I'm not so sure. It seems to be more interested in populist journalism than it used to be, almost to the point of becoming a little brother to Time Inc's People Magazine.

When I was on a flower hike week in Switzerland a couple years ago, I met an 86-yr-old attorney who gave me an evaluation (in German) of German-Language publications. We agreed that Der Spiegel and FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) are still quite good, and that Bild will always be crap.

So, what do you think? What publications and what media outlets do you trust?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 18 - 11:48 PM

Joe, I have a feeling that **most** people 'trust' the publications that 'confirm' what they already believe to be the truth. Not everybody, obviously - some people, those with open, analytical minds, may well read publications with widely varying viewpoints, and form their own opinions based on their personal judgment. But I'm sure that the majority don't do that, and simply read and 'trust' the ones that confirm their personal biases.

The usual disclaimers apply - IMHO, YMMV etc.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jun 18 - 01:45 AM

I'm not so sure about that, Backwoodsman. I think that objectivity is still an important value for the press. I still think I can believe most of what I read in the newspaper, although I am aware that some of it may have an editorial slant in one direction or another.
There are publications that serve one political ideology or another, but I don't think that's the majority of them.
And I think I can read the New York Times and get the truth, plus commentary from a variety of perspectives.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jun 18 - 02:21 AM

I can't comment about the US, Joe. I have no real experience of newspapers there. But in the UK, there are certain publications that undoubtedly present versions of 'facts' in a way, and with a bias, that suits the agendas of their owners and their target audience. But there are also publications that do seem to give an unbiased version of events, and play a 'straight bat' - The Independent is one that springs immediately to mind, it's certainly the one I'm most inclined to trust.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jun 18 - 03:11 AM

Joe there is a major problem with all news sources. They all have a paymaster/s, they have an agenda and remit. As a result they are selective in the news they print, By this I mean news with any political content. It is carefully sifted, selected, massaged and then presented after any required spin is woven into the narrative.
Pick any particular item with a political slant and wander around the world's major and minor publications and then pursue the online presentation. It rather puts the lie to WSSIWYG.
To take two events of the recent past:
The novichok poisoning
TheDouma gas attack Syria,

The western mainstream media presentation of these two events is quite clear as to who the perpetrators are/were. Other sources dispute the given narrative with a compelling case.

Wherein lies the truth?

In the UK the government has the capability to place a D notice on news reports or to be blunt if the government wants a news item censored then that story will be killed.
That is the blunt edge of the tool. The other side of the tool is sharper and cuts to the bone. Certain publications toe the government line and will largely do what they are told. Asa result certain stories never appear or are delivered in such a bland and sanitised way that the questions that should be asked simply never receive oxygen.
Then there is a mindset that only certain sources are trustworthy. This concept is firmly encouraged by government. It is designed to marginalise alternative news sources by labelling them fake.
This all comes back to these awkward things called facts. Frequently even political facts can be checked. Even if they cannot be, the varying reports can be winnowed and at the end of the day it is a judgement call. The governments all like you to believe everything they present to you in the mainstream media. It is spoonfed, all you have to do is read/listen.DO NOT THINK!
You then end up where the sheople all queue up to receive the daily ration of bullshit and question nothin. This is a sleepwalk into a nightmare. It should be drummed into people at birth "believe nothing-
question everything"
I find it sad that sources such as the Daily Mail, RT, Al Jazeera, Global research, blacklisted news, good olf Guido Fawkes etc all get disparaged regularly here, with the same tired old Clichés and all their content dismissed automatically without a second thought.
The brainwashing has obviously gone deep.
Another example is the accusation of Russian meddling in the Presidential election. As yet no bones have been attached to the body of evidence! Yet no mention of the numerous countries and elections and coups arranged by the good old US of A. You just can't beat a bit of balance now, can you? Do you not think if the evidence was compelling there would have been a tsunami of leaks by now?

