What are your standards for press reliability?

[pinto]

We've all mentioned a lack of trust in the press: some US, some liberal, many conservative, many Murdoch outlets, UK guys, and many Mid East operations. How do you assess a level of reliability in a press report? Thanks, pinto

[La_Serpiente]

1. I don't like news programs that talk about an issue

like affirmative action in 30 seconds. That is not education. I prefer shows that are on PBS and DemocracyNow because they go in depth on the issues.

If there was going to be a liberal radio show on Anshell, I would want he/she to go over the daily news, give his or her opinions about certain topics, but have a guest to interview that understands the issue. It can be for like 10 - 15 minutes, but that is more than enough time for me. I also do not like yelling and screaming and there needs to be a civil discussion. If the broadcaster repeats glittering generalities and stereotypes, then I won't listen to him/her.

I think for me, it depends on the format.

As for print media, I usually read major newspapers like the New York Times or LA Times. However, I also try to read other liberal publications like Mother Jones and The Nation and compare the information between the middle of the road press and the liberal press.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. If the bush regime denies it, it gets credibility points, no matter who

reports it.

If it is clearly based on any government's press release, then it is a credible indication of what that government wants the public to see.

In my opinion, the best strategy is to read papers from everywhere, read raw wire copy, and pay particular attention to what isn't said. That might be a bigger story than what is :)

Most news orgs, whether in the Middle East, the US or the South Pacific follow widely accepted basic rules, for example, most will not go with a single source story. However, not all agree whether one of those sources has to be the US government. And not all agree that one of the sources has to be a person or other entity that the US likes, or that likes the US.

As is typical of repressive regimes, it has become very popular in the US to dismiss out of hand any news story that comes from a country where either the govt or the people are known to oppose US foreign policy. As that category expands to include an ever-increasing chunk of the planet, there has been a commensurate shrinkage of what most of the voting class considers a "reliable" source. Most of them believe anything the CrusadeNets tell them, and are oblivious to the fact that 99% of the "reporting" consists of reworded press releases and position statements, enhanced by breathless cheerleading and cartoon jingoism that has no place in serious news reporting.

Having said that, it is a fact that a news channel will present the news from a perspective that is relative to their viewers.

For instance, if Malaysia invaded the US, it is unlikely that Canadian TV would show the toddler children of Malaysian soldiers lisping about daddy being off "killing bad guys," and quite likely that they would show footage of American civilian casualties and property damage. :)

[Eric J in MN]

3. some issues

Are the quotes anonymous or on the record?

Are there dates and places?

[TexasSissy]

4. Same way I judge politicians. If I can't tell if they are FOR

or against something they are presumably just reporting on, or relaying information about, then I think that is a fair person/organization.

Example: Joe Biden on the Senate Committee on the Clarence Thomas affair years ago. First time I saw Biden. He was so gosh darn fair in his questions to Thomas that I couldn't tell if he was a Republican or Democrat. (That's a good thing; the committee was supposed to be a fair hearing.) I have high regard for Biden to this day because of that and because of his continuing fairness in assessing the opposition. Makes me REALLY pay attention when he's critical of the opposition, since he's not automatically always critical.

If a news organization reports a story in a fair way, I can't tell if they really wanted to report it or not. There's no sense that the story is slanted; it contains "just the facts, ma'm."

Example: Fox "fair and balanced" news. It is so painfully obvious that their stories are slanted. They try to make lemonade out of the most administration-negative stories, like yet another bombing and people killed in Iraq. It's not the place I would turn to for the facts, ALL of the facts. I don't want to see a liberal-slanted story, either. I want the cold, hard facts, and both sides presented.

[sandnsea]

5. I go to the primary source

If at all possible. Very little of what's reported anywhere is completely factual. That's what I've found. So I try to go to the actual speech, interview, documents, etc to find out more when I'm interested. Otherwise I figure it's all biased one way or the other.

[Loonman]

6. As long as it has nothing to with NYTimes or Rupert Murdoch

Otherwise I use my discretion.