Apologies if I left anything important out. It was hard to pick which outlets to put in the poll since there were only 10 spots. I combined the NY Times and Washington Post because I feel like the attitudes about them and what they are breaking are similar. I combined ABC,NBC,CBS news because they are more similar to one another in my opinion. I know a lot of people get news from Yahoo and Google but they are more aggregates. I'm sorry if grouping Breitbart, Drudge Report and The Hill together. I think they are relatively similar but I'm not an expert.
Drudge isn't a news outlet, its a news aggregate. Not sure why you lump it with Breitbart. and the Hill is fairly left leaning. As far as trust, why would you trust any news outlet? no need. You have the internet so if they report something, you can just go look it up yourself. I mostly read cor.ax and other news aggregates
Would say CBS yes, ABC no. Voted no on the big three b/c ABC is so slanted and NBC so bad. Like to add BBC, WSJ, and Christian Science Monitor as my fave sources.
Pretty much all news repeats what the government says, with a positive spin or a negative spin. If the White House mentions China, today we talk about China. If the WH does not mention China, we probably don't talk about China. Look at where the media personnel are physically located. Most of them are sitting on their ass in a TV studio, which means they are not out finding information somewhere. Many more are standing in front of the White House or some political event, repeating the words from the event like a megaphone. For most of the people we see on TV, "the news" is like an office job, which does not involve going out and doing investigative work. They are the government's amplifiers as much as anything else. On top of which, members of the CIA have stated in the past that the CIA submits stories to media and has workers in the media:
None of the above. The Wall Street Journal should have been on this list. Its not perfect, but better than anything named above.
Despite having the name "Christian" in the title, the Christian Science Monitor is actually a very good source of information. Probably often overlooked simply because of the name
I had the Economist but changed it to "International." There could have been a lot more in the poll but it maxes out at 10. Maybe we didn't need ABC/CBS/NBC ?
So, what's left? Infowars? Stormfront? The Onion? Looking out your window? Starting with a premise that all news is fake is pretty Trump-minded (i.e.simple minded). Maybe considering a synthesis of multiple sources, whether you agree or not, might help provide a broader sense of legitimacy; or at least provide data points for an informed decision. This thread only confirms that many folks apparently do not rely on legitimate factual information for their world views.
I usually read WaPo, and the thing I've noticed recently is that a lot (if not most) of the major headlines these days are coming from anonymous sources. Can that be considered factual information? It doesn't really matter how many different news outlets you look at to to try and cross reference it...it doesn't change that you really have no idea where the actual information came from and nothing ever seems to really be corroborated. I don't think you would call that fake news. Maybe unverified news? Although, if someone reads unverified news and takes it as factual and draws myriad of conclusions from it, what does that make it?
