"Greneral Questions" information sources. Which do you trust?

[kris]

In General Questions people always use sources to back up thier posts.

In your opinion which web source do YOU trust the most. Where would go go for reliable news etc? AND WHY?

I always use BBC news www.bbc.co.uk/news as it is funded by the public and it must, by law, be impartial. Oh and everything on it is free (inc video clips etc) and it has some great extra features (e.g. the "On This Day" pages).

What's yours?

[kris]

Okay, I just realised this should probably belong in IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.

SORRY. before you all hava a go at me.

(But i suppose it could be a debate! Debating which is the best etc, so I wasn't really wrong).

[flonks]

Fox News, because they told me that they are fair and balanced ...

[ruadh]

Originally posted by kris
I always use BBC news www.bbc.co.uk/news as it is funded by the public and it must, by law, be impartial.

Of course, that doesn't mean much when those enforcing the law have the same biases the BBC does.

[Mangetout]

I'm grenerally suspicious of anything that contains a typo.

[mascaroni]

Me too, Mangetrout...

[DreadCthulhu]

Frankly, I would think a government news source would be the easiest thing to be biased; if the government controls the funding, what's stopping them from making the programing go there way.

Generally, I prefer to use a bunch of different news sources, and weigh the total reliabitly of each one against others.

[SentientMeat]

government news source If this is what you think the BBC is, Cthulu, you are labouring under an enormous misapprehension, which many Americans I have met here inexplicably seem to share. The BBC has impartiality written into its charter and frequently comes to blows with the government - witness the recent furore regarding claims that Iraq could launch WMD's in 45 minutes and the Hutton enquiry into David Kelly's death.

[ruadh]

Once again, may I recommend Liz Curtis's Ireland the Propaganda War, to show how "impartial" the BBC really is on matters in which it agrees with the Government.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by SentientMeat
If this is what you think the BBC is, Cthulu, you are labouring under an enormous misapprehension, which many Americans I have met here inexplicably seem to share.
Do you believe that referring to chips as "french fries" is an enormous misapprehension which many Americans inexplicably seem to share? Americans have a defintion of "government" different from that of the British; under the American definition, pretty much anything funded by taxes is part of the government.

[Ximenean]

While I don't revere the BBC quite as much as some of my compatriots, describing it as a "government news source" is way off the mark. Makes it sound like the mouthpiece of a banana republic or something. The Beeb is not immune from government influence, but are any broadcasters? They all need licences to operate, even in the land of the free. And yes, it may have its own biases, but that doesn't mean they are due to government interference. Could just be that the BBC reflects the prejudices of the British people.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Americans have a defintion of "government" different from that of the British; under the American definition, pretty much anything funded by taxes is part of the government.

I'm an American, and that's a new definition on me.

[kniz]

Originally posted by ruadh
I'm an American, and that's a new definition on me.
Yeah, by that definition everyone drawing food stamps would qualify as part of the government. :p

[notquitekarpov]

and it is not funded by taxes, it is funded by a TV License. Don't have a TV and you don't pay. That is not a tax any more than compulsory motor insurance is a tax...

[DreadCthulhu]

The government takes money from you, in order for you to use something - sounds like a tax to me.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by kniz
Yeah, by that definition everyone drawing food stamps would qualify as part of the government. :p
I said "pretty much everyTHING". The food stamp program would be part of the government. Do you or ruadh disagree?

notquitekarpovand it is not funded by taxes, it is funded by a TV License. Don't have a TV and you don't pay. That is not a tax any more than compulsory motor insurance is a tax...If you don't earn any income, you don't pay any income tax, either. If one were required to buy insurance from a particular company, I would consider that company, in at least some sense, to be a government company, and I would hardly expect it to be impartial with respect to the government.

[ruadh]

TR, are you honestly not aware that all sorts of private groups and institutions receive government funding?

[The Ryan]

By "funded by taxes", I meant "primarily supported by taxes", not "receives some money from taxes".

[notquitekarpov]

Well DreadCthulhu the UK government is not taking money from you, you are paying money to the BBC if you want to own a TV. The BBC are a public corporation but nothing to do with the government. Not sure the comparison to income tax is valid - you need income to live but you buy a TV voluntarily.

And The Ryan in relation to my comparison to being legally required to buy motor liability insurance here in the UK if you want to drive - but it is a free market in that you can buy from whomever you like. You just have to have it from somewhere. In [b]no/b] sense are any of them government companies and all are impartial in respect to the government.

There is clearly something cultural here preventing us from understanding one another, as I freely admit that I do not understand your broad idea of "government" at all.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally posted by notquitekarpov
There is clearly something cultural here preventing us from understanding one another, as I freely admit that I do not understand your broad idea of "government" at all. The confusion arises from the difference between being "pro-government" in general and being pro-one-particular-government.

Liberals are "pro-government" in general--they want government to provide housing, health care, welfare, business regulation, and so forth. They may not be in favor of a particular administration--obviously, American liberals are not pro-Bush.

When an institution is funded, in whole or in part, by government mandate, as are the BBC and NPR, it tends to be pro-government in the broader, liberal sense. It will, however, often be at loggerheads with the particular government of the day--especially if said government is pursuing conservative policies.

[the first supraliminal]

UPI and AP wire service bylines are always reliable.
Found in most papers' sites.

I usually trust anything with .edu or .org in the url

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by notquitekarpov . The BBC are a public corporation but nothing to do with the government.
So if you have a TV and don't pay the fee, what happens? Does the BBC send someone over? I should point out that the police are most definitely included in the American definition of "government".

And The Ryan in relation to my comparison to being legally required to buy motor liability insurance here in the UK if you want to drive - but it is a free market in that you can buy from whomever you like. You just have to have it from somewhere. In [b]no/b] sense are any of them government companies and all are impartial in respect to the government.
That's my point: IF you were required to patronize a particular insurance copany, THEN it would not be independent. No company which has a government enforced monopoly is truly independent.

[notquitekarpov]

OK thanks jklann and The Ryan we're getting there....

If you don't pay your TV license you get pursued by the BBC in pretty much the same way as if you owed me money and didn't pay. You cannot get arrested, but you could get fined or jailed I guess ultimately, but I have those santions against debtors too as well as the BBC and I do not become part of the government by using it.

As all governments I can recall bitterly complain the BBC are biased against them I conclude it passes the test, as well as any organisation can, of being independent. From what you say I agree there appears more consensus between Labour/Liberals/Conservatives in the UK about the role of government than perhaps in the USA. But perhaps only because we don't really have a truely left wing major party any more....

And The Ryan if that was your point and as your "IF..." statement is invalid I guess we now agree. There is no monopoly or requirement to use a particular insurer - only that you carry insurance which has many sellers operating in a cut-throat competitive market.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally posted by ruadh
Once again, may I recommend Liz Curtis's Ireland the Propaganda War, to show how "impartial" the BBC really is on matters in which it agrees with the Government.

That's an interesting statement.

So what we have is a situation where everyone demands "cites", and yet nobody can agree on a source that is impartial, so what happens is the cites can be dismissed as biased by anybody who disagrees with them. Talk about rigorous. :rolleyes:

As a corollary to the OP, why do people demand cites for everything? Isn't that just voluteering someone else's opinion to support your own? I've often wondered why, when someone presents an opinion they have to back it up with other opinions. When you really think about it, it's silly. You need a credible cite, but what is that? An opinion from a PhD? A public opinion poll? A standard news story? The Op/Ed page of the New Republic? Mother Jones? What?

Sometimes I think it would be better if we could just present an opinion without having to rally up other opinions that can be summarily dismissed anyway.