It has to be remembered that the squeaky clean facade of government hides a hidden reality. Dirty deals are constantly occurring and all sorts of underhand manoeuvring. There is no right and wrong in politics -just winners and losers. We do not live in a world of idealists, merely realists. You should bear this in mind when reading or listening to presented news. A starting point for analysis should always be Cui Bono?

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jun 18 - 03:48 AM

I guess I try to remain an idealist, Iains, and to trust and appreciate most people I encounter. That has worked quite well for me. Sure makes more enjoyable.
Joe

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jun 18 - 03:59 AM

Sorry Joe. I was talking in terms of politics and politicians. Encountering people face to face is entirely different. A whole set of different factors, many subconcious, come into play. If you could not trust the vast majority of people you encounter then as you say, life would become very miserable.
    I think when governments tell us that Dr Kelly(the int. weapons expert)was a walter mitty character, and drag us into wars on the false pretext of WMD, we need to be extremely cautious in accepting anything they say. Also the presence of government in the information age is far too pervasive for my liking.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jun 18 - 10:11 AM

It's an interesting question, Joe. Like most people, I guess, I don't 'trust' any media in an absolute sense, but I trust many of them to various extents. As Iains said, they all have paymasters, but in some cases, and indeed perhaps most cases, the ultimate paymaster is the audience they write for, with the nominal paymaster selecting and spinning to meet what they think is appropriate to keep the purchasers buying. Some have “entertainment” high up in their values, other have “analysis”. On the whole, I am interested in the more analytical papers like the Independent, the Guardian and the Times, which also tend to give the journalists a freer hand to write what they think. These papers also tend to be better at labelling a piece as 'Opinion', for example, to keep it distinct from the news pages.

Many years ago there was a TV show called 'That Was the Week That Was' which rewrote the lyrics to the theme tune every week to reflect the current news. On one occasion, I thought the lyrics captured this problem perfectly, and so the couplet has stayed with me ever since:

"One eye opened wide, one eye closed
And between the two the picture gets composed."

That captures it for me: you need to be alert to the biases, and to take account of them, but that should rarely be enough to reject them entirely. It does mean though, especially in the papers like the Sun that are generally low on the analysis scale, you may have to wade through a great deal of bias and spin to glean the underlying fact. And it is certainly true that when that happens a lot, the "return on time investment" is low enough that I can end up only wading through it when there is something specific to research.

And this is why I keep going on about Hansard. This are the formal minutes of what was said in the House of Commons, or Lords, or in Select Committees. Now it is true what when Corbyn or May speak (for example), there is already a bias in what they say. But I find it better to get to 'the source material' than rely on a Mudcat-poster's interpretation of the Guardian/Daily Mail editors interpretation of the journalist's interpretation of what they said.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 12:50 AM

I tried to answer this morning but Mudcat was hanging, so here it is now:

Public Radio and Public Television used to get a lot more tax dollars than they do now, but they still have a huge "public" component as far as contributions from the public. They're my number one source of news.

The New York Times, the Washington Post, I grew up reading the Seattle Times, and the Herald in Everett (now a McClatchy paper). Professional journals from universities and scientific fields, where peer review is part of the process.

If I click over to Google News I additionally look for the posts from Reuters, the AP, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 01:59 AM

I started off shrugging my shoulders and flippantly murmuring "none.."...

.. but after several minutes deep consideration...

a disillusioned "none" is my position on news trustworthiness...


Though being positive, some news sources are less dubious and slightly more objective than others...

