Websites as infocatolica.com and forumlibertas.com are very interesting for me (in Spanish).

I consult various sources. I do not trust any. Like George, is my mind well informed the only secure source.

I prefer newspapers, that I take with a critical attitude.

May be the media can say the facts but without historical background it sounds very absurd. Also the voices on the radio are in strong contrast with what they are saying. Because the brain is more attentive to negative news, there is nearly nothing about cultural projects and science discoveries, which I find very misleading. There are so many good things which never make news. 

Eduardo,

I do not believe in the press. As a researcher and teacher, I have to listen a lot of information about a subject, and thus make my decision. The press, when report about my professional work, say thinks that no make sense. Today, my country is under an economic war and the press use the word crisis. They have said that a country has to grow, but any country today has to develop. Therefore, when we turn on the television the question is: Is currently safe to travel to European countries?

Best regards,

Walter.

Dear All,

Very difficult  to trust those media listed, as they all are business organizations and have their own reasons why they run that particular media and any topic has to have some end goal and not to tell the actual story or the truth. To listen to what politicians have to say, any media can serve, the problem is when these media write their own analysis of topics that they twist the facts, the truth and produce in a way to influence society in general and their clients in particular. After all medias are there to influence society in their own way and by virtue of being political, it is very likely not to be the truth.  

This may seem to be extreme, but I think may make sense to a very great extent, that all forms of propoganda are biased. 

Most media are biased as they are run by governments or sponsored agencies. Therefore, for a particular issue I prefer to do a keyword search on Google. In this way I can check multiple resources from various news agency (for and against) on that subject/News matter. 

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

I trust only my eyes and ears, since they are biased to one side!!!

We should consult various sources to get the true NEWS.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

I believe strongly on what "Malcom X" said once:

"The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses." 

Sometimes everything is fine but sometimes some of them is political motivated.

The elder people believe only their relatives, friends, colleagues - some people whom they know personally...

As for mass media, I feel, that soon I will believe only "Good Night, Little Ones" :-).

Yes, I will use mix sources i.e. TV news (near real time), Newspapers (after journalist / editor's analysis & putting in words) & Internet websites (near real time, after analysis & putting in words).  But within each source e.g. TV news in which there is inconsistency with other sources e.g. Internet websites, I will triangulate by checking out different TV news channels e.g. CNN, Singapore MediaCorp & local TV news etc.  Sometimes, I also watch special TV programs that show debates by different parties on political matters / views or exclusive interviews with some political stakeholders - finding the last 2 (i.e. special TV programs & exclusive interviews) sometimes provide more in-depth insights which may not be available from typical TV news, newspapers & websites.

Nowadays news is coloured. A mix of television, radio and newspaper contribute to reliability check. Even if we miss the above social media such as FB and what's up share relevant information within the group.

If we see today most of the sources give information as per their linkages - with political parties, socio-religious groups and so on....

I mean if a bill (in legislature) is discussed on the media the analysis is different / depending on the views of the channels.

I normally (depending on the issue) trust known web-sites, read the original bills, newspapers that seem to be neutral and so on....

But in the end I always analyse and come to a conclusion. In certain matters we have a threadbare discussion with the students in the classes.  

I trust internet sources like blogs, social media and other online sources more than the TV news channels and newspapers, because most of the news channels and newspapers have an agenda of their own.

One needs a mixture of sources to develop a comprehensive understanding political issues. Yet, the issue per se determines my sources (domestic, regional, international, stc.)

Prof. Georgina Boyd, from the School of Business and Humanities, IT Sligo (Ireland),  has sent me her answer:

"None of them as I believe the don't always interpret situations in a manner that is acceptable. They often contribute to the unnecessary escalation of situation and are used as a propaganda agency by those who would perpetrate evil in our midst. In saying I don't trust them I would read and cross reference their views on issues for common threads . They all can. Be used either positively or negatively however it's the reader who decides. This does not however take away out right to read them watch them or source information fro. Them as it could be viewed as obstructing their right to be and say what they want".

