News, websites, truth, lying, facts...

[jimnyc]

I have received a few complaints over the past few years about the websites I use and link to when gathering and posting news stories here. Usually the same complaints, but I try. I'll start anywhere literally and work my way around. And if an unknown I will often try doing other searches to see if I can verify a story or quote.

You can have anything from Yahoo.com to beelzebopdooodooodeeeday.com - and makes ZERO different to me at the end of the day. I simply want the news delivered to me in a timely fashion. I want the media to be quick and gather all the facts they can and present it. I want the facts verified when possible. I can deal with rhetoric so long as any leaning isn't lying. Same goes for any link and any site and any author. Presented should be all of the facts. Any and all of the story and omitting nothing. I need the politics that we wouldn't otherwise know about, or even daily mundane crap. But it's gotta be more than an opinion, I need the guts, the truth and the facts that cannot be disputed - and I note it has not happened yet.

It can be from CNN nonstop, so long as it's factual and not lying about the politics and/or making a habit of censoring or omitting things. It can be from cuckoonutters like Alex Jones, don't care, so long as it's got the facts and I can usually verify when possible. Hell, it can be a direct written article from Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff, offering the facts of something that took place - so long as it's the facts and not lies.

I think you get my point, I don't care much about the link/site so long as I'm getting more and more facts daily. But if they make a habit of outright lying about things, they will lose my business. :) And if an article I am reading has BS in it, I won't post it.

Anyway, but also noticed over the years that the few folks who have complained about the sources I may post from - are from folks that very rarely will post an article themselves & will rarely - as in never - take me up on any financial offers to simply find the lies in what I posted. I've offered to put the money up front with a person of their choosing. So odd that if lies were so apparent, why not take the easy money?

** And it must be more visited than CNN, Yahoo, Drudge or even Google. - I am told that all of us conservatives here visit "Gatewaypundit" on the daily and therefore makes zero sense of me to post articles from them?

For starters - just how many people visit their daily?

And even if as they say - wouldn't it not still be worthy of discussion or debate if it's good content? Hell, I still even post from CNN sometimes, as even they post something worthy here and there.

And here is a literal copy, in order, of all the "political bookmarks" I have in my browser. My daily homepage is still crappy Yahoo and usually where I start with my stories for the day. They are another that gather from everywhere and put them on their home page. Similar to Drudgereport except that Drudge has much more political content on it. My links are obviously leaning majorly to the right, but I visit my share of leftie sites and try to do some due diligence if I have to verify something.

Yahoo News (and also Drudge, and other sites that gather all of the news, and mainly lead me wherever they do on the 'net)
Gateway Pundit
Politico
Mediaite
Drudge Report
CNN
MSNBC
Breitbart
Daily Caller
Newsmax
Real Clear Politics
NBC
ABC
Newsbusters
PJ Media
DailyMail UK
Townhall
Daily Wire
OANN
Fox News
CBS
Real Clear Investigations
Epoch Times
NY Daily News
Daily Beast
Washington Post
USA Today

[fj1200]

My daily homepage is still crappy Yahoo and usually where I start with my stories for the day.

That's where I usually start and don't venture to far unless I'm looking for something specifically. They tick me off when I say I don't want to see things from "hello giggles" or something like that and they continue to show that sort of thing. Aaargh!!! But I do think they had some other option to check what you do and don't want to see but I'm not sure how it popped up and that seems to have made it better.

[LongTermGuy]

"My daily homepage is still crappy Yahoo and usually where I start with my stories for the day."


Strange..it seems many of us do myself included..

maybe..because its Just a simple ..johnny on the spot platform :laugh:

[revelarts]

Jim, you have an interesting list of options that covers a fair amount of ground.
However in the spirit of the 1st part of your statement there are even more news options that allow for an even broader access to available info.
My standard POV on the media issues, "take the meat and leave the bones". The evidence the source presents is what matters.
A source's past history or POV is FAR less important. It's a real consideration to be sure, but not THE deciding factor on whether or not they are worth getting a hearing on various issues.
A prostitute on the corner may not be 'as good' an eye witness as a respected Judge on a coffee break, but it doesn't mean she didn't see what she saw.

Also, i've found that instead of just waiting for Yahoo, Google, CNN or FOX to feed me what they want. That using an RSS Reader Program to grab news from a broad range of sources makes it easier for me to review what's out there and get a overview of topics I'm interested in.

