[godfather dust]

I get most of my news here and the links posted. For getting info out to others I don't tell them come here the number of truth bombs dropped against the thought police may be too much for them to handle. (I figure most of us were asking big questions and free thinkers before joining.)

Recently I was talking to my dad and he knows the MSM is garbage so I put him on to a few websites.

Breitbart.com
thegatewaypundit.com
Theconservativetreehouse.com
Zerohedge.com

I also use infowars.com but don't usually introduce people to it because Alex Jones ranting might discredit his points to some viewers.

Any other site recommendations?

[komatiite]

My dad is all about Infowars now, I showed him some Paul Joseph Watson videos and he's now addicted. Even got a shortcut to the home page set up on his cell phone main screen. He's also on Drudge about 20x a day.

Another tip I told my dad is to stop reading sites without comment sections. I was looking over his shoulder and he basically does what I do now -- read the headline and maybe a sentence in the main body, then go straight to comments to get the general audience tone.

I read Andrew Breitbart would always read the comment sections at http://ace.mu.nu to gauge where the audience is at then go from there. Now I can't get enough of that shit. This election is all about the People va The Elites, so why not see what the fellow Deplorables are thinking?

Speaking of Ace of Spades HQ I have posted that before and Weambulance correctly pointed out that Ace was hardcore NeverTrump in the early days but has bit the bullet and now fights the NRO elites daily on Twitter. The comments there are always encouraging -- almost every thread has people saying how they are warming to Trump, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" especially in light of the recent media onslaught.

[ivansirko]

I rotate through Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds), Hotair (although they have gone to crap lately) and Ace of Spades HQ. Breitbart and Zerohedge are also good.

Infowars is like getting a ton of chocolate all at once.

I also like Computing Forever on Youtube. A lot of what he puts out has been commenting on SJW garbage for the last few months.

Anything by Victor Davis Hanson is high quality.

[All or Nothing]

(10-15-2016 10:26 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  

Any other site recommendations?

I would also try reading more ideologically neutral news sources like The Economist or Wall Street Journal. I don't agree with everything that is said in those sources, but the perspectives span the ideological spectrum, so I feel like the information I get ends up being closer to the truth.

Also, the commentary on those websites is beautiful. I read Wall Street Journal online every single day and some of the right leaning troll commentary is:

[Disco_Volante]

Zerohedge. dailyjobcuts.com colin Flaherty youtube channel. Most of Breitbart (except the pro-Israel stuff).

[Atlanta Man]

(10-15-2016 10:40 AM)komatiite Wrote:  

My dad is all about Infowars now, I showed him some Paul Joseph Watson videos and he's now addicted. Even got a shortcut to the home page set up on his cell phone main screen. He's also on Drudge about 20x a day.

Another tip I told my dad is to stop reading sites without comment sections. I was looking over his shoulder and he basically does what I do now -- read the headline and maybe a sentence in the main body, then go straight to comments to get the general audience tone.

I read Andrew Breitbart would always read the comment sections at http://ace.mu.nu to gauge where the audience is at then go from there. Now I can't get enough of that shit. This election is all about the People va The Elites, so why not see what the fellow Deplorables are thinking?

Speaking of Ace of Spades HQ I have posted that before and Weambulance correctly pointed out that Ace was hardcore NeverTrump in the early days but has bit the bullet and now fights the NRO elites daily on Twitter. The comments there are always encouraging -- almost every thread has people saying how they are warming to Trump, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" especially in light of the recent media onslaught.

If there is no comments section they are just trying to push propaganda and do not care about reader input. The truth is always in the comments.

[Foolsgo1d]

CNN.














Their weather reports are ok.

[eskimobobseal]

Zero Hedge
GatewayPundit
Breitbart
Infowars
Worldnet Daily
Tru News
Washington Times

Also, cheap plug for my citizen journalism website We the Vigilant - I trust my own website too

[wi30]

RVF.

Seriously, this and ROK are pretty much the only sites I frequently visit. My sole source of news is the Everything Else sub-forum.

[spokepoker]

I use rvf because there's too many sites out there to check them all. This is basically an aggregate site that gets the info quick and short enough that I don't spend too much time reading (or watching) stuff from too many different sites.

[John_Galt]

I second (3rd? 4th? 5th?) Infowars.com

[Blaster]

None of them. Not a single one.