Prof. Glenn Finger, from the School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University (Queensland, Australia), has sent me his answer:

"It is no longer matter of trusting sources, but developing analytical skills to develop e-credibility capabilities; e.g. to authenticate and triangulate information portrayed through the media. Even so called 'media watch' programs here in the Australian media require this scrutiny.

With those capability and that lens, this is an appropriate way to be well informed - and entertained, as many are blatantly biased to the extent that the journalists appear to be comical to many - through a range of media sources".

I read news and articles in plural newspapers (both web based and printed) and find the truth of political matters by my own mind. Presently the most trustworthy source is the daily newspaper, "Shimbun Akahata," of the Japanese Communist Party, because the party stands on the side of the general people and does not hide the facts adverse to the government and ruling parties.

I use combination of medias to gain knowledge and  make my own personal opinion about different issues.

Websites, importantly social networking sites, news papers and some magazines give near to accurate news about political matters.

Very little number of TV channels provide accurate news as many of these are managed by politicians. It is a type of unethical practice.

Covering political or any other  news for that  matter  , by different Print and Electronic media is something like current mushrooming trends in different research journals , hard to find their trustworthiness . A viewer has to exercise his/her own caution and mindfulness to believe a news or discard the same depending upon the source of the medium and its reliability  of the channel. As we talk on the ISC rating of different scientific journals to decide the scientific standing of that journal and the quality of peer reviewership , sooner or later , such rating of different types  of print and electronic media should also be implemented to discover the truthfulness of the news by a specific medium , they are covering .   

A mix of them, but it is quite difficult to find the truth...

If seriously, it's more useful to read the statistic reports on the official sites. Without any unnecessary comments. In general I prefer the professional journals. 

The lack of objective analytical journalism is a big problem. So I enjoy smtimes comparing an information about the same event, for example, on the official sites of BBC, RT, DW, Xinhua, NYT, Vesti, VoA (their different language editions) and other mass media, especially of the former Soviet Republics, when it is necessary for my work. 

For relaxing, I watch some television programs about literature and arts of "Soyuz" (it's an Ortodox channel, http://tv-soyuz.ru/peredachi ), Kultura (http://tvkultura.ru/), http://www.medici.tv/, and "Mir" (http://www.mirtv.ru/broadcasts/).

Relatively, TV news from different channels and analyzing the data are used by me. But here too most of them are biased. " No news is good news " Better follow this.

Jose,

I use a mix of the sources you mentioned. The record of incumbents and the life experiences of non-incumbents are important to me. Issues matter to me more than charisma or party. Val

My graduate students analyze the events in the evening. In the morning a 15-minute coffee break thoroughly inform me. Critical and briefly.

I prefer magazines and social networking sites in a comparative setting.

It is important that the people in powerful positions are equipped with the skills which will to enable them to deal appropriately with the information they encounter, and make good, well informed decisions. Information literacy is not an optional skill, it’s an essential requirement in order to be able to work effectively, and one which people in power must develop if they want their views on topics to be respected.

Example - Information literacy issues in the real world

http://theinformed.org.uk/2013/10/information-literacy-issues-in-the-real-world/

The relationship between media and politics, along with the specific problem of the influence of the media on the political opinions of citizens, has often been the subject of communication research. The positions of the researchers can be summarized in three paradigms:

The first considers the media as subordinate to the political system, which controls them more or less directly, and use them to maintain power and influence citizens.

The second paradigm, however, considers the media as independent power and have considerable influence on the political system.

The third paradigm that is in the middle between the two, and considering the relationship between the media and politics as a continuous negotiation and an attempt of mutual influence.

Radio, TV, Magazines and newspaper.

Newspapers (web based or printed),

Radio or TV programs,

but I prefer a mix of these sources.

Nice question, which always trouble our mind !!

I prefer and mix the sources, as you can find lots of biased news in all media. After reading various sources also you need to use your mind. Perhaps, here our intution as a researcher plays its role. That is the reason, I try to read/listen various sources depending on the available time at my disposal.