Anyway, my own list of sources, which includes many of those you've mentioned, also has:
(starting with those you might consider less... um... controversial)

BBC
Democracy Now
CBN News
Asia Times
CATO
Reason mag
Harpers Mag
Veterans Today
LifeNews.com
LifeSitenews.com
whowhatwhy.org
BlackListed News
Project Veritas.com
Information ClearingHouse
off-guardian.org
Mint Press
consortiumnews.com
Tenth Amendment Center
the freethoughtproject
LewRockwell
the corbett report
Truthinmedia.com
madcowprod.com
antiwar.com
scotthorton.org
unlawfulshield.com
Spitfirelist.com
NaturalNews.com
tragedyandhope.com
infowars.com

[jimnyc]

That's where I usually start and don't venture to far unless I'm looking for something specifically. They tick me off when I say I don't want to see things from "hello giggles" or something like that and they continue to show that sort of thing. Aaargh!!! But I do think they had some other option to check what you do and don't want to see but I'm not sure how it popped up and that seems to have made it better.

Yahoo leans to the left but do offer stories from all sides it appears. HuffPost gets top billing for some reason.

And I don't think they care much what we like or don't like. :)

Yahoo seems to be the starting page of many. It's got a mix of stories, covers all topics in addition to just politics, great sports section, email if you like & much more. I don't think they're the best, but the design and overall coverage is better than most.


"My daily homepage is still crappy Yahoo and usually where I start with my stories for the day."


Strange..it seems many of us do myself included..

maybe..because its Just a simple ..johnny on the spot platform :laugh:


Yup, quick and easy, covers everything as I said, no registering if you don't want to. Tons of better sites out there but as an overall homepage, yahoo still wins out. I always peek around for better but always end up back there even though I don't care for them much. :dunno:


Jim, you have an interesting list of options that covers a fair amount of ground.
However in the spirit of the 1st part of your statement there are even more news options that allow for an even broader access to available info.
My standard POV on the media issues, "take the meat and leave the bones". The evidence the source presents is what matters.
A source's past history or POV is FAR less important. It's a real consideration to be sure, but not THE deciding factor on whether or not they are worth getting a hearing on various issues.
A prostitute on the corner may not be 'as good' an eye witness as a respected Judge on a coffee break, but it doesn't mean she didn't see what she saw.

That's what I've said a million times - the meat, the evidence, the sources, that's what matters to me when I read articles. I couldn't care less about the link or writer so long as the truth, fact and evidence are in there. I also agree about their POV, their rhetoric used to sometimes tell the news. I can read through that from either side.


Also, i've found that instead of just waiting for Yahoo, Google, CNN or FOX to feed me what they want. That using an RSS Reader Program to grab news from a broad range of sources makes it easier for me to review what's out there and get a overview of topics I'm interested in.

Agreed again. I was once going to start an RSS news forum on here. Which would pick up places and articles of our pre-choosing. We can choose as many sites as we would want to add to list, then add in tons of topics or names and some other criteria, and just let it ride and give us the news from around the world. Problem is, sometimes whether assigned to an individual, or just a generic RSS name to 'own' the posts made from it - they can add up. And then you go from a board with a real say 400k posts, and it will have 2 million + posts as a result, and others will see that as just fluffing the numbers. Plus, I noted on other boards I visit that quite often these posts went ignored, as people spent more time replying to individuals than generic articles.

But, for an individual - I would highly recommend "Protopage". You can easily design your own page, and add in your own feeds. Here is one I made a long time back and then I haven't even been there in like a year, but it keeps chugging along. And hell, you could technically use it as your home page delivering all you want. This covers politics, world news, sports, finance, technology...

https://www.protopage.com/stlrsfan


Anyway, my own list of sources, which includes many of those you've mentioned, also has:
(starting with those you might consider less... um... controversial)

BBC
Democracy Now
CBN News
Asia Times
CATO
Reason mag
Harpers Mag
Veterans Today
LifeNews.com
LifeSitenews.com
whowhatwhy.org
BlackListed News
Project Veritas.com
Information ClearingHouse
off-guardian.org
Mint Press
consortiumnews.com
Tenth Amendment Center
the freethoughtproject
LewRockwell
the corbett report
Truthinmedia.com
madcowprod.com
antiwar.com
scotthorton.org
unlawfulshield.com
Spitfirelist.com
NaturalNews.com
tragedyandhope.com
infowars.com

