How to find reliable sources?, I am having trouble with it
How to find reliable sources?
I will tell you what Oromagi and Tejrectics will come and say: Look at the sources on the Wikipedia articles on the topic (located at the botttom of the page and referenced within the text).
Now I will tell you a simple concept; Google is rigged for the popular and respected sources to show up on the first page of most searches on a topic. Use your own brain to figure out which are worth using. Notice I said popular and respected, not necessarily correct. That's the key in understanding which sources are best to use in debates vs which to use in real life to find truth. Respected sources have truth, I am not denying that, but the link between being popular, well-respected and honest are much more the first 2 traits completing themselves than the latter being necessitated.
hmm, yeah I can do that, I used to use a pro/con website and look at the sources, I might do that with Wikipedia,Google sucks and is rigged for liberals.
Ask ya Mom.
Google being rigged for Liberals is a conspiracy theory that is common among people who are new to Illuminati concepts and definitely is a common notion amongst flat earthers (I am unusual in that I am a Progressive flat earther).
Google is not rigged for Liberals at all. It is the only Illuminati Media-control company that is dedicated to balancing both sides out and I can prove it to you, if you will bear with me. You are clearly an individual with a very Conservative history on your Google search, yes? Do you login while searching and have cookies etc? Go ahead and search controversial issues please, I will like you to take note of the first results that show up. You will notice they are all sided with the majority of the side your previous searches had. The pro-Liberal sources will likely be having a lot of wording in common with previous searches you had even though they are on the 'other side'. Go ahead and try this, let me know the results.
Ok I did gun control, here are my results
3.Washington Post(Left Wing)
5.Fox News(Right Wing)
Try more specific search than just 2 words. Washington Post is Centrist as fuck, if anything it's Republican-sided, it is mainly themed around investigating and exaggerating.
The words 'gun control' are not used often by right-wing sources. They will used 'gun rights' and 'gun ban'.
Politico is not left wing. They are Centrist.
I said Gun rights in America and got procon, wikipedia,NRA,opensecrtes, and pewresearch
Washington Post is hella left wing
Which proves so far it's sided with neither. Are you searching while logged into your Gmail and on a browser where your history is linked?
You're receiving very centrist results overall so far, all it's giving is the latest news it seems. The order of the searches are a tiny bit different for me. The reason for that difference is obvious to me but overall very good balance so far.
Please prove that WP is sided with Dems more so than Rep.
The Washington Post has a Lean Left media bias rating. AllSides gives The Washington Post this media bias rating with high confidence.
A March 2013 AllSides blind bias survey found that The Washington Post has a Lean Left media bias. To conduct a blind bias survey, AllSides gathers readers from all over the political bias spectrum, and has them read and rate the bias of articles blindly — without telling them who wrote the article or which media outlet it came from. Then, we take the average bias rating of several articles from a given media outlet to arrive at our final bias rating. AllSides normalizes this data, making sure that the survey audience accurately reflects the social and political diversity of the nation.
A majority of over 7,000 community members agreed with a Lean Left AllSides Media Bias Rating as of July 2016. Among those who disagreed, 66 members gave the newspaper an average bias rating of 58.8, putting The Washington Post on the boundary of a Lean Left and Center media bias rating. These results, along with a 2005 UCLA study measuring media bias, reinforce AllSides' Lean Left Washington Post bias rating.
The Post has endorsed Democratic presidential candidates for at least nine presidential elections and has never endorsed a Republican for president.
The Washington Post was sued for defamation on February 19, 2019, following biased media reporting on a viral video of Covington Catholic High School students in January 2019. Attorneys for Covington student Nick Sandmann claim the Post published seven "false and defamatory articles." The complaint states:
"... [T]he Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann ("Nicholas"), an innocent secondary school child. The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red "Make America Great Again" souvenir cap on a school field trip ...
[T]he Post knew and intended that its false and defamatory accusations would be republished by others, including media outlets and others on social media."
In December 2016, The Post published what some called "fake news" — a story that falsely claimed a Russian hacking operation had infiltrated the U.S. electrical grid.
The publication has been accused of both liberal and conservative biases over the years. American journalist and commentator Bill Moyers said that in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Post ran "more than 140 stories on its front page promoting the [Iraq] war, while contrary information 'got lost,' as one Post staffer told [journalist Howard] Kurtz."
In a study published in April 2007, a group of Yale professors found that study participants who were given a free subscription to the Post were 7.9–11.4% more likely to vote for the Democrat candidate for governor than those assigned to a control group. However, people who received a free subscription to the Washington Times, a conservative paper, were also more likely than controls to vote for the Democrat. The study authors said a sampling error might have played a role, as well as the fact that the Democrat candidate had more conservative positions than is typical for a Democrat, and "the month prior to the post-election survey was a difficult period for President Bush, one in which his overall approval rating fell by approximately 4 percentage points nationwide. It appears that heightened exposure to both papers’ news coverage, despite opposing ideological slants, moved public opinion away from Republicans."
According to a 2009 Oxford University Press book by Richard Davis on the impact of blogs on American politics, liberal bloggers link to The Washington Post and The New York Times more often than other major newspapers; yet, conservative bloggers also link often to liberal newspapers.
Have you ever considered that the reason for that bias is that the left wing are the better wing with less corruption and scandals overall? WP has posted things against the left wing and their candidates plenty of times, I don't trust a website that says it 'checks for bias' and then demands you to trust that it, itself, is not biased.
No, left wing presidents have been just as corrupt as right wing. Trump's scandals were all a big nothing burger,
You are one funny guy, Trump is probably the least corrupt of the Republicans and I was referring to Nixon and Reagan more so than anyone else. Please do explain the 'corruption' of anyone other than Hillary (which is corruption to maintain world peace and tame the Middle East which wanted revenge for Bush).
Obama had many scandals from birth certificate to election meddling. Nixon sure, Reagan not so much, Lyndon B.Johnson at his core was very corrupt and a awful man. The CIA ruthlessly hunted with him as President. WP will happily write one hundred articles about Trump's nothing burger but not Hillary's
LOL! Even if Obama is a test tube baby, that is literally the ONLY thing you can say about him. LOL!
Johnson was very corrupt, that's true. He also was involved in the assassination of Kennedy so put 2 and 2 together. WP wasn't pro-Johnson all that much to my knowledge.
Hillary Clinton isn't as corrupt as people make out, it was an error in e-mail security on her part as well as being involved financially with 'globalist agenda' groups who wanted world peace.
Obama sucked so incredibly bad, he tripled the cyber threats, doubled the national debt, Obamacare was a disaster, His foreign policy was ATROCIOUS. ISIS, Syria, Iraq,Russia,China all ROSE UNDER HIM, HE SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**Laughs in Jerry Epstein***
Atrocious? Compared to what? The foreign policy of Bushes and Trump? Obama made the middle east finally no longer loathe the US (the nail bomber was a Russian, not an Iraqi or something) and then in comes Trump. Do you know the countries that Trump enacted the higher air transport regulations on were the ones who hadn't attacked the US? Research it, it's actually disgustingly obvious how much Saudi influenced his decisions.