Judy, but all the sources you review here are MSM. Care to extend your review to alternative media sites you like? It seems the online/alternative media is having a huge impact on the MSM print and broadcast media. With the alternative media acting as a watchdog and competitor they cannot ignore. For intelligence matters and stories with a powerful corporate vested interested scores of whistleblowers have alleged the MSM witholds or slants stories to serve these vested interests. Take for example the following quotes by CIA Directors:
We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981) The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.--William Colby, Director of Central Intelligence These and scores of others indicate that one needs to go beyond MSM to get a true understanding when powerful vested interests have a stake in a story. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brian64705 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Judy, If by "reputable" you mean main stream media, I have > > to disagree when it comes to investigations of very powerful > > vested interests. > > No, the phrase I used was "reputable news sources." That > could be the MSM in some cases; it could be various > alternative sources, including blogs and news and > commentary Web sites, in others; books in still others; > and so on. > > In each category, some are more reputable than others. > You have to check out a source's reliability, cross- > checking with other sources, and make your own judgments. > Each one is will have its biases, so you need to identify > and take those into account as well. And most important > of all, you need to be aware of your *own* biases. > > > But what I find heartening in this story is indeed now we > > seem to be seeing more truth in main stream outlets such > > as Bloomberg. > > Bloomberg's not bad among the MSM. An MSM source I've > found to be pretty reliable is McClatchey. The NYTimes > has done some excellent investigative reporting (but > they fall down hard in other areas). Rachel Maddow of > MSNBC has done some good stuff but also some bad stuff. > CNN has long since lost its edge, so I don't pay much > attention to it. It tries so hard to be objective that > it ends up being uselessly bland. > > > And I am seeing it in Fox going after the Federal > > Reserve/AIG scandal which may be the biggest fraud in > > US history. > > I don't trust Fox any further than I can throw it. That > doesn't mean it doesn't occasionally get something correct, > but its right-wing bias is extreme, and all too often it > isn't careful with facts. (It has one anchor, Shep Smith, > whom I tend to trust. He's so popular and so principled > that Fox treats him with kid gloves even when he doesn't > uphold the Fox party line.) > > But I wouldn't put much stock in any Fox story or > investigation unless it was backed up by many other > sources across the political spectrum. > > And Christopher Story is just beyond the pale. Why you > waste any time on his site, I can't imagine. >