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 03:17 AM

In my opinion, the media presents two faces - news reportage and opinion
The best of them seperate the two - the worst present their own opinion as news.
I believe there to be a 'quality' press - The Times (most of the time), The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian; in most of the rest, News takes second place to selling papers with whatever turns its readership on.
Very few, if any, produce 'fake news' - that has become a knee-jerk accusation of politicians who don't like what they read - a 'Trumpism'
Anybody with an interest in the subjects being reported will sift through all the reports and apply a degree of logic and past experience   
The Net has made it possible not to have to take the Media at face value; access to such sources as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and other such independant groups provide excellent backgrounds to many of the major stories
What is becoming increasingly disturbing is the ignoring of major issues, or worse, the disappearance of information what was freely available a year or so ago
I have little doubt that this is down to influential political pressure groups
Recently many thousands of historical documents were reported 'missing' from the British archives - similar things are happening elsewhere among so-called 'democratic' States
I thoroughly enjoyed the recent 'Jeremy Thorpe' drama on British television, but the most intriguing revelations came from the first-time showing of a BBC documentary made at the time of the trial which was "locked away in a heavy safe" and never shown to the public until last Sunday
It showed how the combined actions of Parliament and the Police, with the help of an important section of the media, allowed a leading politician, guilty of serious crimes to escape justice.
Tip of a much larger iceberg maybe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: peteglasgow
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 03:56 AM

i've usually read the guardian for 40 years but more recently the i gets delivered and i read the guardian on line. as a socialist I have often been irritated by the guardian (why does it support the liberal party or blairism? why so negative on scotland and independence - why are they so hostile to jeremy corbyn? why so Londoncentric?) but do respect as easily the best of a bad bunch. for news i like radio 5, radio scotland has fairly good discussion and is more socially progressive than the rest of the bbc.

but it is always the same problem for those on the left. we don't have a news outlet that concentrates on more important matters than celebrity, the westminster 'game' and pure hateful right-wing propaganda.

except maybe the New European. i trust the editorial stance and find loads of interesting cultural articles in there - (maybe i should whisper this. i like alistair campbell when i can bring myself to forget his war crimes involvment) Sunday Herald is good too - and more likely to write about partick thistle than any of the above- a key element)

i only watch TV for football and subtitled crime stuff now - and springwatch

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 04:21 AM

I find I must agree with Jim on a lot of this:

"In my opinion, the media presents two faces - news reportage and opinion
The best of them separate the two - the worst present their own opinion as news.
I believe there to be a 'quality' press - The Times (most of the time), The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian; in most of the rest, News takes second place to selling papers with whatever turns its readership on.
Very few, if any, produce 'fake news' - that has become a knee-jerk accusation of politicians who don't like what they read - a 'Trumpism'
Anybody with an interest in the subjects being reported will sift through all the reports and apply a degree of logic and past experience   
The Net has made it possible not to have to take the Media at face value; access to such sources as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and other such independent groups provide excellent backgrounds to many of the major stories"

It's only that last paragraph I would question. Whether it is objective to use 'independent', 'single issue' websites as a check on the broader spectrum reporting of the 'quality' press, which will provide a more balanced reporting (usually). Of course, if those sites are used to show one extreme of a view, in order to judge the balance of the press, that's another matter.

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 04:23 AM

News Scientist and BBC. They select the news, and that, as such, reflects a bias. But I trust their honesty as far as it goes. And caveats abound where needed.

The one thing I love to hear about the Beeb is the left claiming right bias and the right claiming left bias. It is hilarious to the point of regarding the claimants with a severely  jaundiced eye  (sic).

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 05:25 AM

"Whether it is objective to use 'independent', 'single issue' "
Neither of those I mentioned are "single issue" and both draw their information from all sides and sources - I might have added Oxfam, but there are many more I wouldn't because of the reasons to you gave
Let's face it - none of us are unbiased, but on the other hand, none of us are experts in everything, so we have to temper what we read in the press with information and views from elsewhere
Can I clear up a point from my earlier posting
When I said I didn't believe there to be "fake News"
I was referring to the British Press - I have no knowledge of other countries but America's 'Fox News' strikes me as a manufacturer of facts as does 'Global Research' for Russia.
I think both of these sets out to manufacture 'Good News' for the establishments they support
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 06:35 AM

Always look at different sources and take your choice as to who presents a better case and has a better track record. Funnily enough the Mudcat is a good source of differing slants on the same news :-) Once you cut through the waffle!