All news media select and present news depending on their rationale and preference. One news media may criticise government or political system for some reason while other for another reasons. Some may highlight one issue while other may emphasize different one in a different way. furthermore, a number of leading newspaper, TV channels in India one way or the another influenced by some political party. Therefore, to get unbiased information/reports, I follow multiple news sources viz., newspapers, social sites, Radio, TV, etc. and correlate the news with my own understanding of political scenario in the society as well as in the country.

For me what I like of a new is its correct information, that says the truth. One can find it better in a mean which says explicitly the truth. I find this in Catholic information before that in other means without explicit or implicit compromise of veracity.

Went through various medium available and different news provider to obtain news. Media conglomeration and commercialization nowadays make it impossible to trust 100% on specific news provider or/and the medium. Without us realising, in one way or another, news presented most likely to be biased to serve their ideological beliefs or culture. 

Dear Jose! Dear all!

About 200 years ago, a brilliant poet Alexander Griboyedov in his poem "Woe from Wit?" ironically obscurantist official wrote the phrase:

"If we are to stop the evil,

Pick up the book to all - and to burn ... "

Are there now such an opinion in the responses in relation to the media?

Dear all

I also agree mass media can be divided into two categories. The first is subordinate to the political system or government. It serves for politic.The second is subordinate to big financial clique. It serves for the financial clique. But both are used to control public mass. If one doesn’t want to be controlled, he must use his mind.  

Being overpressed with the mass media manipulative technologies, some of us are very close to the Griboyedov hero's conclusion, dear Dr Kulchitsky! 

Dear Olga, I was surprised that even Fahrenheit been calculated to burn.

Electronic media such as TV and Radio. 

I trust print media, the printed version and the stories on the media house's website and TV. I don't trust blogs because anyone can write even-though they are not trained journalists.

To trust or not to trust a source of news is dependent on your own schema, your previously learned knowledge and experience. You may have learned to trust some sources for what they are but soon they too can become obsolete or untrustworthy for some reason or account.  Sources of information tend to lean to one or more philosophies and belief in their own righteousness which may not be aligned to our own beliefs or culture. When we lack our own knowledge we tend to adopt what is known to others. when we lack the resources to know the truth for ourselves it becomes convenient to add what is known from available sources. Different sources of news claim they know more than their closest competitor. From  there on even the bearest of simple news becomes commercialized product constantly competing for reach and acceptance. Media conglomeration and commercialization have taken plain truth to dimensions and scales so uncomprehensible to man that man and man cannot even agree to eat the same food sitting on the same table. What has gone wrong? What is common truth? What source of news to trust? News is so porous, laiden with political bias that it is impossible to trust news carried by any medium. You are the rightful judge to make that evaluation to trust or not to trust.

You will tend to learn  more if you give  confidence to the media that you trust. Credibility and trust are key factors in  making audience members to rely on particular sources of information and also to guide them in making decisions. If audience members do not trust their media they would either decline purchase or will read with  scepticism. On the other hand if audience members trust their media sources they would tend to get  rely on them  for information.

Owners of media at times do not give full attention to winning the trust of their readers (consumers). They would put out news on the assumption that audience members would read and eventually decide on what they had been  provided for without giving due consideration to  the trust that the audience members have on these sources. Without trust the audience members would think that the media are not telling the truth or the editors have something to hide , presumably being forced to do at the behest of the authorities that be.

It would take years of hardwork  and commitment for editors to gain the confidence of the audience. It is worth the effort.

On the other hand given a media system that does not allow for full portrayal of news or that the media system does not allow for the media to have divergent viewpoints, audience members would tend to read/use them but with scepticism, meaning that they would extract for factual items but disregard the items that are likely to draw their faith based on biased reporting.

  For the Belgian news I look at the BBC nowadays.

BBC, France 24 and CNN

Magazines, BBC, and some Blogs and some newspapers

I have observed that even so called unbiased media are not 100% trust worthy. Best is to use your perception.

If you  areideologically committed, you might be selecting those media that would present reports  that would be pleasing for you to read or watch or listen. You would then regard these media as most trusting.  One would therefore not be able to say whether objectively these media are biased or not, based on the trust that the readers had acknowledged them. Given media and audience fragmentation, audience would self select those news or media sources that are in line with their interest and slant. On the  other hand,  less ideologically slanted audience would also welcome news that  are also discrepant with their attitude or thinking in order for them to acknowledge ideas that are different.  Their trust of media would be more general than those  who are firm in their belief on certain issues.  Therefore it is better for you to read with an  open mind various sources.

New media such as Blogs, Facebook, and twitter

I think a mix of several sources is a healthy approach to consuming news distributors. If you rely on one source without consulting other opinions and perceptions you might adopt the wrong vantage point because several news sources use their plattform for the purpose of propaganda.

Due to this fact I find it difficult to trust news reports these days and therefore try to collect several points of view in order to build my own.

A mix of television/radio news, online news organizations, news print, and magazines such as Newsweek. Social media and blogs are too full of people with agendas or people creating false information in order to stir up trouble.

Dear Eduardo, my medium of preference is an astrologer. He is more trustworthy than most media people: when he is inventing stuff, he tells me so. We laugh a lot, and sometimes he hits the mark. Statistically, his score at foretelling what is going to happen is higher than that of the guys on the evening news. This is probably due, not to the stars, but to his sheer intelligence and logic. Dear RG friends, trust your intelligence more than those tv anchors who let the ship crash onto the shore of sheer shtupidity... shhhhhhhhhh.

:-)

Lilliana

Radio and TV programmes.

To be honest, none. You need to read between the line and get your information from different sources. Most countries has a foreign news station to put forward their point of view. Why they feel they are compelled to do so?

Tabloid paper are produced for less educated people hence they can't beat about the bush and mince their word, in hiding their true color. But sophisticated papers and TV & radio they don't tel outright  lies. They are selective in what they report and how they report. In other word they have a view (and only employ those to subscribes to this view) and only news which will fit  the view pass the filter. 

I trust Telegram's Secret Chats more than many of their alternatives these days! This may sound strange for some!

Very difficult question to answer.

Each media has its own agenda and they allow broadcasting of information that suits its agenda.

I usually get information from mixed media and accordingly I make conclusions.

Best regards.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

I must say, your answers are always so charming! I say this sincerely.

You wrote:

my medium of preference is an astrologer. He is more trustworthy than most media people: when he is inventing stuff, he tells me so. We laugh a lot, and sometimes he hits the mark. Statistically, his score at foretelling what is going to happen is higher than that of the guys on the evening news. This is probably due, not to the stars, but to his sheer intelligence and logic. Dear RG friends, trust your intelligence more than those tv anchors ...

---End quotation

Of course, I don't really believe in astrology at all, or anything similar. I take my clue from your final line, "trust your intelligence."

But we could go on in a somewhat similar manner. Why not an "oracle," after all!

You'll recall that among the ancient Romans, e.g., when they had to do anything important, like fighting a battle, or launching a great plan, they would consult an oracle, or soothsayer, to advise them. (We moderns, of course, want to laugh. What good would it possibly do, we wonder, to cut open a chicken and take a look at the innards in forecasting success or failure?)

But consider for a moment that these oracles or soothsayers (though not, of course, possessed of any magical powers) could still advise, in some fashion, if they functioned as political advisors. Surely, their knowledge of the politics of a given situation would have to be pretty astute, if they were to survive in any credibility in this honored role. So, I think it plausible at least that they gave political advise on the viability of actions in some sort of coded form. 

Imagine the guild of the soothsayers with connections everywhere and among themselves. Each would bring to the moment of decision the information needed to make a judgment or decision and pass it on to the general, or overt decision maker. If it were not pretty sound advice, then the advisor suffers the consequences, of course. But the secret of the matter would then be, that the decisions apparently made on the spot by the overt decision makers are actually a sort of "back room" matter, decided, in effect by the political consultation of the soothsayer guild. Cutting open the chicken on the spot is then only a stimulus to the announcement and a mystification of the process.

Are our contemporary methods of decision so very different? Not, I suppose, if "open discussion and debate" are only the foreground of extensive political acquiescence among key participants. 

What do you think? Might various "oracles" be in play in on-line discussions?

H.G. Callaway

Credibility is perhaps the most necessary aspect in media, and the more unbased, and informative the publication is, the more credible it is.

