How do you determine a "reputable" news source?

[LBJefferies]

How would you fund a non-profit? I'm not trying to antagonize, but asking honest questions.

Advertising, donations, sell some sort of membership with benefits, maybe just require a subscription although I would avoid doing this.

[z31maniac]

Advertising puts you right back where we are now.
Donations are the same, especially if you have big donors.
Subscriptions - do some research on what your favorite magazine would cost without advertising subsidies. 10x + costs easily.

[KenC]

What about the Associated Press?

[E30_(1st Musk)_]

i think you have to take it from both sides. for the most part the news is somewhat entertainment in my eyes, they always play what ppl want to hear and i learned in an investigations class that eye witness acounts takken by the news can be from anyone and they are not a viable source

[z31maniac]

What about the Associated Press?

I would definitely rate them higher than Reuters, but after the Israeli pic fixing debacle of Reuters, I don't even read their stuff anymore.

i think you have to take it from both sides. for the most part the news is somewhat entertainment in my eyes, they always play what ppl want to hear and i learned in an investigations class that eye witness acounts takken by the news can be from anyone and they are not a viable source

I asked how people determine what a REPUTABLE news source is. Because so many on the left say, "Oh it's from those wacko's at Fox." And those on the right say, "Oh it's from those wacko's at MSNBC/Huffinton."

Refer to my previous post. I did not ask how to determine what the "real" news is (Keep in mind you are talking to someone with a degree in Journalism).

[LBJefferies]

Advertising puts you right back where we are now.
Donations are the same, especially if you have big donors.
Subscriptions - do some research on what your favorite magazine would cost without advertising subsidies. 10x + costs easily.

Advertising would work if you made it cheap enough and had some sort of contract and specified that the news agency would have complete control over content. Also, advertising is different than donations because you get something for the money you spend. Donations are supposed to be free money with no strings attached.

[z31maniac]

Donations are supposed to be free money with no strings attached.

You even wrote the operative word, too bad it's not the case.

[e30e]

Aren't you guys talking about PBS, PBS has news, its just really really really boring.

[Ryann]

The media is like science. It's paid for.

[joshh]

When a news source asks the questions that are tough.
This is the main reason I like FOX News. Most of the time they ask many of the questions that come into my mind. Unlike other sources that suck cock on many interviews they do. Thus why so many Democrats refuse to do interviews with Fox.
Fox has real problem with thinking that Republicans are conservatives. That's a joke.

[Massive Lee]

This is a personal question from me.

"Reputable" source is not necessarely "unbiased" sourced. The wording describing an event will bias the info which should be neutral and a simple description of an event.

Version A - "Country Y was hit by missiles originating from country X"
Version B - "Country X attacked country Y by sending missiles"
Version C - "Country X defended itself from country Y by sending missiles"

Then, after the headline, the interpretation of the events can completely derail. As far as funding having an effect on information, well, that's a reality. A lobby can very well ask a magazine to stop distribution this or that type of information that displeases them by asking its members to threaten the newspaper to stop advertizing. It's been very effectively done by certain lobbies around the world.

So, the news is rarely neutral. It's up to the people to decipher the reality. As for the BBC to be more neutral than some other consortiums. Yes, I completely agree.

[SK20iPPY PB]

This is a personal question from me.

I constantly see both sides saying, "Oh well that's crap, look at the source."

So I'm curious as to how the overly-educated masses here determine what is, or is not, a reputable news source?

"They agree/disagree with my point of view," is not an acceptable answer.

Damn, well you took my asnswer aside from what you said there all biased. Go look the shit up on your own time, fuck the news.

Reputable news source, lol. Thats a good one

[z31maniac]

Damn, well you took my asnswer aside from what you said there all biased. Go look the shit up on your own time, fuck the news.

Reputable news source, lol. Thats a good one

Welcome to the thread, I can see that you are full of amazing insight and wit will enrich the wonderful, political culture here on R3V.

[LBJefferies]

You even wrote the operative word, too bad it's not the case.

It could be the case though. Once you remove the profit incentive, you have taken most of the sway (for lack of a better term) out of donations and advertising. Beyond that you could run some sort of regular election for the administration of the news agency where the PAYING members vote. I think it could work. Like I said though, you will never have an entirely unbiased news source. The individual journalists will always insert some sort of bias into the news, whether intentional or not.

[u3b3rg33k]

As an example of why I like the saying "Trust half of what you see, and none of what you hear"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/07/egyptian-official-believes-israel-deadly-shark-attack/