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 06:37 AM

"The news" isn't just wot happens. It's a selection of stuff presented to us. Somebody has to decide how many column inches each item gets, if any at all, how big the headline should be, what page it goes on, top or bottom, any room for a photo, etc...

It's fine to suggest looking at multiple sources, but you'll often notice that your multiple sources have often all used one original source, betrayed by similar or identical wording in their items.

I can't find it again now, but one day last week the Mail had an item about some bloke that had done something or other despicable, and, though it was irrelevant to the item, the paper couldn't help pointing out that the bloke is a Corbyn supporter. To me, that kind of opportunist trickery is designed to confirm bias against Corbyn and it illustrates why I would never trust the Mail to give me the straight story about anything.

When it comes to comment, I want to see it clearly separated from news presentation. The Guardian invites commentators from right across the spectrum, from rabidly right-wing Israeli politicians to Hamas supporters, from Cameron to John McDonnell. Some of what I read enrages me but it's admirable in a way. I know that their opinions are not the news, that's the thing, and I'm free to agree or disagree. And I also think that we have a personal responsibility to read stuff that we're sure will get us seething. There's no merit in reading only what you think will confirm your already-held opinions. That's too comfortable. You need to look for challenge.

The problem with going to Guido Fawkes and the Mail is that they are actively exploiting and working to strengthen your already-held biases. You are not being honest with yourself if you see them as reliable sources of news and you may not be strong enough to resist their jiggerypokery. At least one person here demonstrates that very clearly.

I'd say that no publication should be entirely trusted, but some are objectively more deserving of respect than others for at least trying hard. Ultimately, we have to trust ourselves to have plenty of pinches of salt to hand, and that takes work. We are not just supine, passive recipients. God gave us brains.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 07:02 AM

but America's 'Fox News' strikes me as a manufacturer of facts as does 'Global Research' for Russia.
I think both of these sets out to manufacture 'Good News' for the establishments they support

The only problem with manufacturing facts (supporting good news or bad news) is to ensure you do not get caught out when the truth pops up.
My attitude towards Global Research is that they follow their own path.
Their articles generally contain a greater depth of analysis than newspapers. Their conclusions are often at variance with the MSM. They may be right, they may be wrong - the same as the MSM

Every news source suffers sins of omission. They obviously cannot tell us everything, but items they should cover they may not. That in itself tells a story.

How reliable a source may be to a large extent depends on the subject matter. Even reporting a football match may be partisan. Reporting on a situation such as Syria, I doubt any source can be trusted implicitly, there are simply too many axes being ground. Many media sources on a subject as intricate as this simply follow the government line, with the excuse of patriotism masking their sheeplike behaviour- rather than research all sides of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 07:13 AM

"... but items they should cover they may not."

That's just you setting your bias against what you perceive to be theirs. Thing is, they are professional journalists/editors and you're not. Non-doctors don't go around telling GPs which drugs they should or shouldn't prescribe. But you can always seek another opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 08:30 AM

"My attitude towards Global Research is that they follow their own path."
Doesn't mean much unless you understand what that path is
There are certain publications which follow a specific path in what they report and how they report it
Global Research is heavily in support of the Russian establishment - Russia supports the Syrian Regime, that support become obvious in G.R's reportage on the subject - that's where Amnesty and Human Rights Watch comes in for me.
As a young man I read The Times, though I confess much of it went over my head - hard, detailed reading
Over the last few years I have returned to The Times (for the Codeword puzzle)
I find Murdoch's intrusive proprietorship distasteful to the point of nausea, but it remains a cut above most Tabloid-style reportage, probably because of the lip-service it has to pay to its former glory days.
So I get the excellent Irish Times for its totally impartial reportage and nalanced opinions - and The Times for exercising my brain
I don't think every source has deliberate sins of omission(some certainly are), but I do believe that some are limited in space thanks to their need to include things other than news that sell papers - sport, for instance.
Haven't read The Sun from cover to cover since the day it was first published so I don't know if tits and bums are as large a part (in all senses!) that they once were
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 08:37 AM

