Please tell me how you evaluate the information you get--

[janx]

via television, internet, radio, and print.

Do you suddenly like msnbc after the invasion of Iraq, when it determined that there were enough people upset about the war that it was safe to enlist the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann? Why weren't these people hired by msnbc in the run-up to the war?

And also, those of you who listen to the rantings of Malloy and the sound effects of the Stephanie show, do you not realize that his rhetoric is analogous to that of the right, with cheap nicknames and references?

Do you find blog sites that feature sources that are not peer-reviewed, let alone paid? Is this a free for all?

Do you not understand that controversy sells advertising?

[snot]

1. One thing I look for is SOURCES for assertions, and whether they were fact-checked.

And while we're at it, I wish DU'er's provided more sources.

[janx]

3. I agree! Original sources, other than opinions on some blogs,

would be nice. It would also be better if people would provide the original sources initially instead of a link to a link to a link.

Thank you!

[snot]

15. Yes!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. This is America, an unbalanced society in favor of the rich and greedy

This is nothing new. I like to read papers by political scholars. I watch the BBC and CSPAN. I try to read up what Congress is doing and read some of the bills. Some online newspaers. I search the internet.

Sure, contraversy sells but it's mainly all one sided. I remember Wolf Blitzer was almost in tears when Libby was jailed!

[janx]

4. How is it one sided, and where are you getting this information? n/t

[EFerrari]

5. Do you mean like this?

http://www.library.illinois.edu/village/globalnews/mod1/pg9a.htm

[janx]

6. YES, my fellow English teacher!

:hug: But the online info. is even worse for those looking for vetted information, peer-reviewed and paid-for stuff, etc.

[EFerrari]

7. That's true but good for other things.

For example, I was trying to dig into a bureaucrat's career today and found endless links to conspiracy sites. I finally went to the one least likely to infect my computer, lol, and read a little. From the bits gleaned there, I was able to track down some real information from solid sources. So, the smoke isn't worthless, either.

Imho, the real problem is that reading isn't everyone's best way to get information -- as you know. :)

[janx]

9. So you were able to back it up? n/t

[EFerrari]

17. Not exactly the way it was being put together at those sites.

They usually claim too much too easily and so on. But I was able to pick out some facts that I needed and wouldn't have known to look for otherwise.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

8. if they use lager breasted women to hypnotize me ... i assume they are not telling the truth

sorry i am a bad bad man :sarcasm:

[janx]

10. Beer breasts?

:rofl:

[tkmorris]

11. It's a German thing...

[Fumesucker]

12. I look to see if it agrees with my prejudices..

If it does then I believe it, if not I reject it.

/honest

[RandomThoughts]

13. I accept something that does not agree with my views.

By finding some part that I can agree with. Very rarely is there something that you can not find something in common with.

[Fumesucker]

14. You obviously haven't met my sister in law..

:evilgrin:

[ismnotwasm]

16. I refuse to listen to talk radio

It's like nails on a chalkboard to me. Or chewing on cotton. Or something.

I like to find reliable sources as well, and emotional ranting doesn't move me at all. I have my own sort of philosophy of course, as well as my own opinions, but I'd rather an informed opinion, as much as possible. I also need historical context of complex situations to feel like I'm able to understand situations. It's a bit of work sometimes, but well worth it.

[spin]

18. We suffer from an information overload ...

I try to let all three major 24/7 cable news outlets play in the background while I am on the computer. (One at a time.)

It's confusing, but I at least get different viewpoints to consider.

Unfortunately, I can't trust any of our media sources to be unbiased. I suspect that the same corporations that own our elected officials also own the news media.

I wonder if we are being played as children to be led by the Pied Piper.

The Pied Piper of Hamelin is the subject of a legend concerning the departure or death of a great many children from the town of Hamelin (Hameln), Germany, in the Middle Ages. The earliest references describe a piper, dressed in pied (multicolored) clothing, leading the children away from the town never to return. In the 16th century the story was expanded into a full narrative, in which the piper is a rat-catcher hired by the town to lure rats away with his magic pipe. When the citizenry refuses to "pay the piper" for this service, he retaliates by turning his magic on their children, leading them away as he had the rats. This version of the story spread as a fairy tale. This version has also appeared in the writings of, among others, Johann Goethe, the Brothers Grimm, and Robert Browning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper_of_Hamelin

[Cherchez la Femme]

19. Internet and Print Media via subject line inquiry

As for your questions (forgive me if I number them, simply for clarity):

#1: No. I knew from the very start that the invasion was based on a bunch of bullcrap. As for 'liking them' after they made those hires: Well, it was very good they finally put a touch of this vaunted so-called 'balance' into the media, but no, I didn't like them more... they also hired rabid Reich Wing pundits; albeit those have not, as yet, been given their own show.

#2: I don't get to listen to those shows very often, but No.
However: Nothing wrong with Tit-for-Tat or "equal" (yeah, riight) time -- those Certifiably Crazy sites deserve a good drumming, IMHO.

#3: Peer review is good. Very good. Most sites/blogs I visit are or link to Peer reviewed sites, not give their own take solely on whatever news the U.S. media see's Fit to Print (which they do in a highly subjective manner). Some I visit, such as Jesus' General, Wonkette, Pam's House Blend, Feministing, Fafblog (the worlds only source for Faf! Visit Today!) etc. usually put their own 2 cents in, but link to legitimate or bona fide, i.e. the actual politician's or subject's, etc. blog.

#4: Well Duh!

[BeFree]

20. Evaluation

A bit of history, a bit of realizing the source, a smatter of how many times it's been said, a bunch of read between the lines, a wary eye for deceit, who profits, who is getting robbed, and always a healthy dose of questioning why it is being claimed to be that way.

Pretty much, practice makes perfect. Now, off to practice some more, but thanks for asking. Why did you ask?

[Common Sense Party]

21. I automatically assume everyone is either lying or full of excrement.

Or both.

It's a pretty reliable filter.

[bvar22]

22. Another consideration:

Did you like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Ed Shultz, et al
when Bush the Lesser was president, but now find yourself attacking them?

They haven't changed.
They STILL Question Authority.

I trust Rachel more than I trust the whitehouse.gov website, before or after Bush.

[EFerrari]

23. It's funny because I went the other way.

The Bush years burned me out on the format and on the production values. Nowadays, I like watching the quieter indy and niche shows and only watch Rachel and Keith in clips here at DU. In fact, GayUSA is now my favorite news show and I'm only honorarily gay. :)