In your opinion, who is more trustworthy and why?

Who is more trustworthy?

  • Media Outlets (FOX, CNN, MSNBC)

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Open Source Outlets (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook)

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • Total voters
    9
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
AND RELIABLE!

Media outlets like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

or

Open source outlets like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.?
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
twitter lit up the internet with the names of the Boston Suspects 12 hours before they were announced
One was a missing Brown university student from India the other was named Mike Mulageta

Yeah I think I will stick with CNN
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
twitter lit up the internet with the names of the Boston Suspects 12 hours before they were announced
One was a missing Brown university student from India the other was named Mike Mulageta

Yeah I think I will stick with CNN
Click to expand...
That's actually what sparked this thread.

I have a similar sentiment, but feel that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. have a well established track record of malicious intent that has been pretty clearly demonstrated to be true, so while open source outlets might fuck up and get the story wrong, the intent to misinform the reader isn't there.

They might fuck it up, but they're trying their best, while established "news agencies" get it right, but usually are not trying their best to get the viewer the most accurate information.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
At least CNN etc are not able to troll
your life and give up/sell your private info.

Never trust any social network.
Consider this, why would facebook need
facial recognition software that can and is used
to link people through tagging and other photo
posts.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's actually what sparked this thread.

I have a similar sentiment, but feel that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. have a well established track record of malicious intent that has been pretty clearly demonstrated to be true, so while open source outlets might fuck up and get the story wrong, the intent to misinform the reader isn't there.

They might fuck it up, but they're trying their best, while established "news agencies" get it right, but usually are not trying their best to get the viewer the most accurate information.
Click to expand...
CNN is Journalism
Fox and MSnbc not so much. Those 2 outlets practice omission in their reporting to slant the story
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
CNN is Journalism
Fox and MSnbc not so much. Those 2 outlets practice omission in their reporting to slant the story
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call CNN journalism at all

Modern journalism has become modern entertainment with headlines that sell, which is why you see nothing but bad news when you tune in. Nobody gives a damn about the dude who saved 2 people from drowning on Lake Michigan if a guy in Florida decided to shoot up a mall. Nobody cares about the victims, only the killer. Can you tell me one name from the Columbine tragedy? How long did it take you to remember Harris and Klebold?..

I think with open source information there is a much higher reliability factor, more people are contributing to parts of the story, so there are more viewpoints to access and piece together to see the full story, rather than something they told you was the full story.


Especially with this new tragedy, the Boston bombings, people were online reporting instantly, almost just as things were happening! There was a guy on Reddit reporting a minute by minute play by play! I knew within 10 minutes of it actually happening that the second guy was in custody! That's incredible! It would normally take something like that to be reported on in a day or two of it actually happening! Somebodies comment on the story in the thread was spot on "we're in the information age!", minute by minute updates are unreal! Pictures of the first dead suspect within minutes of his body being captured!

So maybe while it's not the most accurate information, it's still a small piece of the whole story none the less..
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I wouldn't call CNN journalism at all

Modern journalism has become modern entertainment with headlines that sell, which is why you see nothing but bad news when you tune in. Nobody gives a damn about the dude who saved 2 people from drowning on Lake Michigan if a guy in Florida decided to shoot up a mall. Nobody cares about the victims, only the killer. Can you tell me one name from the Columbine tragedy? How long did it take you to remember Harris and Klebold?..

I think with open source information there is a much higher reliability factor, more people are contributing to parts of the story, so there are more viewpoints to access and piece together to see the full story, rather than something they told you was the full story.


Especially with this new tragedy, the Boston bombings, people were online reporting instantly, almost just as things were happening! There was a guy on Reddit reporting a minute by minute play by play! I knew within 10 minutes of it actually happening that the second guy was in custody! That's incredible! It would normally take something like that to be reported on in a day or two of it actually happening! Somebodies comment on the story in the thread was spot on "we're in the information age!", minute by minute updates are unreal! Pictures of the first dead suspect within minutes of his body being captured!

So maybe while it's not the most accurate information, it's still a small piece of the whole story none the less..
Click to expand...
Yeah CNN usually waits for confirmation before reporting Mike Mulageta and A missing Brown Universitie student were the suspects
Which Is why they didnt run it
OR
That a Saudi was arrested was also the Bomber
Remeber that Twit-er report?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Yeah CNN usually waits for confirmation before reporting Mike Mulageta and A missing Brown Universitie student were the suspects
Which Is why they didnt run it
OR
That a Saudi was arrested was also the Bomber
Remeber that Twit-er report?
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure how social media sites came up with the names they did, but they don't have filters available before things get published, the users themselves are kind of the filters, so while those names might have been circulated, it was also those involved in social media who discovered that information was inaccurate and so that new information became popular. Even a day later one of the highest rated threads on Reddit was about the inaccurate information and attempts at resolutions to clear those innocent names. Contrast that with traditional media outlets and their ratio of correction. A perfect example that comes to mind is Wikileaks and how the media handled it. Millions of people see/read one story with outlandish headlines, then a couple months later it's revealed to be inaccurate, then only a few thousand see the correction.. Meanwhile the rumor lives on..
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'm not exactly sure how social media sites came up with the names they did, but they don't have filters available before things get published, the users themselves are kind of the filters, so while those names might have been circulated, it was also those involved in social media who discovered that information was inaccurate and so that new information became popular. Even a day later one of the highest rated threads on Reddit was about the inaccurate information and attempts at resolutions to clear those innocent names. Contrast that with traditional media outlets and their ratio of correction. A perfect example that comes to mind is Wikileaks and how the media handled it. Millions of people see/read one story with outlandish headlines, then a couple months later it's revealed to be inaccurate, then only a few thousand see the correction.. Meanwhile the rumor lives on..
Click to expand...
I think you are describing Fox News
 
thecoolman

thecoolman

New Member
CNN barely even covered Bangazi they were to busy campaigning for the president.
When they do cover the news its ridiculously slanted opinionated and edited.
They actually have a lot of nerve to even try to call themselves a news channel.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
thecoolman said:
CNN barely even covered Bangazi they were to busy campaigning for the president.
When they do cover the news its ridiculously slanted opinionated and edited.
They actually have a lot of nerve to even try to call themselves a news channel.
Click to expand...
And your choice is?
 
Sand4x105

Sand4x105

Well-Known Member
News.... The Net, right here... RIU brings me the news...
FOX- "Fair and balanced" right leaning
CNN/MSNBC Left leaning
HLN- fluff/Female leaning
These outlets, have cooperate lawyers whom must OK what goes on the air...
Liable suites would have flown if any of the 'Real' news outlets would have said the wrong names...
Remember "Richard Jewell" the so-called Bombing suspect from the Olympics... Millionaire
CNN/NBC/FOX/HLN have a lawyer filter...
If you posted that I was the suspect, on your Twitter account, I would FUKKIN Sue you for all you’re worth ...
Prob get nothing...
Liable …. Defamation of character…
The Big news outlets understand….
Twitter/Facebook…LMFAO…
As the last Human Being not on Facebook… I laff my ass off….
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
ChesusRice said:
Yeah CNN usually waits for confirmation before reporting Mike Mulageta and A missing Brown Universitie student were the suspects
Which Is why they didnt run it
OR
That a Saudi was arrested was also the Bomber
Remeber that Twit-er report?
Click to expand...
remeber aaron brown reporting on WTC7 on 9/11...

they wait for confirmation you say?

What like reporting a building is collapsing when still standing in the background?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top