News sources
- Thread starter DuchessAimee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oh boy, this will certainly start something LOL
I like certain FNC shows, but I've also learned to trust the presentations of Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro and Larry Elder.
I grew up on the liberal media, so I am well-versed in their reportage. Up until not very long ago, I would try to be fair and sometimes give CNN or MSNBC a listen. But, since Trump, I can no longer listen to anything on their side of the spectrum.
I like certain FNC shows, but I've also learned to trust the presentations of Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro and Larry Elder.
I grew up on the liberal media, so I am well-versed in their reportage. Up until not very long ago, I would try to be fair and sometimes give CNN or MSNBC a listen. But, since Trump, I can no longer listen to anything on their side of the spectrum.
There are more and more false news, so it's better to have more news sources.
News has no practical significance to my life. These messy news will only make you become friends with the world. After watching the news, you will be angry, hateful and hostile, which is not the way a Christian should be.
News has no practical significance to my life. These messy news will only make you become friends with the world. After watching the news, you will be angry, hateful and hostile, which is not the way a Christian should be.
-
1
- Show all
Quantity is a false protection. Almost no one has time to read 40 different sources. So the key thing is quality. There should be some special quality about each source that you are listening to.
1. NY Times lied about having a deep contact in the Trump administration that was highly placed, a "deep throat". They led everyone to believe that the Chief of Staff or the Secretary of State was giving us the inside information on Trump's administration. Instead it was some guy in a cubicle across town. Once they knowingly, intentionally lie to me to further their agenda I do not listen to them anymore. NY Times is crossed off my list.
2. WAPO lied about the Hunter Biden laptop. They are off my list.
3. Project Veritas, Revolver, and Epoch times have all done some excellent reporting. Every one of these outlets has an agenda. If you think you can find a news outlet without an agenda you are deceived. But they are transparent, and their stories are powerful. I listen to them.
4. Steve Bannon has been accused of being a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist because he started his podcast in January 2020, Warroom Pandemic with the absurd theory that the virus in China would become a pandemic and that it was made in the Wuhan lab. A year later he was proved right on both fronts. People who tell the truth will be attacked. I do not shy away from someone because they are attacked and slandered, what I want to see is the track record. Not only has Bannon been right and been first on many stories, he has taken massive attacks on these stories. So Bannon's Warroom pandemic is at the top of the list for what I listen to.
5. Alex Jones -- he also is attacked, but I don't listen to him. Many argue that he also is right and first on many topics, however, he has been horribly wrong on at least one topic and if you reference him everyone will be thinking about the time he was wrong. There is a price to pay for being wrong. There is a very fine line you need to walk, you want to be right, first, and cover the biggest and most important stories, however, if you are wrong then you are a crackpot. Once the pot is cracked you throw it away. The CIA runs the news and they don't simply give you misinformation and fake news. They will sprinkle in a lot of truth with their bogus stories to lead you astray as well.
6. Tucker Carlson -- highest rated pundit on TV. You have to listen to whoever everyone else is listening to in order to know what is being said. To me the big advantage in Tucker is that he is "eloquent". You can learn a lot about how to share a controversial news story by listening to him.
7. Morning Joe -- MSNBC -- I listen to him everyday because he (actually Mica is the star of the show) gives you the Democratic talking points. Even though I disagree with him I want to know what he is saying.
8. Bill Maher -- he gives you a common sense liberal approach to what is happening. I strongly disagree with Bill Maher on several issues but I like listening to him because he shows me how to address liberals.
1. NY Times lied about having a deep contact in the Trump administration that was highly placed, a "deep throat". They led everyone to believe that the Chief of Staff or the Secretary of State was giving us the inside information on Trump's administration. Instead it was some guy in a cubicle across town. Once they knowingly, intentionally lie to me to further their agenda I do not listen to them anymore. NY Times is crossed off my list.
2. WAPO lied about the Hunter Biden laptop. They are off my list.
3. Project Veritas, Revolver, and Epoch times have all done some excellent reporting. Every one of these outlets has an agenda. If you think you can find a news outlet without an agenda you are deceived. But they are transparent, and their stories are powerful. I listen to them.
