this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
1161 points (97.9% liked)

Not The Onion

12314 readers
599 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So mainstream news sources aren’t trustworthy, but random podcasts are?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They are only as trustworthy as they are. I think that most corporate news sources mislead at best, and lie directly if it is in their interest. I think there are many podcasts that are not always correct, but they are trying to tell the truth. Do you think mainstream sources are trustworthy?

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

For the most part yes. Everyone has their biases, which is why I usually check multiple sources. I’m more inclined to trust a source that is run by people who have backgrounds in journalism, who provide their sources. Articles go through professional editors, who can fact check the information. Paid professionals are involved in the process, and stake their reputations on the quality of their reporting. There has certainly been a decline in the quality of mainstream journalism - largely due to mega corps buying up local news - but I will turn to the BBC before I turn to Joe Rogan.

I find that even podcasts I like and consider informative can often have misinformation. Podcasts are often more focused on entertainment and commentary - it is a different set of priorities.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I can literally point to three stories this week by the corporate media that were false or misleading off the top of my head.

Why do you keep trusting them when they just report things without thinking or maybe worse, dont report stories because they harm a narative?

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Did you determine that they were false or misleading based on Ben Shapiro podcasts? I can point to probably thousands of podcasts that regularly are false or misleading.

There are multiple corporate medias. “Corporate media” is not a single organism. I don’t “trust” them - as I pointed out in my previous comment, I critically evaluate multiple sources. (Back in the day, I had an amazing Google Reader setup, Feedly sucks 😢). I tend to discard most science reporting and read the articles directly though my university’s library. For current events, I usually try to find a local news source.

I’m not sure why the fact that corporate media can be inaccurate means that we should turn to random, much more likely to be talking out their butts, podcasts on the internet. That seems to be a way to get trapped in an echo chamber that confirms your pre existing beliefs.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I found them misleading just by using basic logic and listening to podcasts that instantly were able to refute the corporate media sources.

The issue with corporate media is that they are directly funded and owned by people with agendas that are not their own. Podcasts can be great, but then also biased, for example anything Ben Shapiro says about Israel is probably wrong.

Podcasts are good because they are typically long form and will literally read the story and then point out what is wrong and who is lying. And after a while you can get tell if the podcaster ever lies to you, and you know their bias.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure if you’re using “basic logic” to debunk news sources, or if you’re just rejecting them based on what you already believe. Usually news sources are not “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal.” Most of the time, background knowledge is necessary to fully understand a situation - this is why reporters include interviews. I’m not sure why I would want to take anything Ben Shapiro says at all seriously - his claim to fame is confusing college kids by speaking fast. If you actually listen to what he says, there’s essentially nothing of substance.

I’m curious how you determine which podcasts to listen to. If you are conservative/right leaning, do you listen to podcasts that challenge your views? If you’re willing to explore NPR has excellent content which tends to run fairly neutral, although I imagine you consider it left leaning.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

The three stories I mention are; "Guy at CPAC wants theocracy", "Trump called wife by wrong name", "Trump says black people like him due to being accused of crimes", with a bonus still up in the air "Putin definitely killed Navalny, dont ask questions" and a fourth "Israel killed thousand or hundreds of civilians while giving out food". Two of those you can instantly know they are bullshit, and three you need more info, but logically they dont make sense.

You dont have to trust what someone like ben shapiro has to say, you can listen and judge for yourself. Coincidently enough, earlier yesterday I was listening "Part of the Problem" and they were explaining what Shapiro was wrong about. As far as political podcasts go, I like the part of the problem - Your welcome - Timcast - The poltical Orphanage - Liberty Lockdown - The matt walsh show - Patrick Bet-David - JRE. My opinions are always open to change, and do.

I agree NPR tries to be neutral, but they have a natural bias, if you count that in, they can be interesting.