The right wingers most distrusted site is CNN, not surprising since Trump has called CNN fake news about a hundred times.
CNN and MSNBC used to be the most watched by progressives I know. But not so long ago, IIRC, CNN was losing viewers so they decided to be more centrist.
Long ago I used to read the WSJ-- but only for its stock market news. I was surprised that it seemed fairly balanced politically. Then one day (for the first time!) I looked at the editorial page-- it was very right wing!
As I've mentioned previously, I spend a lot of time researching the Stock Market. Initially I was impressed with the WSJ-- they have tons of information. But as someone who occasionally trades activivelly, I realized it wasn't that useful-- because by the time it has relevant news its usually too late (to get in early). So now I find Barrons much more useful for the Market.
So now I find Barrons much more useful for the Market.
Two other sources I like for that:
1- Some of the market coverage on CNBC is excellent. (MSNBC is politics-- but during the day-- actually usually up to 8 PM-- CNBC is only Stock Market).
2. Twitter was actually good. Sure there was a lot of the usual social media garbage-- personal attacks, nasty trolls, extremely misleading "news"-- etc. But if you knew who to follow, some really great people gave their latest personal opinions-- and in fact it was easy to interact with them. (It was a matter of being very selective at who you followed-- and ignoring everything else).
Some people left Twitter when Musk took over, but some are still there.
Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite, Paul Harvey, and back when there was an award given to the LEAST biased newspaper, usually won by The Christian Science Monitor - an award that no medium would win today. But after all, the media these days have to compete with the misinformation, disinformation and outright lies being spread all over the world by the postings on some of the major social news sites (this is not meant to mean NT).
But after all, the media these days have to compete with the misinformation, disinformation and outright lies being spread all over the world by the postings on some of the major social news sites
I've explored most of them. Its truly amazing the misleading (and nasty!) stuff that's on most Social Media.
Instagram is, IMO, horrific. For starters, my experience there is that almost everyone is trying to sell you something. And many are very pushy.
I was a bit late in discovering What'sApp. (A few people i knew from other sites that didn't live in the U.S. or Canada didn't want conversations because it was a long distance call-- they all preferred What's App. (Either a What's App with one other person-- or a group).
And for small groups , once you get to know how to use it best, Zoom is excellent.
IMO it is hard to find a news station that does not have some or mostly slant to them. It is good to take them with a healthy dose of skepticism. It is no surprise that the most trusted on either side are the ones that pretty much slant things the way their viewers slant.
Al Jazeera has been banned by a whole lot of countries, and I have to say I was surprised to see that it has even been banned in China, where the government is biased in favour of the Arab nations.
Al Jazeera has been banned by a whole lot of countries, and I have to say I was surprised to see that it has even been banned in China, where the government is biased in favour of the Arab nations.
Just a wild guess of course-- but perhaps the PRC is not over-joyed with al Jazeera's coverage of events in Xinjiang Province.
(But enough of that-- let's get back to the topic here).
I have been listening to them the last couple of months. I was interested how they would cover this war. I can say that if this is a main news source for anyone I can understand how they become so anti Israel and US. It seems they try to normalize everything Hamas is doing and have been using the word genocide of Palestinians since pretty much the start of the war.
Pee tapes, steele dossier wasn’t used for fisa warrants, Covington kids, Smollet, “hands up, don’t shoot” , “mostly peaceful”, lab leak is a conspiracy theory, kavanaugh high school rape gang, the whole avenetti experience, officer sicknick was murdered, Prague meeting with Russians, hunters laptop is Russian disinformation, joe Biden never discussed business with hunter etc…
According to this survey, these are the only news sites that conservatives trust -The Wall St Journal , Forbes, Newsmax, OAN, The Federalist, Fox News, and Breitbart.
Speaking of Fox News, anyone here remember when Chris Wallace was on Fox?
I liked them both. I considered them part of the news crew on Fox. Now there is pretty much only Bret Baier and Neil Cavuto to a lesser degree. Although that is 2 more news people than MSNBC has.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Wall St Journal , Forbes, Newsmax, OAN, The Federalist, Fox News, and Breitbart.
Seven news sources. Those are the only ones out of the 42 listed that conservatives trust.
The right wingers most distrusted site is CNN, not surprising since Trump has called CNN fake news about a hundred times.
And yet because CNN said Trump conceded that a new Administration will be sworn in
that he officially conceded to Biden, except for all of the traditional parts, like telling Biden,
like admitting to the nation that he lost the election, like snubbing the Biden Inauguration.
