this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2229 readers
13 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
True, but this post is just an image drawn in a silly style. Hard to take it seriously.
I have no reason to doubt the validity, but as of writing this I also have no reason to believe it. It would be nice to see something from AP, NPR, or something like that.
I admit I have not looked.
Ah yes, the famously non-ideological and trustworthy AP and NPR.
I often see people express this comment, then shy away when I ask to sit down with them and have them go through the site and point out their inconsistencies. I suspect because you are parroting something you heard from elsewhere, and not because you possess the details yourself. However, like it or not, these are some of the publications that adhere to the highest level of journalistic ethics that we have on this planet. Do they have a tilt, YES, because there is no such thing as a completely unbiased publication because they are generated by humans. Does that harm their credibility? No. Because they are open and forthcoming with any conflict that may exist, and because there exist rigorous journalistic standards created over the past few hundred years of reporting. My sources adhere to those standards, what other benchmark should I look for?
Could you elaborate on which journalistic standards do you find them lacking? Feel free to reply and share them.
So here are the key points:
Name a publication with less bias.
Name a publication with a longer history of breaking stories.
Name a publication with a longer history of protecting story sources.
I'll wait. We have all the time in the world here. You can reply at any time.
To summarize your stance, you are letting perfect get in the way of good.
Share your better sources, we are all curious.
I would be happy to add the sources that you prefer next time, assuming they have as robust of a history, story correction, admitting when they are wrong, issuing corrections, openly disclosing their funding, etc.
So, which publications are better? I notice you left that out of your reply, please edit your post with your preferred sources, or reply here.
Throwing stones is easy, can you back it up? Please enlighten us.
TLDR : Criticism is easy when you don't follow through, follow through and tell us which sources we should trust more than AP and NPR.
I don't need to provide an alternative to point out that something is bad. I don't need to follow the hyper-liberal norms and practices that you're so fond of on sites like reddit, it simply is not a requirement.
It's a strange twist of logic you have that no one can have an viewpoint counter to yours without providing you an alternative to your liking. Grow the fuck up and learn how to be critical of news sources, or at least how to find sources critical of them. If you're so good at reading and research and understanding it really should not be an obstacle for you.
You come into this thread high and mighty about your (self-perceived) knowledge and wisdom only to spout ignorant nonesense in reply after reply and then cry when people call you out on it. Intellectually, you are a coward; emotionally, you are a child.
Here's my counter tl;dr for your reddit-brain: Get fucked.