TRS is pretty by-the-facts.
Launched in December of 2012, we are a political and cultural blog with four major goals:1. Reinvigorating dialogue among a disparate and edgy right-wing.2. Severely rustling jimmies among the childish and regressive left-wing.3. Putting cuckservatives in the cuck shed where they can watch us with their civilization.4. Using the therapeutic power of LARPing to help tens of thousands of young men manage their autism.
Quote from: Icy on December 09, 2016, 08:57:40 PMI'm curious as to what you consider as part of the liberal MSM, and what "blatant lies and horse shit" is being spewed.CNN, MSNBC, basically anything on TV that isn't FOX really, but FOX is it's own can of worms. As far as the "blatant lies and horse shit", the whole "Fake News" narrative they've been trying to push for the last month or so in order to try and discredit anything that goes against their agenda (mainly as a direct reaction to WikiLeaks), whilst they themselves have been purveying "Fake News" in the form of all the false flag hate crimes supposedly committed by "le ebil racist Trump supporters!", not to mention all the pro-Clinton propaganda they were touting pre-election. They know damn well that their house of cards is falling down, and they're going into meltdown mode to try and prevent it.
I'm curious as to what you consider as part of the liberal MSM, and what "blatant lies and horse shit" is being spewed.
Plus, think about it. An unbiased news source would bore most people. They'd get straight to the point, take no sides while making a general informative statement about the event, and be done.
Quote from: Sαndtrap on December 09, 2016, 11:39:21 PMPlus, think about it. An unbiased news source would bore most people. They'd get straight to the point, take no sides while making a general informative statement about the event, and be done.I'd argue against journalists being mere stenographers.
Kupe pulled a comment and dash. Great. Was hoping to hear the reasoning on that.
Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 09, 2016, 11:51:22 PMQuote from: Sαndtrap on December 09, 2016, 11:39:21 PMPlus, think about it. An unbiased news source would bore most people. They'd get straight to the point, take no sides while making a general informative statement about the event, and be done.I'd argue against journalists being mere stenographers.Why?
Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 10, 2016, 01:22:22 AMI had other notions in my post but I'm kinda garbled at the moment to properly explain where I'm getting at.My thinking is more along the lines that news outlets should be responsible for reporting what's up and nothing more. If you want to go to a fact check section than that's fine too, but keep it seperate. It seems like today there's too much personal opinion involved in reporting events rather than actually just reporting them for what they are at base value.And, while there's panels and sections devoted for discussion on events hosted by news networks, we come back to the issue of being heavily biased and leaning in favor towards one side. This ends up making a collection of news networks doing the whole "my side your side" bullshit so much that now you have to personally fact check what the news is spewing to verify their slanted content.So what's worse? An outlet not calling anybody out on their bullshit but merely showing the statement at face value? Or an outlet that leans in favor to a certain side and never really shows the whole deal up front? Personally, watching networks perpetreate the "my side your side" mentality that seems to be going around in force these days is agonizing.I just want to listen to what's up. Not have to fact check what the fuck the news is saying because I know that they aren't actually telling the whole story.
As Hubble said, NPR is probably the best one. They're also funded by donations I think? I'm not sure. They're left leaning a bit, but I remember them giving more than fair coverage towards Trump and his supporters during the election. I liked that, even if I didn't like the things I was hearing.
Quote from: Sαndtrap on December 10, 2016, 01:42:51 AMQuote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 10, 2016, 01:22:22 AMI had other notions in my post but I'm kinda garbled at the moment to properly explain where I'm getting at.My thinking is more along the lines that news outlets should be responsible for reporting what's up and nothing more. If you want to go to a fact check section than that's fine too, but keep it seperate. It seems like today there's too much personal opinion involved in reporting events rather than actually just reporting them for what they are at base value.And, while there's panels and sections devoted for discussion on events hosted by news networks, we come back to the issue of being heavily biased and leaning in favor towards one side. This ends up making a collection of news networks doing the whole "my side your side" bullshit so much that now you have to personally fact check what the news is spewing to verify their slanted content.So what's worse? An outlet not calling anybody out on their bullshit but merely showing the statement at face value? Or an outlet that leans in favor to a certain side and never really shows the whole deal up front? Personally, watching networks perpetreate the "my side your side" mentality that seems to be going around in force these days is agonizing.I just want to listen to what's up. Not have to fact check what the fuck the news is saying because I know that they aren't actually telling the whole story.I for one don't think fact-based reporting should be an opt-in service.
Unbiased News Sources?