I meant to add;
The problem with "news" is that, no matter how important, it has a shelf-life - it disappears after the first impact and is seldom followed up
I'm watching with growing horror the report of the Grenfell Tower fire - I hadn't exactly forgotten about it, but not far off doing so
I hope to open a thread to find out what has happened to the survivors in the intervening period (if anything)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 09:02 AM

True enough there is news and there are editorial opinion pages.
The greater the separation of the two the more trustworthy the source.

Objectivity for Joe is different than it is to me.
Objectivity is baked in the story when all the publication's decisions are made to keep to the facts.

Objectivity is not a 'every story has two sides' affair.

"following a path" is another way of saying the publication has an agenda. The Wall Steet Journal has an agenda compared to the NYT.
FOX has an agenda on anerobic steroids and meth amphetamines and mysogeny compared to the Washington Post.

TV news is mostly a devised wasteland of deliberate propoganda,
that is except for Democracy Now and Vice News.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 10:16 AM

"Journalists are merely professional scribblers, they are beholden to their masters. "
They can be if that's what their masters demand - the siign of a good paper, for me, is one who doesn't make such demands, wwhich iss why I believe the most retrograde step taken by journalism is to allow much of the press to fall into the hands of Megalomanic Murdoch
This is a far too simplistic view of journalism in my opinion

I was always intrigued by gestures of 'balance' made by some of the most extreme of them
The Daily Mail once gave a regular column to the lesser known Behan brother, Brian, a devout Trotskyist - his articles were a joy to read, almost worth buying the paper for, (but not quite)   
We once met him in a pub in Manchester and asked him about writing for a rag like the Mail
He grinned and replied, "I have never been nearer to the Tory Party than I am now"
I seem to remember that Left-Wing journalist, Paul Foot ahd a column in an equally right-wing paper
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 11:46 AM

* other than you

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hirsch finds that Trump is catnip for most publications causing further divide.


He has a new book called Reporter.





*Steve are there any narcissists here? ;^/

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Charmion
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 11:49 AM

To the extent that I trust anybody who writes for money, I trust the Globe & Mail (a Toronto-based Canadian paper), the New York Times and the New Yorker, largely because all three publications still have the resources for genuine investigative reporting.

I have some trouble assessing American news sources these days because the events I read about sometimes stretch my credulity. I boggle at the actions of the Trump administration, for example, even though I am well old enough to remember the details of Spiro Agnew's scurrilous exit from public life and the slow-motion trainwreck that was Watergate. I guess I have trouble accepting that people with the capacity to get themselves elected to national public office could be so unaware of history that happened in their own lifetimes as to copy its most egregious errors so faithfully.

So when I read a carefully reasoned editorial in the New York Times that concludes, basically, that the President is a crook and his administration exists primarily to support his exploitation of the office, I wonder if the editorial board is entirely on the level. But then I read the front page story (most recently, the coverage of the "I can so pardon myself" tweet) and I wonder how the editorialist could reach any other conclusion -- you know, waddle, quack, duck.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 11:51 AM

I merely make the point there is a vast difference between what is understood by science when it comes to comparing sociology to nuclear physics, Likewise journalist being a professional compared to a medical doctor.
Apples and oranges springs to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 12:17 PM

"... but items they should cover they may not."
Matrix Churchill affair perhaps?


supergun shy press

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/20/businessmen-arms-to-iraq-payouts

