General Question

gondwanalon's avatar

Do you consider "" a propaganda free site?

Asked by gondwanalon (20470points) March 25th, 2020

Is “” a good place to disprove propaganda and get to the truth?

How about “”?

We all want truth. But there’s so much propaganda, spin, rhetoric and lies from the left and the right especially nowadays. It’s not wise to trust any news source completely.

Where do you go for fact verification?


Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

10 Answers

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Breitbart is propaganda !

Fox News supports the GOP agenda

Snopes and Factcheck are usually fair and unbiased. But GOP hates having their dirty laundry shown as dirty.

ihavereturned's avatar

You cannot rely on others to verify the truth for you. This habit never works in the long term. You must do your best to be your own fact checker.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

This habit never works in the long term. You must do your best to be your own fact checker.

You have a big network of contacts in all sectors of life you can call and ask? You call around the White House, Congress, the Pentagon and get the real story? You know people in the business, entertainment and science who pick up the phone when you ring? There are world leaders who keep you informed of their doings?

ihavereturned's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay No I don’t. And even if I did my advice would still apply for myself in that case.

Demosthenes's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay Exactly. At some point, we have to rely on the information and expertise of others because we do not have first-hand access to every bit of truth out there. But you can use critical thinking and make judgments as to what’s true and what’s not. One thing you can do is try and find the primary sources that are out there. If people are making claims about a law or a bill, the text of that law or bill is often available to read in its entirety for yourself. If people are saying a certain politician said something egregious and offensive, their entire speech may be out there, so you can hear their statement in context and judge for yourself whether the negative reaction was merited. Obviously this is more work and less satisfying in the short-term than being fed soundbites and the ranting of pundits, but it’s more valuable.

You can also compare information from different sources, see where they align and see where they differ, read the criticisms from those who think these sources are biased or missing information or presenting an incorrect view and judge whether the criticism is valid (does it present better information or is it just bluster?) Nowadays, people seem to want information filtered through a lens of their biases (they want “progressive news”, “conservative news”, they want to be told that what they already believe to be true is true because it’s reassuring and comforting so a lot of stuff is slanted). But that doesn’t mean there’s no truth and we should give up in the face of the overwhelming amount of information online.

I tend to trust sources that go in depth, offer links to primary sources when available, and are free of biased value judgments about politicians and demographics.

ihavereturned's avatar

Just to clarify, I am skeptical of the concept of a ”fact checker”. i.e an authority of truth.

Take in as much as you find important, then make your own decision. Minimize the outsourcing of critical thinking.

Mimishu1995's avatar

I don’t know about, but Snopes has at least one moment when they spread an unconfirmed fact around. This video details that incident and how Snopes responded when someone called them out. For those who don’t want to watch the video, Snopes wrote an article about a myth of people swallowing spiders in their sleep and debunked it. But they linked to a magazine article that could be completely made-up. So the guy in the video assumed that the myth actually didn’t exist and Snopes was just playing around with people to prove that people could be gullible. He contacted Snopes but they didn’t respond.

KNOWITALL's avatar

AllSides Media Bias Rating: Center

This media bias rating was determined using the following levels of bias verification:

Editorial Review
Community Feedback: 10,392 ratings
Blind Survey
Third-Party Analysis
Independent Research
Confidence Level: Low or Initial Rating

Pandora's avatar

Yes. I’ve seen them not play favorites with any politician. Even if there is a smidgen of truth in what they are fact-checking, they will mention it and usually clear up how some of it may be true. Fact check usually just lays out exactly what was said or done. No coloring of the truth.

As for Snopes, they try to be like a mom who doesn’t want to tell their idiot kid they are an idiot or let others know. They often try to find more than one meaning in what was said or maybe implied. They use to be more direct but I notice they are playing politics more often with politics. Like in one article about Trump he used the word us. They said there is no way of knowing if he meant, us, the citizens or us like in his administration and himself. Yes, its called using context clues. He was talking about the govenors needing to be more kind to himself and his administration or he would’ve said they need to treat the citizens of the nation kinder.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther