Quote: 
The Epoch Times did several things right in its reporting. Multiple AllSides panelists noted that the publication did a good job of citing multiple sources across the political spectrum and of using full quotes in its reporting — not snippets or phrases taken out of context. The publication did not display common types of media bias such as spin, sensationalism, opinion presented as fact, unsubstantiated claims, flawed logic, or omission of source attribution. In today’s increasingly polarized media landscape, the panel agreed it was good to see Epoch Times journalists presenting full quotes from both sides of the aisle in order to present a fair and balanced story.
 
One team member noted The Epoch Times always used the word “said” or “told reporters,” and avoided common spin words and phrases that confer judgement upon the speaker, such as, “admitted,” “tirade,” “refused to say,” “conceded,” or “bragged.” Much of The Epoch Times’ reporting was balanced; its right bias was mostly displayed via story choice.

(01-09-2024, 07:01 AM)Halfswede Wrote: I happily pay the subscription for the full Epoch Times. The free is still very good though. They are non-profit and not owned by big advert companies We paid the price when we started ingesting the "free" news model.

There isn't much fluff in any article. It's always well-sourced and pretty extensive in reporting.  They are conservative leaning, but factual.  Even allsides.com gives them similar assessment. Article selection is going to lean conservative, but the reporting is balanced and thorough. Also, comment censorship is pretty much only for filth. I can recommend all of their documentaries (Covid origins, J6, etc.)

Allsides - Epoch Times
They are also the best source in most cases for anything coming from inside China as the company was founded by those that fled communism there and they have lots of inside connections.

(01-18-2024, 01:09 AM)opethNJ Wrote: For me personally I would never use The Epoch Times, Natural News, The Gateway Pundit or The Conservative TreeHouse as a solo source due to their far Right, Conspiracy driven perspectives. Along those lines I don't use Reddit or 4Chan as a solo source. Finally,  I don't like to use CNN, MSM or Wiki as solo source.

Unless its a topic I am already knowldgeable on I try to getting confirming information on whatever item from multiple different sources.

(01-18-2024, 10:13 AM)Halfswede Wrote: That seems like a very overt effort of guilt by association -- GWP and Conservative Treehouse have a long history of just making things up.  I know you used sole-source as the caveat, but your list and comments have me suspicious that you haven't bothered to even read them.  If that isn't the case, perhaps you could be more specific about what you found to be untrue.

I would challenge you to find one non-factual article on ET.  You may not like conservative ideals, but the articles are always heavily sourced and they often have exclusives because of significant FOIA and investigative efforts, such as Ashley Babbit's shooter calling in an 'active shooter' situation to cover his butt. Even their coverage of election fraud and J6 has only ever stuck with presentable facts. 

To be fair there are people to this day who think any mention of Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinfo and should be censored in spite of the DOJ admitting it and its contents are real, so who are the real conspiracy-driven folks?

I wouldn't sole-source any news, but this thread is about good news sites that present fair and accurate news.

Once again, I would challenge you to read and post one article from there that isn't factual. It has quite a bit of very good coverage on sports, economy, science, arts and literature as well. Politics is not the main focus even though it is on everyone's mind and at the forefront of almost all media.

(01-20-2024, 06:43 PM)opethNJ Wrote: I listed 7 total sites that I wouldn't use as a solo source with those being: The Epoch Times, Natural News, TGP, CTH, 4Chan, Reddit, CNN, MSN, Wiki. I have to wonder why you focused on The Epoch Times ( a conservative site) vs realizing that its essentially 50% democrat and 50% republican which I would not solo source. 

Still, I have no bias towards either side because , much like I said over and over on a past site, I do not not think that the current POTUS and the last POTUS are anywhere near good enough to lead this country. That both parties have to do way better then they have. 

In regards to The Epoch Times again as shown on that other site I don't believe in posting anything unless I have good information to make and informed decision on whatever it is I am saying. I've been to The Epoch Times quite a bit and just by looking at the article rotation you can easily see they are anti-vax which I don't agree with and very pro-Trump. Inherently people or sites should be able to believe what they want so at its core I support them being antivax and huge supporters of Trump. I disagree with both but as I said, I support their choice to do just that. Which leads to that list of sites I wouldn't solo source. When trying to figure out the truth, using anything or anyone with a clear bias means you are only getting 1 side of the story.

(01-20-2024, 07:53 PM)Halfswede Wrote: This thread is about "Are there any decent news sites anymore?". That's it.  Not what is the best sole-source news site?. 

I listed one as part of the discussion, and you appeared to lump it in with some very suspect news sites (GWP, CT) known for peddling outright falsehoods. and called it conspiracy-driven.  All I did was try and clear up what I considered misinformation about the one that I originally presented as a good news site. That's why I focused on it.


...

As to anti-vax, a lot of people equate anything negative about the covid vax as anti-vax.  They know they are being disingenuous, but they still do it because it makes the people questioning one vaccine sound extreme and ignorant. I disagree with that approach.  Historically many vaccine rollouts wound up with significant regrets. There are plenty of people including many many doctors and scientists, especially now that the data is out, that rightfully questioned the covid vax. 

Of course, the MSM painted all doctors not buying the narrative as quacks. We all remember and there are plenty of news articles to illustrate this. Many were very highly respected in the field of immunology yet journalists with no medical experience got to wield the club of "Science" and shut them down.

People still call those that didn't trust the COVID vax as "anti-vax" to paint them with a certain light. You may want to consider that. ET only ever posted sourced journal info, gov't info from FOIA requests etc. and rightfully questioned the narrative. It turns out it wasn't so effective or safe, so who was really reporting correctly -- the MSM that said it was nearly 100% effective and nobody could die from it or transmit COVID, or others simply reporting what turned out to be verified significant side-effects and pretty weak efficacy?

Sorry to go off topic, but "anti-vax" is just a purposefully misused term for painting things in a poor light.

(01-02-2024, 05:26 PM)Byrd Wrote: You can look at the Media bias chart: https://adfontesmedia.com/ad-fontes-media-releases-new-media-bias-chart/

I use a number of sources -- NPR, Wall Street Journal (right-leaning), CBS, local news (actually it's the local PBS station), BBC, AlJazeera, Reuters, and AP News

Yes, I scan them all every morning, reading stories from each.  I find that this gives me a broader picture than reading just one source.

(01-22-2024, 12:20 AM)opethNJ Wrote:  

Why do you get to dictate what a decent news site is though?

(01-22-2024, 10:46 AM)Halfswede Wrote: It's a thread asking for news suggestions. I offered one. I don't really know how to respond if that is your takeaway from anything that's been said.