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 12:18 PM

Out of curiosity, I have just looked up the figures on those rehoused after the Grenfell Tower disaster
There seems very little reportage, but the two that stand out are The Guardian and the BBC
The Guardian states that
There are still 82 households in emergency accommodation, mainly hotels, including 25 families and 39 children, .
The BBC simply says "Not everybody has been rehoused"
I find this as interesting as I do Iains response to the situation
Presumably, if he were reporting on the issue he would be asking
"Example Grenfell tower How many evacuated successfully, how many killed, are any still missing? Seems the number that made fraudulent claims for rehousing/compensation demonstrates record keeping was somewhat inadequate. Has this issue ever been discussed in depth?"
Three different emphases on the same issue
That seems to be how the media works - no-one really tells lies but some place their priorities differently
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 01:04 PM

Jim there is a school of thought that the numbers were underplayed because of the number of illegal immigrants subleasing. There were also questions about how some mananged to jump the housing queue in that borough. Maybe the enquiry will focus on these allegations, or perhaps dismiss them. We shall see.
If all was totally above board the questions could have responded to accurately within hours. How does an illegal immigrant manage to sign a lease without alarm bells ringing.
There is a story here being buried.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 01:08 PM

Objective balance...????

As with other, more formal, news sources, I take a mash-up of what i can get from mudcat BS...

I'd insist mudat is the richer for having both Jim and Iains [to mention just 2] as regular contributors..


What I do not agree with is moves from members to have other 'difficult/transgressive' mudcatters banned from posting...

That's a recipe for the kind of neutered imbalanced cosy backslapping place
that i'd feel extremely bored to be involved in...

I need to have my beliefs, values, and preconceptions challenged,
as much as it's nice and comfy to have them constantly agreed, indulged, confirmed and reinforced...

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 01:21 PM

"Jim there is a school of thought that the numbers were underplayed because of the number of illegal immigrants subleasing."
I have no information on this whatever, but as the information for both the BBC and Guardian articles comes from a report of a statement from a Government Minister Savid Javid attempting to pass the blame of the inaction onto the local council, I would very much doubt if this were an issue
I think you are pulling out of the air issues that the tabloid press would have raised if it had been interested enough to report the situation in the first place
Whatever the outcome, the Government, the council and the building industry are all being given a severe kicking by the enquiry
You seem to have made up your mind that the victims are partly to blame for actually living in unsafe property
I really don't want to slog this out here - as I said, I'll probably open a thread later if somebody else doesn't
I am merely using it as an example of how silence has become a propaganda weapon by the media
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 01:38 PM

Jim I do not want to make an issue of the fact that some/many of the victims were illegal immigrants. My sole issue is the lack of clarity.
There is no dispute they exist.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41586892
I could take issue with some of what you have said but a slugfest will get the thread terminated.j

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 02:26 PM

I trust the Guardian more than the rest, while often disliking it very much. It does have the ability to hone in on a story that the rest of the media consistently ignores, and keep on with it, sometimes for months.

That was illustrated especially in the Windrush scandal, and related stories about the government's shameful treatment of immigrants. So far as the rest of the press, and even the BBC was concerned, this didn't exist, until it finally exploded in their face, thanks to the Commonwealth gathering.

Good journalism isn't just about getting the facts right (though that is rare enough). It's about refusing to let important stories die away, and insisting on coming back to them.

Very few papers in my view seem to pay any attention to keeping facts and opinion separate, and that includes the guardian. At one time the Telegraph was surprisingly good doing this, especially in foreign news. No longer.

I treat everything with scepticism, and probably trust Private Eye more than the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 09:55 PM

I have the following on my phone and iPod:

CBC, Al Jazeera (English), Reuters, NPR, CNN, Associated Press, UPI, BBC, Deutsche Waila (DW), Russia Today (RT), USA Today, Bloomberg. On the desktop are these as NHK News, Yonhap News Agency, Africa News. I'll read others as I feel the need, and this doesn't include the local news sources.