4. Steve Bannon has been accused of being a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist because he started his podcast in January 2020, Warroom Pandemic with the absurd theory that the virus in China would become a pandemic and that it was made in the Wuhan lab. A year later he was proved right on both fronts. People who tell the truth will be attacked. I do not shy away from someone because they are attacked and slandered, what I want to see is the track record. Not only has Bannon been right and been first on many stories, he has taken massive attacks on these stories. So Bannon's Warroom pandemic is at the top of the list for what I listen to.
5. Alex Jones -- he also is attacked, but I don't listen to him. Many argue that he also is right and first on many topics, however, he has been horribly wrong on at least one topic and if you reference him everyone will be thinking about the time he was wrong. There is a price to pay for being wrong. There is a very fine line you need to walk, you want to be right, first, and cover the biggest and most important stories, however, if you are wrong then you are a crackpot. Once the pot is cracked you throw it away. The CIA runs the news and they don't simply give you misinformation and fake news. They will sprinkle in a lot of truth with their bogus stories to lead you astray as well.
6. Tucker Carlson -- highest rated pundit on TV. You have to listen to whoever everyone else is listening to in order to know what is being said. To me the big advantage in Tucker is that he is "eloquent". You can learn a lot about how to share a controversial news story by listening to him.
7. Morning Joe -- MSNBC -- I listen to him everyday because he (actually Mica is the star of the show) gives you the Democratic talking points. Even though I disagree with him I want to know what he is saying.
8. Bill Maher -- he gives you a common sense liberal approach to what is happening. I strongly disagree with Bill Maher on several issues but I like listening to him because he shows me how to address liberals.
-
1
- Show all
No one is going to look at 40 different sources but some sources are heavily biased either to the right or to the left or are just
Facebook and YouTube create what's called filter bubbles so if you look at something like insane conspiracy theories, it's going to keep showing you more insane conspiracy theories. That's why it's good to look at multiple sources
Facebook and YouTube create what's called filter bubbles so if you look at something like insane conspiracy theories, it's going to keep showing you more insane conspiracy theories. That's why it's good to look at multiple sources
-
1
- Show all
I would go with multiple sources from different perspectives, keeping in mind the biases that each of them seem to have. After having multiple mainstream media sources but everything digested critically, perhaps one could add a few more independent voices outside the mainstream. I don't know if I'd put Alex Jones in that mix. I can only handle so much of the conspiracy theories and theatrical exaggeration, although I would admit that he's often entertaining and sometimes he's right(ish) on matters that are too bizarre for more mainstream commentators to cover.
Tim Pool/Timcast has some interesting commentary on news, although he tends to fearmonger a bit too much with the constant alerts about a new US civil war or World War 3 (but again, I grant that neither of those is out of the question right now). Also, Pool's commentary on some issues that hit closer to home for me (the few occasions he has commented on something directly related to Finland) do seem to reveal some biases and blind spots. But it's still useful to have his voice in the broader discussion as the biases and blind spots aren't the same ones as with mainstream media.
Scott Adams/Coffee With Scott Adams has a unique and surprisingly insighful perspective on some of the news topics that he comments on. Yes, he's the cartoonist best known for his "Dilbert" comics, but that's not the full extent of his knowledge or skills.
Tim Pool/Timcast has some interesting commentary on news, although he tends to fearmonger a bit too much with the constant alerts about a new US civil war or World War 3 (but again, I grant that neither of those is out of the question right now). Also, Pool's commentary on some issues that hit closer to home for me (the few occasions he has commented on something directly related to Finland) do seem to reveal some biases and blind spots. But it's still useful to have his voice in the broader discussion as the biases and blind spots aren't the same ones as with mainstream media.
Scott Adams/Coffee With Scott Adams has a unique and surprisingly insighful perspective on some of the news topics that he comments on. Yes, he's the cartoonist best known for his "Dilbert" comics, but that's not the full extent of his knowledge or skills.