I trust Cernovich and Chuck C. Johnson (gotnews.com) on a lot of things (ie usually when they're breaking news about something and claiming they have a source, it's been vetted a decent amount). But even then, I still try to vet and verify anything I read from them.

For anything non-controversial and about some major happening, I tend to let reporters have some benefit of doubt.

The rest of the time, if I care about whether something is true, I read critically and try to piece together the truth from various sources. Often I give up and have to admit that I just cannot find enough published information to make a reasonable judgment on the relevant truth.

Basically, learn to vet articles. Here's a quick-and-dirty guide:

Evaluate assumptions. Often, the main payload of propaganda will be embedded in the assumptions that one needs to make to even make sense of the article.

Separate stated facts from opinions and speculation.

Evaluate facts for verifiability. Try to make sense of each assertion. How does this fit into reality as you understand it?

What important questions did the writer forget to ask?

Learn to spot lies and liars. Roosh and Cernovich are both fantastic at this. It's not just recognizing body language (although that is part of it), it's also about analyzing the actual claims and looking for holes and evaluating motivation, consistency, etc.

Learn to recognize and untangle fallacious reasoning. Modern media typists use every fallacy under the sun, but equivocation and question-begging are both very common. Rambling is another one that allows journalists to plant emotional "anchors" in your head without actually making a logical case. They will start out on one topic, then digress for no apparent reason to some other topic, simply so they they can use some word that they want you to associate with original thing. You don't have to be able to debunk every fallacy in an argument, just be able to recognize them so that you know when a writer is trying to trick you. Often, if I detect these kind of mindfucking tactics I just reject the article without bothering to finish it.

Ask, what does the author want to be true? (thx Last Psychiatrist for this one). Sometimes, just by asking yourself this question, you'll be able to make sense of an otherwise confusing propaganda article. When you understand the author's bias a lot will fall into place.

Specifically:

Does the author have any reason to misrepresent the truth? Who pays the author? What editors control the author's content?

[Blaster]

That said, I just follow a bunch of smart people on twitter (from various factions) and gab.ai and get my news from there. Plus I check Vox Day's blog regularly because he's reliably interesting and not on twitter.

[Poker]

Russia Today/RT is good news source for me as far as broadcast media go. They seem to talk a lot of sense on many things and broadcast a perspective on topics that is the complete opposite of their broadcast and print counterparts

[They Call Me Mister Tony]

RVF

Breitbart.com

InfoWars.com (Especially Millie Weaver and PJW.)

Return of Kings (Found out about it three years ago when someone talked shit about it, but I became a huge fan though.)

CampusReform

[CaptainChardonnay]

RooshVForum

[Seth_Rose]

(10-15-2016 11:50 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 10:26 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  

Any other site recommendations?

I would also try reading more ideologically neutral news sources like The Economist or Wall Street Journal. I don't agree with everything that is said in those sources, but the perspectives span the ideological spectrum, so I feel like the information I get ends up being closer to the truth.

Also, the commentary on those websites is beautiful. I read Wall Street Journal online every single day and some of the right leaning troll commentary is:

I can't read the Economist anymore. Its nothing but globalist propaganda-- far from neutral these days.

It all makes sense when you see that the Rothschild's own 50% of the company.

[Brodiaga]

Mainstream media:

Wall Street Journal. Usually balanced. Very analytical. No soundbites. Of course, they have their share of propaganda too, but at least they don't insult their readers' intelligence, so I give them credit for that.

I used to read the Economist and the Financial Times, follow CNBC and even read the NYT occasionally, but it's all in the past. The Economist exposed themselves as a bullshit elitist newspaper a long time ago, even before the Trump campaign. The Financial Times and CNBC showed their true colors when the Trump campaign started. As for NYT, they publish pretty good material occasionally (e.g. the article about toxic work environment at Amazon which is a must read for everybody), but obviously I don't trust them. To me, they are guilty until proven innocent.

Alternative media:

RT. I'm actually watching it right now. Pretty fair and balanced. For example, they don't support Hillary or Trump. However, I can't watch this channel more than about an hour because they repeat the exact same things all over again.

Zerohedge. This is where I get my news most of the time. Very red pill, pretty good quality as well. The problem I have with ZH is their negative bias as in "the economy is in the shit and about to collapse". Eventually they will be right, but if somebody followed them in 2011 and decided to stay out of the stock market up until now, they would have missed out on a huge bull run.

