How reputable are the sources and sites?

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

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?

ankers nothing is unbiased, surely you understand that?

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

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.

Flattered Rigby
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? "

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.

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.

x post.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

^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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

And is something really informative in that condition?

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.

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!

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.