Sources

[Piezo]

I'm usually not into politics, as I stay out of political coversations since I don't know enough to add any input. But all the things going around lately trouble me deeply. I want to know, from those of you who do your research and know what you're talking about, what your sources are like links to websites, newspaper articles, books and the like. I would rather not get into sources that are likely biased if that is at all possible.
The reason is because I have gotten into an argument with one of my good friends, and he went off on this rant defending Bush and it made my arguments seem weak. Today I got into an argument with my mom, and I felt really bad and again I ran into the same problem. I read some things in places and the facts (such as statistics) were slighly different. I hope I'm not asking for the impossible by asking for real, concrete facts because it seems to me that there are none anymore.
Anyway, where do you guys find out this stuff?

[Quast]

It might be best to just not start a political thread...

As for sources? who knows? a lot of people would say to "get the facts yourselfs, do your own research, don't listen to cnn...olololz" or whatever. When in fact they are probably just talking out of their asses and/or read cnn anyway.

But really...I myself would like to see a completely unbiased source of news/information. That won't happen. everything can and does get spun and skewed by whoever reports it, in an effort to strengthen their ideology

[Arioch]

Quast said:

everything can and does get spun and skewed by whoever reports it, in an effort to strengthen their ideology

The only truth on the internet you will find.

[Sephiroth]

new papers and channels are not always the sources to trust. hell some are owned by high ranking officials or do thing to apease special intrest groups. websites are not that great.

simple fact is do the research and use common sence. example i would not trust a new paper that say had an article about bush but was also owned by the bush family. also alot of stuff is gonna turn out to be BS and propaganda, its just the world we live in. It also comes down to choice and common sence. read and find many sources from opposeing views. also higher ups may seem distant, but still as human as any of us. they still make mistakes, have issues, beliefs, prejudice, ignorance and all the other things that come with being human good and bad.

sad thing is alot of people head into an argument doing little or no research.

[Psyonisis]

;

[deathbringer]

Despite what certian tossers always go on about (there we go, bias already!), http://www.bbc.co.uk is often one to trust

[myk]

Psyonisis said:
Not until an army of objective journalist robots are built.

But only after they have annihilated the opposition with their net-based hacking systems and their implanted chainguns.

I'd rather have biased plurality than accorded objectivity. There's always that saying "opinions are like assholes," but then again, we're often pretty misanthropic, labelling what others say as biased when they are seeing things from a very different perspective, driven by distinct circumstances.

Asking for objectivity is asking for a platter served; and that's when they feed you the apparently wholesome crap that eventually leaves holes in your guts. It's better to sharpen your own sense and to accept the variety and imperfect information, than to expect easy answers from the rest; if not you'll never have a clue, really.

[Captain Red]

I grenally watch SBS world news or the ABC news, both are public funded stations. Since they're not compeating for ratings and (in threaroy) have no reason to sensaninlise, I trust them over the othere stations (good lord, could I sound like a bigger presto intellectual?).

[Sharessa]

I like to pull on my penis repeatedly and rapidly. What comes out is generaly the best, most unbiased news service you can get.

[Captain Red]

he's not kidding. that was where I first hread about the 9/11 attacks.

[Piezo]

Well, I guess nevermind about unbiased sources. What about likely biased or obviously biased sources?
The thing is when someone is defending Bush, I need a good source to go by. Bushgame and JohnKerryIsADouchBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com just don't cut it. I need good sources to back up my statements, things with statistics and graphs from well respected people who do statistics. I guess that raises the question "what is a reliable source?"

[Bucket]

You're simply asking where you should go to back up certain beliefs you have-- and believe me, there's no shortage. Whether a source looks "reputable" is a cosmetic choice. I've seen links here to conspiracy sites and the like, so what the fuck?

Of course... it comes down to you and how inclined you are to find another Source that starkly contradicts your Source. At that point it becomes a name game, and certain motivations behind said Sources come to light. So we all know where that ends up.

There was some clever little saying about "arguing on the internet"... damned if I can remember it...

[Scuba Steve]

MPR or NPR are usually pretty reliable.

[Scuba Steve]

Piezo said:

What about likely biased or obviously biased sources?

lol

[Mogul]

Arioch said:

The only truth on the internet you will find.

Seconded. At least when dealing with such issues as this.

[Quast]

mje said:

Seconded. At least when dealing with such issues as this.

there really isn't much anymore that won't get twisted to further some factions idea of economic, political or religious wishes or ideals...or worse yet, elicit emotional responses. It's all in how something is worded 'just so'...and facts/statistics used to intentionaly mislead or ignored alltogether.

nothing is 'news', nothing is sacred, there isn't any issue or story made public without some entity with an agenda behind it.