Media sources are nowadays considered as  the major source of information  to public by and large. Nowadays , before crime is convicted , media trial starts immediately and with the same speed,  so claimed accused is convicted or accused. but , media have to be very much unbiased towards  cutting edge factual reporting  so that media earns distinction of unbiased reporting .

Media are just that - vehicles, means of passing the information and very few of them are politically pure - owned by only one party or current.

However, they establish their style over time and we may like particular columns, programs, series. To that we may add journalists with their own style and preferences, etc.

Politicians would go to various media to appeal to the respective audience. But you would notice that they would appear more frequently in specific shows or programs to appeal to their supporters who identify with such programs, or because they feel comfortably in the company of particular journalists (trust may be based purely on personal characteristics rather than political affiliation).    

Personally I prefer to observe one's speech, modes of expression, gestures, above all logic over time. Language is secondary to logic, not vice versa, but language tells us a lot about any person, above all in politics. The more components, the better, therefore media with some audio (or video) would be preferable.

You know, if you happen to speak several languages, the best way is to read media from different language areas.

Language areas, unbeknownst to themselves, have their own very specific biases and areas of ignorance (for instance, regardless of left/right political stripe I find that virtually all German media do not understand the US at all, and likewise that US/UK/AUS media do not understand Germany at all. (I lived in all these areas BTW, so I can tell.) Bottom line: read a range of press from different language areas, synthesize, and you should get close to the truth.

Information Flow on Politics, Scams are daily communications in Indian News segment

In Portugal, I follow a news paper that began in the ancient régime with democratic ideas, called Expresso.

Newspapers, radio and TV programmes and magazines since these media sources have journalists who interact directly and indirectly with people to get information from them - sometimes at all cost.

I prefer to read coverage of same news from different newspapers which belong to different lobby. i watch audio-visual coverage with the same principle. Then I build my own opinion.

I believe that all media sources are intentionally or subliminally biased and therefore I do not trust them. Social networking sites at least five us some semblance of "the pulse of the people."

The following colleagues sent me their answers:

Prof. Rodrigo de la Peña, Independent Researcher (Mexico):

"The immediate is best known for television or radio, but newspapers remain the best and most complete source of information on political issues, although gradually blogs tend to be an additional source necessary. Then, a mixture of newspapers and radio programs and blogs TV is apparently ideal."

Prof. Rathish Nair, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (India):

"Going with the contradicting reviews and news in the print media these days, it is one's intelligence and instincts which should be trusted to analyze these political news reports which are being flashed in front of your eyes each day"

Prof. Reeta Dar, Indian Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi (India):

"A mix of all media.I read newspaper,watch TV,see blogs and then form my own opinion."

Dear H.G. Callaway:

I am a sort of non-believer, not yet wallowing in cynicism, but almost there... so...

The press is there to press its point, sometimes with a hot iron without an ironing board, and sometimes bordering on pure irony. I once worked as press aide at (of all places) the local Water Authority, a quite large public company. It was incredible all the press would invent just because no one among them knew about water chemistry, water storage, the use of fluoride and chloride, much less about state and federal water quality regulations... During a severe draught in 1990, people kept watching the water level of our most important lake (please remember, ours is a tropical island where it rains abundantly almost every day...), but people just kept wasting water washing the car, spraying water all over, etc. Finally the day came when we had to ration the water. Everyone was furious, and the press, that had been broadcasting for many months our  tips and techniques for saving water, accused the Water Authority of not telling people what do do!

While I was Minister of Culture, I had a fine relationship with the press because I thought that telling the truth was always the easiest way out of anything. The challenge was to find the truth. If I did not find the truth I would just say so. But every time someone complained about the performance of my agency, someone from the press called me to check even if I had already talked about the issue and shared information and documents with them. Of course, I already knew most press people do not read... 

According to a recent poll, in the U.S.A. almost nobody knows about (much less understands what is) "global warming", and thus any type of news show or debate will not have any effect. Education is essential for people to infer by themselves what is going on. The lower the education level, the more capricious, folkloric, stupid, and/or oracular can the press be. The History Channel invents history in shows and series that incur in constant travestism; the Food Channel invents tournaments where chefs act like gladiators, pure ego trips for idiotic parvenus, though food is about peace and delight. The evening news in all channels have so many little screens and ticker tape-kind of text that it is impossible to to tell apart the important from the banal, the urgent from the forgettable. 