Why so many? Because I want to get as many slants on a subject as I can before I make up my mind about it because, frankly, I don't trust any one source.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jun 18 - 09:57 PM

I should also point out that I usually operate by the Moscow Rules:


    Assume nothing.
    Never go against your gut.
    Everyone is potentially under opposition control.
    Do not look back; you are never completely alone.
    Go with the flow, blend in.
    Vary your pattern and stay within your cover.
    Lull them into a sense of complacency.
    Do not harass the opposition.
    Pick the time and place for action.
    Keep your options open.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 04:32 AM

Today we have some "false news" from that despicable creature Guido Fawkes.

It is entitled "the internet war begins"
or perhaps it should be net neutrality neutered? A subject of vital importance to an online community such as mudcat, and that has implications for free speech. It is a subject you would expect the MSM to argue for passionately as it their raison d'être, or are they simply happy to see their main competition castrated and ecstatic to see the story concealed??


http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-internet-war-begins/

Obviously this is all a malicious rumour spread by that well known purveyor of lies, Mr Guido..

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 08:31 AM

It has emerged from The Grenfell Tower enquiry that the behavior of some sections of the press led to the persecution in the form of threatening and abusive e-mails, of the occupant of the flat in which the fire started
It has been suggested that he might have to be moved into protected accommodation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 01:13 PM

Rather akin to the situation of 78 year old Richard Osborn-Brooks who has been given police protection after being threatened with reprisals.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 01:33 PM

Osborn- Brooks killed a burglar
Who did the Grenfell resident kill?
Don't understand the connection
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 01:37 PM

Incidentally - the press defended Brooks - the press at Grenfell were the cause of the harassment
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 05:27 PM

Basic rule to adopt with just about any public figure, and much of the media, was laid down by Louis Heren, Times Foreign Correspondent, when that was a far better paper, is "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?"

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 06:09 PM

And Paul Dacre has stepped down. Good riddance to bullying, misogynistic, unprofessional bad rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 06:43 PM

the fish n chip thread got me thinking back to the era of
"today's headlines are tomorrow's fish n chip wrapper"...

did anyone ever research the possibilities of carcinogens in the ink and paper...???

The mail is bad enough as it is, but if it once upon a time actually killed the working classes...!!!???

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 07:20 PM

Well it certainly wasn't supporting the working classes in the thirties. Like The Sun wasn't supporting the Liverpool fans after Hillsborough. If you look into these things, and assess whether these publications have changed, you may conclude that they're not exactly good, reliable sources of anything. Maybe the odd recipe or knitting pattern.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 03:02 AM

On the whole, people tend to trust the publications, ergo those that own and manage those publications, that support their personal biases and agendas. Explains a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 10:23 AM

Daily Mail daily circulation figures
1,425,700
The Guardian
149,500

Says it all really does it not? Whinge and witter to your heart's content, more people trust the daily mail than the guardian. Would they buy it if they were convinced it was a "ranting, fascist bumwipe"

I fink not!

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 11:15 AM

By the way, there has never, to my knowledge, been a survey of which newspaper people "trust"
People buy newspapers for different reasons, from bums and tits to Sport, and everything in between
News, in scabloids like The Sun, The Mail... and all the rest of the sewer press take second place
The Mail is interesting in the sense that it manages occasionally to step over its reactionary political stance and take the lead in some stories that matter - because they sell papers
The Lawrence murder was one they stuck their neck out on, as was the Refugees being forced to wear 'yellow-star-like' identification and have their doors painted red debacle
DEspite its tendency towards racism, it didn't do too bad in covering the "One quarter of British People admit to being racist" issue
Funny old world, journalism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 11:16 AM

Thought for the day - how many of the '1,425,700' are lefties keeping an eye on the nature of the beast of the enemy...???

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 12:16 PM

I'm a bit of a leftie - and I'll happily insult the Guardian.....

just ask - I'll oblige...

Subject: RE: BS: What Publications Do You Trust, and Why?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 12:43 PM

Errrmmm....wasn't there a thread recently on the subject of behaviour of members in the BS section?

Wonder what happened to all the wise words and good intentions put out in that thread? Some muppets never learn.

Anyway - going, going....