Gransnet forums

News & politics

How reputable are the sources and sites?

(105 Posts)
Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 08:21:05

Various posters do various links.

The one this morning for example is from The New European.

But I have no idea whether it is a fake news site, or reputable.
So I have no idea whether to take a lot of notice of the article or none.

If posters could post on here which sites are fake/reputable/take with a pinch of salt etc/biased I for one would find it helpful.

The New European
I did notice that in the corner it has given Trump a hitler moustache. So is that a hint as to it's reputation?

Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 08:25:57

I'll put this in here too

Welshwife Mon 13-Feb-17 08:27:34

No - it is a serious paper and does serious news. I have read a good few very interesting articles from it. The points it makes are all verifiable in Hansard etc.

Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 08:31:10

Is it biased? Perhaps I should say nowadays, how biased?

There are two questions nowadays I think when reading/listening to a source. Three sometimes.

Is it a reputable source, and in what way/how much, is it biased?

Lynnieg Mon 13-Feb-17 08:34:15
Yes it has a very obvious bias but is open about it.

daphnedill Mon 13-Feb-17 08:49:43

The link is to an article by AC Grayling, who is very reputable.

I agree with Lynnieg. It's obviously biased - the title gives its bias away. However, the articles are well-researched and informative. It's not pretending to be something it isn't.

daphnedill Mon 13-Feb-17 08:54:12

Arron Banks has just launched a new online 'paper' in the style of Breitbart, which already has 800,000 followers. It has fake news, including the results of an unreliable poll and opinion pieces masquerading as news. Read it with a huge pinch of salt!

Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 09:01:11

I agree with Lynnieg. It's obviously biased - the title gives its bias away. However, the articles are well-researched and informative.

An article can be very well researched. But that doesnt matter anywhere near as much if there is a large bias, which usually means, chunks have been left out. Not to mention context.

Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 09:03:26

And is something really informative in that condition?

daphnedill Mon 13-Feb-17 09:07:49

That's exactly why astute readers ask questions and check sources. That's not the only way of showing bias.

Lynnieg Mon 13-Feb-17 09:11:54

It's informative if it confirms your bias I suppose. I have a friend who takes it as gospel.
I found it to be a bit of a one trick pony but then I prefer to have my biases challenged and not live in an echo chamber.

Welshwife Mon 13-Feb-17 09:23:08

I suppose it all balances papers such as the Daily Mail. Sun etc.

MawBroon Mon 13-Feb-17 09:23:13

If you do not recognise a media source it may be necessary to do some reading or indeed digging yourself. Most people know the degree of bias of even "reputable" newspapers and will interpret comment accordingly, but mostly you can be sure their news coverage is responsible.
"Comment" is simply that, different journalists, like different people, have different opinions but we as readers need to take some responsibility too. Of course we don't take everything at face value (particularly some of the possibly entertaining but often dubious tosh on the likes of Facebook.)
To contradict another poster in another place, you need to read as much as you can so that you can discern the difference. Be aware of shades of bias, learn to spot them and most of all, try not to be gullible. If people only read The Sun it is like a diet of one type of junk food. So just as eating a mixed diet can keep you healthy, a varied "reading" diet helps to form a healthy sense of judgement.
Although this cartoon I spotted is a tempting reaction, and I apologise to those who have seen it before.
BTW The New European is reputable - you don't have to agree with its stance, but I think it is responsible.

daphnedill Mon 13-Feb-17 09:23:41

Same here, Lynnieg, which is why I read the Telegraph and about a dozen or so online papers. The Telegraph and Spectator have some good journalists and writers, even if I don't agree with their views. It's interesting to compare how various media deal with the same issue.

Lynnieg Mon 13-Feb-17 09:31:17

I subscribe to the Spectator and one of the reasons I like it is the fact it can have two diametrically opposed articles in one edition. Good arts reviewing too.
I've read the New European. As an ex graphic designer I find it visually irritating! I'll not comment on the articles here.

Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 09:33:05

^The New European is reputable - you don't have to agree with its stance, but I think it is responsible.

What does responsible mean in this particular case?

MawBroon Mon 13-Feb-17 09:36:08

Oh for heaven's sake!!
What do YOU think responsible means? We are all adults, not children to be spoonfed.

daphnedill Mon 13-Feb-17 09:51:34

Lynnieg Maybe The New European has a vacancy! I agree that it's not visually attractive. However, not being a graphic designer, I couldn't put my finger on what's wrong with it.

From what I know, it was set up in a hurry after the referendum to report news with a European perspective, so maybe doesn't have the money for decent graphic designers. Although it quite openly claims to be for the 48% who voted Remain, it has also published articles by Eurosceptics and ardent Leave supporters.

sunseeker Mon 13-Feb-17 09:58:21

Obviously we need to read the comments in ALL newspapers with a certain degree of scepticism. I remember some time ago posting that I read many different newspapers and listen to differing news stations and it was queried why I would read a newspaper whose views disagreed with my own! As I replied then, it is because by reading different reports, each with their own bias, I hope to weed out the main facts. Only reading a newspaper which agrees with your views merely enforces your own existing prejudices.

rosesarered Mon 13-Feb-17 10:10:39

I suppose Ankers that you need to realise the particular bias of a newspaper/an article/or a person putting links onto a forum before you read them.
Everybody has their own opinions and a lot of online stuff is from bloggers who do just that, tell you their opinions.Sometimes less is more when it comes to online sites.

Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 10:11:28

I find myself querying in my own mind more nad more, what is "responsible" journalism. And internet sites and sources.

How much of a bias does there have to be before something is deemed irresponsible.

I presume many say that the Daily Mail is irresponsible.
Ditto the Guardian.
Ditto most or all of the papers and news channels?

Ankers Mon 13-Feb-17 10:12:38

x post.

Rigby46 Mon 13-Feb-17 10:23:54

Oh just put your spoon down Ankers, spend more time reading across the political spectrum, try and understand MB's post and specifically the difference between news and comment/opinion.

mcem Mon 13-Feb-17 10:35:48

There is no one reliable site/newspaper!

It's up to us as mature adults to find a source with which we can identify and then broaden our horizons by reading/watching alternatives. However I draw the line at 'sources' like the Sun or DM.
That's how I'd explain it to a DGC so I don't think I can simplify further.

MawBroon Mon 13-Feb-17 10:38:08

Flattered Rigby smile
Some people do seem to want the Ladybird version of their information, simplistic headlines like pre-digested food or "News lite"
Is it a reflection on the education system of the Sixties and onwards or just a sign of the times? hmm"