The 3 I put in bold I also visit from time to time. A few others I know of but not bookmarked, and others I can tell by names.... I can see a pattern, of someone out there, not very trusting of the media and politicians, searching for alternative answers and news. I'm gonna bookmark a bunch and check them out. I gotta say, the past 12 years or so have been quite eye opening for me. In that time, many of my sources have changed, and my verification process changed, my naivety changed, my trust and faith in long standing institutions has soured. So I have found myself also now searching harder and longer, going out of the country often, or to alternative news sites at times to see if I can find more news or truth. And some things I may have formerly saw as 'controversial' as you say, I may find myself looking and reading there for what I can more and more. Like Infowars for example. Ok, still a little cuckoo and not very much my cup of tea - but if cuckoo man works harder than others to get certain scoops, and they have proof/evidence and the facts for me, things being censored elsewhere - then I am willing to hear them out and take it from there.

[revelarts]

Yahoo leans to the left but do offer stories from all sides it appears. HuffPost gets top billing for some reason.

And I don't think they care much what we like or don't like. :)

Yahoo seems to be the starting page of many. It's got a mix of stories, covers all topics in addition to just politics, great sports section, email if you like & much more. I don't think they're the best, but the design and overall coverage is better than most.




Yup, quick and easy, covers everything as I said, no registering if you don't want to. Tons of better sites out there but as an overall homepage, yahoo still wins out. I always peek around for better but always end up back there even though I don't care for them much. :dunno:



That's what I've said a million times - the meat, the evidence, the sources, that's what matters to me when I read articles. I couldn't care less about the link or writer so long as the truth, fact and evidence are in there. I also agree about their POV, their rhetoric used to sometimes tell the news. I can read through that from either side.



Agreed again. I was once going to start an RSS news forum on here. Which would pick up places and articles of our pre-choosing. We can choose as many sites as we would want to add to list, then add in tons of topics or names and some other criteria, and just let it ride and give us the news from around the world. Problem is, sometimes whether assigned to an individual, or just a generic RSS name to 'own' the posts made from it - they can add up. And then you go from a board with a real say 400k posts, and it will have 2 million + posts as a result, and others will see that as just fluffing the numbers. Plus, I noted on other boards I visit that quite often these posts went ignored, as people spent more time replying to individuals than generic articles.

But, for an individual - I would highly recommend "Protopage". You can easily design your own page, and add in your own feeds. Here is one I made a long time back and then I haven't even been there in like a year, but it keeps chugging along. And hell, you could technically use it as your home page delivering all you want. This covers politics, world news, sports, finance, technology...

https://www.protopage.com/stlrsfan



The 3 I put in bold I also visit from time to time. A few others I know of but not bookmarked, and others I can tell by names.... I can see a pattern, of someone out there, not very trusting of the media and politicians, searching for alternative answers and news. I'm gonna bookmark a bunch and check them out. I gotta say, the past 12 years or so have been quite eye opening for me. In that time, many of my sources have changed, and my verification process changed, my naivety changed, my trust and faith in long standing institutions has soured. So I have found myself also now searching harder and longer, going out of the country often, or to alternative news sites at times to see if I can find more news or truth. And some things I may have formerly saw as 'controversial' as you say, I may find myself looking and reading there for what I can more and more. Like Infowars for example. Ok, still a little cuckoo and not very much my cup of tea - but if cuckoo man works harder than others to get certain scoops, and they have proof/evidence and the facts for me, things being censored elsewhere - then I am willing to hear them out and take it from there.
cool.

Hey got a question, Not trying to debate AT ALL, but I am sincerely curious.
Which sites named above give you the impression of not very trusting of the media and politicians.

I'd guess InfoWars maybe, but what others?
Or is it moreso the fact the names aren't typically mainstream?

[revelarts]

worth watching

http://youtu.be/XMxfcz1aGqs

[jimnyc]

cool.

Hey got a question, Not trying to debate AT ALL, but I am sincerely curious.
Which sites named above give you the impression of not very trusting of the media and politicians.

I'd guess InfoWars maybe, but what others?
Or is it moreso the fact the names aren't typically mainstream?

I used to go to Infowars, then I didn't, and now I check it out again.

I hope I didn't come off implying that there was anything wrong with the sites you visit. They are just your lesser known places, places not known for delivering your daily news, but more like investigative news I guess. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm more of gimme yesterday's news kinda guy. But I'm finding out more and more that things NEED to have such investigative reports as sometimes the big names simply don't cover certain news, or censor it or whatever the reason.

But I like the variety. I'll be keeping a few for sure. So yeah, likely because they are/were less than mainstream. But if they give me the news, and it's factual and has evidence to show me, then I don't care the name of the source.