How reputable are the sources and sites?

There is no one reliable site/newspaper!

That is what I have finally come to think as well.
And thank you for the rest of the post too.

I find myself wishing I had paid more attention to the i newspaper. Which claimed it was independent I think. But at the time I had my doubts.

Perhaps it was nearer than I thought.

Don't know why you refer to i in the past tense.
Seems as good a place as any to start with.

ankers nothing is unbiased, surely you understand that?

I am therefore now wondering, if that is why politics in the UK and america and elsewhere is becoming more and more divided?

We each read things that confirm our own biases, backed up by no source that is free from bias, and therefore views become more polarised? Rapidly?

But ankers 'twas ever thus!
Perhaps you've only recently noticed because it's become more blatant and polarized.

I think we had dumbed down news and bias even in the 60s. When I was in the sixth form, as part of the general studies course, we compared and contrasted the way different papers reported news. I remember at the time being told that a tabloid reader only needed a vocabulary of about 500 words. In those days, the Times was less biased, although still very 'establishment' - pre-Murdoch.

The Daily Mail and Daily Express were right of centre, but didn't resemble 'Hallo' magazine with a few opinionated so-called news items thrown in or (in the case of the Express) a UKIP propaganda leaflet.

Over the last ten years or so, people seem to have become used to soundbites and have become more reliant on online news, so the tabloids have tried to survive by competing. I read somewhere or other that many people only ever read the headlines and the subheading.

You could be right mcem, sadly.

I thought the i had finished. Didnt realise it is still online.
I cant say I like the layout[and for some reason that matters to me], but I will have a good look and read of it.

The Independent went online but sister paper i is still available - tabloid size!

Oh do you read newspapers (as opposed to online) Ankers?
I seem to remember you once saying you lived miles from the nearest shops so did'n't feel it worth the drive (or something) to buy one

I am not sure about the use of the word bias. Most of the papers mentioned in this thread have clear political stances which are well known and acknowledged.

It would only be biased if a news media claims to be independent but tends to support one view. For example The late lamented 'Independent', which I read from first issue to last, definitely had a liberal (small 'l') bias.

Agree monica which is why I suggested i as a starting point with the proviso that a variety of alternative sources should be looked at. I took ankers' use of 'bias' as meaning pretty much what you've clarified - a political stand which may be challenged or adopted after reading, reflecting and questioning.

It would only be biased if a news media claims to be independent but tends to support one view

I dont agree with that. Bias is bias whether they tell you or not.Though it is of course helpful if the source itself tells you it is.

But ankers the Independent did not actually have an editorial saying 'we support only liberal, left-of-centre policies'. Neither does DM proclaim that they support only right-wing ideologies.
It's up to readers to work that out for themselves by spotting clues!

I really prefer to read articles by people who have researched the topic and who cite their sources so that their interpretation can be checked.

For instance, this is a very interesting site blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

It has been going since 1992 and cites the sources of the 'myths'; which are mostly newspapers. There are so many of these myths in newspapers that I am not surprised that people have a negative view of the EU if all they have read for 20+ years is newspapers.

(I am aware that it doesn't quite meet my criteria of citing sources for their refutations of the myths, but why would they make it up?)

Why do some posters never answer question? Or indeed acknowledge their fault in making unacceptable and out of order hurtful remarks to people who have lost a DH?

Whatever the bias or not of a paper if they report an actual fact - ie - a report from Hansard which we must assume is truthful - then sure that is what it is - a report. It can only become biased if an opinion is given on that report. In amongst reporting there will many facts and some lies. The trick is to differentiate between them.
The problem during the referendum campaign was that so many lies were spouted and if someone keeps on repeating a lie people do understandably start to believe it. - similar to brainwashing I suppose.
It is particularly difficult if the people telling these porkies have appeared to be upright members of society doing responsible jobs.

The best thing you could do, ankers, is to get in plenty of practice at telling the difference between facts and opinions, then you can sift out the facts that each newspaper prints. They could all have different opinions and different forecasts of what effect something in the news will have.

Then look at a different paper to see whether they print the same things as facts, and whether either of them gives a source for the fact (or what they claim is a fact). If it comes from an official report or an account of research, then it is prtetty likely to be true.

If it is written in terms that make it sound sensational and frightening or like an international conspiracy by plotters to get world dominion, there is a good chance that it is exactly that - a way to scare you into buying the paper to read more.

DH believes that we should always read at least one paper whose views we profoundly disagree with, so although we read the i we also read at various times, the DM, DT and the Guardian. Once you get past the politics, both the DM and DT are interesting papers to read. The financial and health sections in the DM are particularly good.

For some reason we both find The Guardian very heavy going. I think it is because its self righteous occupation of the high moral ground and lack of any sense of humour makes it very indigestible

Monica

It probably sounds too much like hard work Elegran like watching a 20 minute video which offered a clear exposition on the ramifications of the Leave/Remain referendum.

Senior moment, I meant implications , but maybe "ramifications " too.

I really think several posters have done their best to help but I have more to do than go on repeating the very simple advice. Read lots and make up your own mind.
I for one can't put it any more simply I'm afraid.

Beginning to wonder if it was just a quasi rhetorical question and no answer was really desired required

No longer wondering - convinced.
Why? To start a discussion? To hark back to earlier posts accusing somebody of knowingly posting fake news? Rake over a few coals before the fre goes out entirely?
Either way, another non-thread which asked a question and elicited lots of straightforward, easy to understand answers.

Ankers

I think your OP was asking the question of a wider usage of links to newspapers, bloggers, etc. That is how I read it anyway.

The truthful answer is political bias will probably apply to practically all links , everything we read on GN whether it be in newspapers, bloggers, anything. As to reputability it is usually easy enough to establish a fair idea if talking about mainstream papers but certainly not to bloggers who are mouthing off an opinion.

It is usually the material in the link that shouts out at you as to the intention behind it, as we have noted a few days ago.

There are now many threads discussing Fake News / Reputable
Content but I will repeat something I posted on another thread.

The best thing to do is ask yourself why a link ,a photo has been put up. If it is obviously making a snide, crude, offensive comment and targeting a person the poster obviously dislikes then be cautious because most respectable sites are careful not to use 'content' that clearly would/could be libellous, or indeed of a salacious nature.

There are posters who have/do/might believe links/posts because they naturally ally themselves with fellow minded posters who have set them up.They want to believe in the Fake News/Clickbait because it suits their desire to equate themselves with the rubbish posted as it for the most part is usually being salacious/attacking the character of somebody they hate/dislike.

Some links put up on GN are nothing more than left/right wing propaganda , others are no more informative than a fat bloke sitting in a chair eating pizza sounding off.

Read a link but check what lies behind it for yourself and don't be gullable just because it is on GN.