One thing I have learned is if someone lies that is not a small thing, that is a very big thing.
Now I realize a newspaper will make mistakes and have to print a retraction here and there. Perhaps they are rushing to meet a deadline and don't do their due diligence as well as they should have. I'm not talking about human error. I'm talking about examples where they clearly lied to you. If they do that cross them off the list. Ten liars all saying the same thing is not more credible than one honest person.
Now you can learn this lesson from the school of hard knocks like I have or you can learn it the easy way, from someone else telling you (including the Bible).
So pick a few stories where you know there were liars.
1. Hunter Biden's laptop is a good example. If they lied about that, cross them off the list.
2. The Wuhan virus came from a bat cave. There is no evidence at all that it came from a bat cave and there is a lot of evidence that it came from the bioweapons lab. So if someone said that all the evidence pointed to a bat cave that is a lie. If someone said there was no evidence that it came from the Bioweapons lab, that also is a lie. Cross them off your list.
Now I realize a newspaper will make mistakes and have to print a retraction here and there. Perhaps they are rushing to meet a deadline and don't do their due diligence as well as they should have. I'm not talking about human error. I'm talking about examples where they clearly lied to you. If they do that cross them off the list. Ten liars all saying the same thing is not more credible than one honest person.
Now you can learn this lesson from the school of hard knocks like I have or you can learn it the easy way, from someone else telling you (including the Bible).
So pick a few stories where you know there were liars.
1. Hunter Biden's laptop is a good example. If they lied about that, cross them off the list.
2. The Wuhan virus came from a bat cave. There is no evidence at all that it came from a bat cave and there is a lot of evidence that it came from the bioweapons lab. So if someone said that all the evidence pointed to a bat cave that is a lie. If someone said there was no evidence that it came from the Bioweapons lab, that also is a lie. Cross them off your list.
Here is the good news and also the bad news.
If you are the 1%, people like King Charles who was born into an incredibly wealthy family your goal is to keep your family as the 1%. They are not at all interested in a meritocracy, they want a system they control and run. As long as they are the 1% they don't really care if this system is best for all or not.
The 99% may not have the same attitude (obviously there are those who feel the best thing for them is to latch onto the 1% and do whatever they ask), for them meritocracy is the best.
The good news is we out number them 4:1 easily, if not 5:1. The bad news is they have the money and own all the key resources.
The only way you can understand why anyone would do something that is obviously bad for 50, 60, even 70% of the people is simply because it keeps them as the 1%. That is their goal. They are not for the middle class rising from the ashes.
If you are the 1%, people like King Charles who was born into an incredibly wealthy family your goal is to keep your family as the 1%. They are not at all interested in a meritocracy, they want a system they control and run. As long as they are the 1% they don't really care if this system is best for all or not.
The 99% may not have the same attitude (obviously there are those who feel the best thing for them is to latch onto the 1% and do whatever they ask), for them meritocracy is the best.
The good news is we out number them 4:1 easily, if not 5:1. The bad news is they have the money and own all the key resources.
The only way you can understand why anyone would do something that is obviously bad for 50, 60, even 70% of the people is simply because it keeps them as the 1%. That is their goal. They are not for the middle class rising from the ashes.
Literally zero mainstream cable news shows (CNN, Fox News, NBC ect...) are impartial. Someone who watches Fox all day will find CNN biased, and vice versa, when in fact, both are heavily biased, without a doubt despite what anyone says. I remembered I used to be in a conservative facebook group, I asked once "what is the most unbiased news), some said there wasn't, others kept naming obvious right wing outlets.
The Associated Press is possibly the best when it comes to unbiased news, many journalists from all sides go there for reference. Reuters is another good one as well if you want strait forward news with zero bias towards any side.
The Associated Press is possibly the best when it comes to unbiased news, many journalists from all sides go there for reference. Reuters is another good one as well if you want strait forward news with zero bias towards any side.
P
The Times of India
FollowView Profile
Govt: Christianity, Islam don’t have ‘backwardness’, converts can’t get SC tag
22h ago