But since CNN said that was the defacto "concede" by Trump, non liberals here and everywhere swear that Trump did concede.
Can't make this stuff up.
CNN and MSNBC used to be the most watched by progressives I know. But not so long ago, IIRC, CNN was losing viewers so they decided to be more centrist.
Long ago I used to read the WSJ-- but only for its stock market news. I was surprised that it seemed fairly balanced politically. Then one day (for the first time!) I looked at the editorial page-- it was very right wing!
As I've mentioned previously, I spend a lot of time researching the Stock Market. Initially I was impressed with the WSJ-- they have tons of information. But as someone who occasionally trades activivelly, I realized it wasn't that useful-- because by the time it has relevant news its usually too late (to get in early). So now I find Barrons much more useful for the Market.
Two other sources I like for that:
1- Some of the market coverage on CNBC is excellent. (MSNBC is politics-- but during the day-- actually usually up to 8 PM-- CNBC is only Stock Market).
2. Twitter was actually good. Sure there was a lot of the usual social media garbage-- personal attacks, nasty trolls, extremely misleading "news"-- etc. But if you knew who to follow, some really great people gave their latest personal opinions-- and in fact it was easy to interact with them. (It was a matter of being very selective at who you followed-- and ignoring everything else).
Some people left Twitter when Musk took over, but some are still there.
I rarely watch CNN. In your opinion have they moved more to the center?
Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite, Paul Harvey, and back when there was an award given to the LEAST biased newspaper, usually won by The Christian Science Monitor - an award that no medium would win today. But after all, the media these days have to compete with the misinformation, disinformation and outright lies being spread all over the world by the postings on some of the major social news sites (this is not meant to mean NT).
I've explored most of them. Its truly amazing the misleading (and nasty!) stuff that's on most Social Media.
Instagram is, IMO, horrific. For starters, my experience there is that almost everyone is trying to sell you something. And many are very pushy.
I was a bit late in discovering What'sApp. (A few people i knew from other sites that didn't live in the U.S. or Canada didn't want conversations because it was a long distance call-- they all preferred What's App. (Either a What's App with one other person-- or a group).
And for small groups , once you get to know how to use it best, Zoom is excellent.
Not surprising since CNN told so many lies during the Russia hoax
IMO it is hard to find a news station that does not have some or mostly slant to them. It is good to take them with a healthy dose of skepticism. It is no surprise that the most trusted on either side are the ones that pretty much slant things the way their viewers slant.
Dems think al Jazeera is a credible news source. Explains the increase in antisemitism
Al Jazeera has been banned by a whole lot of countries, and I have to say I was surprised to see that it has even been banned in China, where the government is biased in favour of the Arab nations.
Just a wild guess of course-- but perhaps the PRC is not over-joyed with al Jazeera's coverage of events in Xinjiang Province.
(But enough of that-- let's get back to the topic here).
Its extremely biased-- anti-Israel of course, but subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) anti-Semitic.
I have been listening to them the last couple of months. I was interested how they would cover this war. I can say that if this is a main news source for anyone I can understand how they become so anti Israel and US. It seems they try to normalize everything Hamas is doing and have been using the word genocide of Palestinians since pretty much the start of the war.
Democrats think PBS is the most trustworthy news site. No wonder the other side always wants to take away their funding.
Pee tapes, steele dossier wasn’t used for fisa warrants, Covington kids, Smollet, “hands up, don’t shoot” , “mostly peaceful”, lab leak is a conspiracy theory, kavanaugh high school rape gang, the whole avenetti experience, officer sicknick was murdered, Prague meeting with Russians, hunters laptop is Russian disinformation, joe Biden never discussed business with hunter etc…
How could anyone not believe progressive media?
According to this survey, these are the only news sites that conservatives trust -
The Wall St Journal , Forbes, Newsmax, OAN, The Federalist, Fox News, and Breitbart.
How many on that short list do you think are trustworthy ?
Speaking of Fox News, anyone here remember when Chris Wallace was on Fox?
Shep Smith?
Any thoughts on either (or both) of them?
I liked them both. I considered them part of the news crew on Fox. Now there is pretty much only Bret Baier and Neil Cavuto to a lesser degree. Although that is 2 more news people than MSNBC has.
What the data suggests is that Democrats and/or liberals are more gullible. Gallup has reported similar results:
And it seems apparent that the media has no plans to redeem itself this election cycle.