credible news sources [CITATION NEEDED]

[phuckphace]

ROTW, I'm in a bit of a fix here. as we all know there's a lot of shit going down pretty much everywhere, but getting the actual story on controversial events seems tricky given the nature of the media itself and their agenda-driven method of presentation.

let's say for example a person who just so happens to be a refugee from the Middle East ends up in Germany and, quite by accident he trips and falls right into the panties of a pure Aryan Frau (allegedly). turning to the headlines, we see:

Twitter: "check out this 10-second Vine" (anecdotal, uselessly small sample size)

DailyMail: "BREAKING! RAPEFEST CONTINUES UNABATED!" (sensationalist tabloid)

Reuters: "something is happening somewhere in the world, here's the DOW ticker." (serious news for serious people?)

and of course Volkischer Beobachter has been out of print for a distressingly long time so that's out the window too. basically we regular people have to rely on the narrative of the Lügenpresse (who can lie by distortion, sensationalism or omission/censorship) unless we personally witness events with our own eyes, but then we're right back to the "anecdotal" problem.

help me in my quest for the truth!

[Jinglebottom]

I'll observe their actions live for everyone's benefit :P (free of charge)

[phuckphace]

I'll observe their actions live for everyone's benefit :P (free of charge)

ironically enough your posts are likely far more factually accurate than most Western sources, but "anecdotal" once again :(

(change your avatar back to the one with the terrorist scarf, bitte) :P

[Sailor Mars]

(change your avatar back to the one with the terrorist scarf, bitte) :P

It's called a keffiyeh you uncultured ignorant white masogynist privileged male American

But fr, isn't it a little weird that this story about the refugees molesting women then being beat up and arrested isn't popping up on any news channels or anything?... France 24, France info, MSNBC, CNN, heck even Fox should've heard about it by now.

[Chapperz16]

Unless its being covered up

[Jinglebottom]

ironically enough your posts are likely far more factually accurate than most Western sources, but "anecdotal" once again :(
Warning everyone, you're about to see one of my few constructive posts!

Well if I do say so myself, I've had limited experience with refugees ever since the onset of the Syrian Civil War. Most of them are exactly what you'd expect of refugees: poor, homeless individuals of all ages, both male and female, who are pretty much deprived of basic human rights, thus they have to rely on selling items like flowers and chewing gum. They tend to frequent open touristic areas, but they're barred from entering Downtown Beirut. I occasionally give them a dollar (1 500 L.L). I feel like they silently cuss out (الله يلعنك يا إبن الشرموطة) anyone who walks by without giving them money.

I'm sure most of you think of me as being this unsympathetic, bratty member of the higher class who gives refugees the death glare whenever they walk by. That is false. Most of my "hate" stems from the fact that anti-Syrian (and Palestinian to a lesser degree) sentiment is widespread here, not just towards the Syrian government but also towards the people. Maybe that's due to the fact that Syria occupied us for decades and heavily interfered with Lebanon's politics which aggravated said sentiment. But I'm no expert on that, and it's very likely that the Lebanese simply hate Syrians because they view them as thugs. For all I know, we're not "officially" enemies with Syria, although there has been tensions in the past, and to this day.

Back on the topic of refugees, I am wary of male-dominated refugee ~gangs~, usually found outside of malls since they're not typically allowed in (no shit, they look like suicide bombers and we don't need any more suicide-bombings!). I've never seen them actually stir any trouble, unless whistling at passing women counts. It's never gone any further than that, therefore I question why they're starting so much trouble in Europe. Is that because of Arab brotherhood? (although any Lebanese will tell you: "we're not dirty Arabs, we're Phoenician/Canaanite!!" okay, I'm joking but I've seen this before).

[tovaris]

That is why I am building up an independent newspaper called Resnica (slovenian for truts; idea: правда)

[Porpoise101]

I like PBS (state propaganda), VOA (Reagan-approved state propaganda), Al-Jazeera (state propaganda of Qatar), RT (Russian state propaganda) and AP (elitist dribble). But usually if you are looking up for subject specific information (economics, science, history) you will find some good sources. It is also important to note that bias isn't horrible as you should be able to filter it out (mostly it's a question if you actually want to filter it out though). The issue is when you pass that stuff off as being unbiased (no such thing) and say it's genuine. If there is one thing IB History has taught me it's to look at sources for values and limitations.

[Vlerchan]

Reuters: Being a serious person I use it to get a good sweep of international news.
The Guardian and the Telegraph: I use them to confirm facts about social issues on the agenda.
Project Syndicate: I use it to get a feeling of our establishment elites feelings on issues. Lots of interesting discussions.
Politico.EU: Most of the Op-Eds on European Politics are quite interesting.
The Diplomat: Best place to go for an understanding of asian affairs.
I'm actually a pretty infrequent news reader these days though.

I also tend to glance through the Irish Times every once in a blue moon - and the Sunday Business Post when it's in the house.

[Judean Zealot]

What I end up doing is just read the BBC for anything random (ie Venezuelan elections or something like that) and if there's a story I really care about I have to sift through mounds of rubbish from both sides to try and figure out what happened.

[dxcxdzv]

I usually have no trust towards TV, radio etc (so bye bye France *insert whatever here* or even BBC&co).

Usually I'm looking for the AFP (French Press Agency) which is the information provider of more than half of French medias.
Wikipedia (nice things to learn everyday).
The Economist (got student reductions and often free editions).

For the rest I mainly use News Republic (mobile app) which provides information from a lot of different sources that I can select so I can either choose objective sources or just compare different opinions. I honestly don't know which solution is the best.

[DriveAlive]

I watch BBC news every morning with my breakfast. For more opinion stuff and economics, I usually look at the Wall Street Journal or The Economist.

I also read the National Review sometimes because I really like reading what Tom Rogan writes.

[SethfromMI]

ironically enough your posts are likely far more factually accurate than most Western sources, but "anecdotal" once again :(

(change your avatar back to the one with the terrorist scarf, bitte) :P

here is the thing, by whose definition of accuracy are we using? I will be the first to say most media outlets here in America do not give the full/true story. However, I am not going to be inclined to just believe any source which may come from a country with high anti-American sentiments (not that they are automatically lying, it would depend on the story/situation).

The problem with "credible" is people have a different definition of what is credible and what is not. something like the Onion, most people should realize it is satire. but there are some sites which many would swear by which others may not see the same validity. part of the problem is our own viewpoints often sway what we consider to be credible or not. I agree sources should be given but whose standard of credibility are we going by?

[phuckphace]

I also read the National Review sometimes because I really like reading what Tom Rogan writes.

lol National Review is a pseudo-con rag

they whine that Trump is "divisive" (we're already divided and polarized thanks to multiculturalism, morons)

like all pseudo-cons they've adopted libertarian frames for everything and thus are only superficially conservative, if conservatism is defined by low taxes ("nothing wrong with gay marriage and open borders, xenophobe bigots")

http://i.imgur.com/EWmPShz.png

tell us more http://i.imgur.com/MclEtyn.gif