where do you get your news from and is tiktok a reliable news source?

[caltrop77]

sometimes i seen tiktok users that were faster than my local news to report something

[AerSilver ♞]

Off-Topic mostly get their news from Al-Jazeera, apparently.

[B]

As many news sources on all sides. Only way to sort out if it's some nonsense fluff piece

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Local news. Can care less what happens outside my state.

[Yew Nough]

I look out my window

[Spencer]

Compared to what is the issue, tiktok is pretty bad, but now we know all the establishment outlets are even worse as they have a false legitimacy.
NPR suspends editor for EXPOSING liberal bias | Free Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP7J4nYR8K8
https://youtu.be/DfTU5LA_kw8

Also a reason to never donate to wikipedia, they were paying Katherine Maher almost 800k a year to do what? Its just corruption.

"EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher says the "the number one challenge" in her fight against disinformation is "the First Amendment in the United States," which makes it "a little bit tricky" to censor "bad information" and "the influence peddlers" who spread it.

NPR's censor-in-chief."
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1780597079439446250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JnuGtbBUs

[Ulfrinn]

There's no such thing as a reliable news source. Stick to verifiable facts and source documents in full.

[caltrop77]

İlk olarak Ulfrinn tarafından gönderildi:

There's no such thing as a reliable news source. Stick to verifiable facts and source documents in full.

how do u know what's facts?

[xDDD]

I get my news from numerology, chicken bones, and esoteric shapes in the clouds.

[secuda]

Local news station/paper.
I wouldent count youtube nor tic toc as a relible souirce even if it mean i get the news a bitt later.

[Ulfrinn]

İlk olarak caltrop77 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Ulfrinn tarafından gönderildi:

There's no such thing as a reliable news source. Stick to verifiable facts and source documents in full.

how do u know what's facts?

Facts can be proven. This is why you stick to source material. If someone is basing their opinion off of something caught on film, don't base your opinion on that person's opinion, see it for yourself. Instead of someone telling you what is in a bill, read it for yourself. Ignore anything from anonymous sources, legacy media loves to use those. And understand it is very, very easy to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ people with statistics. Propagandists do it all the time.

[xAlphaStarOmegax]

RT, Bitchute, Rumble, etc.

[caltrop77]

İlk olarak Ulfrinn tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak caltrop77 tarafından gönderildi:

how do u know what's facts?

Facts can be proven. This is why you stick to source material. If someone is basing their opinion off of something caught on film, don't base your opinion on that person's opinion, see it for yourself. Instead of someone telling you what is in a bill, read it for yourself. Ignore anything from anonymous sources, legacy media loves to use those. And understand it is very, very easy to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ people with statistics. Propagandists do it all the time.

but waht about fake facts and paid or political scientists and ppl talking on subjects that are not easy to prove or understand for the layman? such as climate change, etc.

[Ulfrinn]

İlk olarak caltrop77 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Ulfrinn tarafından gönderildi:

Facts can be proven. This is why you stick to source material. If someone is basing their opinion off of something caught on film, don't base your opinion on that person's opinion, see it for yourself. Instead of someone telling you what is in a bill, read it for yourself. Ignore anything from anonymous sources, legacy media loves to use those. And understand it is very, very easy to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ people with statistics. Propagandists do it all the time.

but waht about fake facts and paid or political scientists and ppl talking on subjects that are not easy to prove or understand for the layman? such as climate change, etc.

If they're fake then they're not facts. That's kind of the definition of a fact. If someone has a theory that is not easy to prove, then they shouldn't be easily believed either.

[Iggy Wolf]

I feel like the question should be less WHERE people get their information from and more HOW people perceive said information. The problem these days is that people will put a LOT of stock into so-called "news sources" that they've already determined to be "absolute truth", so they'll never cross reference it or purposefully seek out a 2nd opinion or alternative source in order to fact check what has already been stated or written.

Take Fox News for example. Even if they aren't really "news" in the technical sense if the word these days, people should nonetheless fact check it against CNN, MSNBC, online sources or simply other local news. Whether you agree with the OTHER sources or not is irrelevant. What you're trying to do is disseminate information, NOT assume that what you've already been told is the fact and the "truth and nothing but the truth". A person who fails to do that isn't a mark against the news, it's a mark against their own better judgement for failing to do their due diligence.

You have a responsibility as an individual to make up your own mind as well and be skeptical and doubtful of any ONE particular source of news. Especially if they're telling you NOT to listen to other sources of news. Remember, most media is owned by 6 giant conglomerates. NONE of them really have a vested interest in bringing you the FACTS. It's pure laziness and ignorance that makes some people refer to their preferred source of news as the "be all and end all" of ALL their news and source of information. They don't have to think, they just CONSUME. It's no excuse though.

[TWPanda77]

It is always a good idea to cross-reference news stories from multiple sources to get a well-rounded view of the events.