RVF threads in the "Politics and War" subforum.

[Sweet Jones]

(10-15-2016 05:05 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

None of them. Not a single one.

I trust Cernovich and Chuck C. Johnson (gotnews.com) on a lot of things (ie usually when they're breaking news about something and claiming they have a source, it's been vetted a decent amount). But even then, I still try to vet and verify anything I read from them.

For anything non-controversial and about some major happening, I tend to let reporters have some benefit of doubt.

The rest of the time, if I care about whether something is true, I read critically and try to piece together the truth from various sources. Often I give up and have to admit that I just cannot find enough published information to make a reasonable judgment on the relevant truth.

Basically, learn to vet articles. Here's a quick-and-dirty guide:

Evaluate assumptions. Often, the main payload of propaganda will be embedded in the assumptions that one needs to make to even make sense of the article.

Separate stated facts from opinions and speculation.

Evaluate facts for verifiability. Try to make sense of each assertion. How does this fit into reality as you understand it?

What important questions did the writer forget to ask?

Learn to spot lies and liars. Roosh and Cernovich are both fantastic at this. It's not just recognizing body language (although that is part of it), it's also about analyzing the actual claims and looking for holes and evaluating motivation, consistency, etc.

Learn to recognize and untangle fallacious reasoning. Modern media typists use every fallacy under the sun, but equivocation and question-begging are both very common. Rambling is another one that allows journalists to plant emotional "anchors" in your head without actually making a logical case. They will start out on one topic, then digress for no apparent reason to some other topic, simply so they they can use some word that they want you to associate with original thing. You don't have to be able to debunk every fallacy in an argument, just be able to recognize them so that you know when a writer is trying to trick you. Often, if I detect these kind of mindfucking tactics I just reject the article without bothering to finish it.

Ask, what does the author want to be true? (thx Last Psychiatrist for this one). Sometimes, just by asking yourself this question, you'll be able to make sense of an otherwise confusing propaganda article. When you understand the author's bias a lot will fall into place.

Specifically:

Does the author have any reason to misrepresent the truth? Who pays the author? What editors control the author's content?

This is the only reasonable way to approach the media. Great post.

I would only add to look out for active/passive voice - that is, in the article, who are things happening to, and who is making them happen?

[[email protected]]

Bill still on YouTube. Not an organisation by any means but he's honest because he fears God

[Ivanis]

(10-15-2016 02:36 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

CNN.














Their weather reports are ok.

[sterling_archer]

None. All media, even if presented as alternative, work for "the Man". The Man actually being 4 establishments that fight for the control over the world in Game of Thrones - esque scenario.

[Philosopher]

(10-15-2016 02:51 PM)eskimobobseal Wrote:  

Zero Hedge
GatewayPundit
Breitbart
Infowars
Worldnet Daily
Tru News
Washington Times

Also, cheap plug for my citizen journalism website We the Vigilant - I trust my own website too

Liking Zero Hedge very much. Update on the Syrain Refugees admissions: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01...o-far-2016

[younggun]

While I appreciate all they've done for the Trump campaign, I can't take Infowars and Breitbart seriously as legitimate news sources. This isn't an attack on the right wing, I despise CNN, NBC etc as well as the rags like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed.

Neutrality is key. Wall Street Journal puts out stuff I don't agree with but it doesn't read like propaganda. It's based in fact for the most part. Infowars and Breitbart read like propaganda.

I get it, we need people like Alex Jones to combat the media machine on the left. But I'd rather my news sources stayed non-partisan.

[Ivanis]

(11-01-2016 08:06 PM)younggun Wrote:  

While I appreciate all they've done for the Trump campaign, I can't take Infowars and Breitbart seriously as legitimate news sources. This isn't an attack on the right wing, I despise CNN, NBC etc as well as the rags like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed.

Neutrality is key. Wall Street Journal puts out stuff I don't agree with but it doesn't read like propaganda. It's based in fact for the most part. Infowars and Breitbart read like propaganda.

I get it, we need people like Alex Jones to combat the media machine on the left. But I'd rather my news sources stayed non-partisan.

I agree. However, I still read other posts that are left or right leaning to obtain a complete picture. Any journalist is going to exclude some fact that will go against their personal political agenda. That's human nature, to be right.(Pun intended)