I just read an article on CBS news which is disgustingly full of deception and lies. 

It is entitled:  "Stephen Hawking bashes religion, but what does new paper say about God?"  Steven Hawking announced that there is no way there could be a creator of the universe.  The article can be found here: 





Also CBS had another deceptive news cast that made a little black boy appear to want to have a gun and be a criminal when he actually said he wanted to be a police officer but they cut that part out. Of course there is the Rupert Murdoch media empire, all of which I no longer view or take seriously.  The Washington Post is reaching the same lows of Fox News. 


What sources can we trust?  I have a few websites I go to for secular and unbiased news.  Does anyone else feel as if we are being filled with lies more and more and deceptive news? 



Views: 1169

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Fuck it!!!
I am FUCKING TIRED of this Fucking editor dropping three-quarters of everything I fucking type.

I was always wary of this channel until someone introduced me to it,I watch it quite a lot these days as it is a excellent news channel for story's in the middle east,and like b.b.c it is just news, no sides, just good reporting on what is actually happening,no agenda, just as it happen's,which is what news should be.Well said Morgan.I hope other members take note and maybe have a watch sometime to see how news is presented outside of America,no thrills news.

There will always be biased news. It just seems that major American news networks are more heavily biased than most.

I think people have to differentiate opinionated news programs from actual regular news programs. For example - Shepherd Smith is not biased. Shepherd Smith is in fact less biased than Anderson Cooper and I have a lot of love for A.C. and admire his work he has been doing in Kenya and Somalia with Dr. Sanjay Gupta the last couple of days :)

It's not different at all. The reason Wilder's speech was an issue is because it was held as inciting hatred against a specific group. It wasn't about suppressing his opinions themselves.

Again, the KKK are permitted in their rallies to freely yell the N-word to the black people opposing them in the rallies and it is protected speech. It is not called "inciting hatred" in the United States.

They have never been inside of a courtroom for yelling the N-word; the Supreme Court has ruled that as free speech. In fact, you can say a good nice "fuck you" to a police officer and he has no right to arrest you.

Now, if you threaten and say you are going to "kill them" or "hurt them" - that is a threat.

You are using obsolete local statues that would be overturned if an individual appealed it to the supreme court. It is also illegal to have oral and anal sex accorded by some local statues. If Mr. Wilders had referred to Muslims as "Sand N******" I think we all know he would have been found guilty in the case agianst him; do you concur Arcus?

If he referred to Muslims as "Sand N******" he would have been convicted since he would have been then referring to individual Muslims and not simply the religion. The whole reason he was found "not guilty" is because the judges ruled he didn't attack individual Muslims but simply the religion itself.

against*, today I keep making fuckin typos.

The n-word is english and I doubt it would be punishable in a Dutch court. It's not really words which are punished, but rather an incitement to hatred against weak minorities. On the other side, a doubt a Dutchman could ever be convicted for hate speech against Germans, and they quite often have some choice ideas about what to do to/with their neighbors (usually humorous). You can also see some of this rhetoric used by the Flemish against the Wallonians by Vlaams Belang.

It should be noted that I ardently oppose any hate speech laws on the basis of only acts of violence, not words of hated, should be punishable by law. Pointing out in vivid language the issues with any violent dogma should be heralded, not punished.

You shouldn't trust any source to be unbiased and unfair, and that even includes academic papers. Trust your own critical and skeptical mind!

I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show summed up my opinion quite nicely in his interviews with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly and Chris Wallace.


-The 24hr news networks have a left leaning sensationalist bias, meaning they'll try to make some things more newsworthy than they are to get a emotional rise out of people, thus keeping ratings high (or to get them higher)


-Fox News is the conservative response to the left leaning bias specifically, in which some ways they are right that the bias exists; however, the response by the network and right wing radio has been so extreme that the political and media spectrums have been heavily polarized. Not only was the response incorrect but it is now done in an activist and immature fashion.


-The more neutral networks are boring as hell.


-The Daily Show is a comedy program that should not be in the same category as a news network yet it is for 2 reasons: news media outlets are heavily polarized and lazy, and due to this polarization and laziness, this news media circle has unknowningly drawn itself closer to the comedic satire sphere.


-The Young Turks has good amount of liberal bias too-hell practically anything involved in the blogosphere or youtube/internet does have a bias on either side of the spectrum.


-as of yet, there is no large news network of straight up news and honest debate, while also keeping the viewers entailed in watching the network.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service