• ozoned@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 years ago

      Snopes has been a former Facebook checker and MBFC has Google Analytics. I would be a little afraid and cautious.

      • pinknoise@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yes please asses the credibility of their articles based on their associations with shady companies instead of the contents plausibility.

        • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 years ago

          You think the funding and affiliations of organisations have nothing to do with the agenda they propagate? Oh summer child.

            • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 years ago

              Snopes is not a publisher, but acting as the arbiter of truths. So if they have backing by biased entities, that leaves them vulnerable to be biased since these enitites are the stakeholders and customers, not people who might be relying on them to see facts.

              Only the customer is served by these groups. You are not a customer of Snopes or MBFC.

              • pinknoise@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 years ago

                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.

                • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  There exists independent media. You clearly do not know your stuff and are willing to deny it as well. You have made up your mind, so this conversation is over.

      • ozoned@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        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.

        • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 years ago

          Facebook acts as a conservative hideout and has been one since ages. Why do you think Facebook is an objective outlet that will use Snopes legitimately?

          • ozoned@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 years ago

            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.

            • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 years ago

              Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?

              • ozoned@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 years ago

                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.

                • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.

                  You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with “reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer”. Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.

  • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I use a mix match of Telegram and Reddit custom multireddit feeds of my own.

    Then there is https://swprs.org/media-navigator/ that I heavily use. This is another resource https://everythingprogressive.org/media/media_console.html

    I also read a lot of news and posts on the communist and Chinese diaspora subreddits to get a fresh, “other side” of view to stay self critical, because staying self critical is the most unbiased and revolutionary act in these times of blind people forming and screaming opinions based on watching a handful news channels and websites of either liberal or conservative side.

    Edit: I also do not rely on fact checkers and am good at finding the funders, trustees, company or government backings of a news media source, so it helps me. I do not trust Snopes or MBFC with questionable past and affiliations.