So, I do believe we personally depend on our own capacity to deduct, induct and abduct. Each citizen interested in "The Truth" will have to check weird sources like local psychics, foreign correspondents, your trusted neighbor, basically will have to learn to haruspicate and scry, which I find is nice because these methods are "ancestral", "quaint", proven (well, yes, I'm smiling... this is so funny). That is what pundits do, anyway. For a given situation, the pundit offers an educated guess of what caused it and what it will become. And, if it were true that history does not repeat itself, well, the pundit would have to invent, just as my astrologer... So my mantra always is "The Truth is out there".

I've always preferred to "abduct", to risk a "leap of faith", which for me is just a metaphor. I am a relentless non believer who choses astrology because it is a very complex hermeneutical process: Aristotle gave the name theoreía to stargazing, probably because of the incredible intelligence people needed to infer and form constellations from a random mass of stars. To make up constellations, to read the stars, is to look for what Henry James called, in a beautiful short story, "the figure in the carpet". In the Middle Ages, that was called inventio: to regroup existing elements into a new, more meaningful, form or scheme. So, when I talk about "astrology", I am talking about theoreía, and when I invoke this venerable Aristotelian word, I am talking about the ever-changing, analysis-resistant figura of our ever-changing world. I do not believe in what the stars can tell me, but I learn a lot trying to apply the process of theoreía to understanding our present freakish "nightscape" of world events: our worldly constellations. Method. It is a matter of method. 

Best regards, Lilliana

Lilliana

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lilliana,

I am always much impressed with your way with words!

Yes, I do understand, its "theoria," as you say, alike with the astrologers and the soothsayers. Also consider Socrates' "daemon." Its a matter of all ancient procedures of "abduction," in a sense. I just had the soothsayers conferring behind the scenes to get an image of a more "educated" guessing. We use the word "pundit" for newspaper writers in somewhat the same way.

I took you to be teasing the learned contributors to this thread, and couldn't resist joining in a bit!

Howard

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G., debates should also be fun. There should be joy in knowledge.

Oh! Apuleius!!! Apart from Socrates' Daimon, have you read his Golden Ass? A splendid novel!!!

Hey! I am well aware that my English still needs a lot of polish...

:-)

Lilliana

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Why you shouldn’t always trust social media for your world news and views, 

By Elliott Stein, ONE member, United Kingdom

Times have changed dramatically. We no longer sit in front of the television every evening and watch the news religiously. We don’t wait for each morning to arrive to eat breakfast while reading the newspaper.

Nowadays, the combination of mobile devices and increasingly busy lives mean we digest our news on the go. People turn to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter for news as it happens: you could go as far as to call it a “news revolution.”

The question is, how reliable is this new source?

This instant access has shortened the lifespan of news. Stories can pick up steam and receive mass coverage through a few taps on a screen, but with the amount of news being pushed towards us we lose interest just as quickly.

Research conducted by Pew Research Center states that at least 50% of social media users have shared a news-related story, image or video; and 46% of users discuss current events on these channels. And with the technology we now have at our fingertips, we are all becoming news reporters. Stories are being broken before the traditional media even get a chance to arrive at the scene. Look no further than the outbreak of Ebola or the riots in Ferguson, Missouri.".....

Please, see the original article for detail....

http://www.one.org/us/2014/10/30/why-you-shouldnt-always-trust-social-media-for-your-world-news-and-views/

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lilliana,

Your intelligence, joy and erudition always shine through!

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G, I have learned a lot from my friends... :-)

Lilliana

Hi Hazim,

It is a joy to read your post.

Dear Prof. Yasseri,

Good Day,

Thanks for the upvote and very glad you like my post.

Tribute to experience humanity is manifested in the ability to develop the wisdom and experience of generations to daily activities.

Dear Hazim! You combine the wonderful wisdom of the past, with a view to the development of society in the future.