I have my trusted news sites but IF Stone always argued aim for original sources. I do not believe in reputable new sites reporting any variance in facts; there op-ed sections could conflict but that is commentary. Off site I'd like to now the new sites in conflict.

There was no Fake News back then

Owners (or person in charge) of the network choose what to broadcast and how based on their political viewpoints. Simple as that. Today, there is no unbiased news so fact checking is constant.

Great, thought-provoking blog Rona. I commend you for questioning the news! When big tech has so much control over what is out there, you never know what to believe. What’s even more scary, is that most of the fact checking websites are biased also!

And so the question of who to trust remains… it used to be so simple; never trust anyone over 30….
Is there an exception for Bruce Springsteen?

Back in Detroit, we had two newspapers. They reported the same stories from different perspectives. When I worked in DC part of my job was to read all of the print media and much of the internet which at that time was not so much. We then compared and, again, the same news reported from different perspectives. So not much has changed other than we have more sources of information and it remains incumbent on each of us to determine what makes sense because it confirms our pre-existing notions or what we wish were true and what doesn't make sense because it flies in the face of what we see. And of course, follow the money/agenda when it comes to the source.

Where to begin. My father lives in Florida and I live in NYC and we arrive at the opposite view of the same issue consistently. I think it all changed due to the 24-hour news cycle (CNN, etc.) and the need to make news entertaining and garner high ratings. This is exacerbated by social media, which makes anyone with a website and a facebook account a source of news. Throw in outside money from large corporations that seek to influence the news and we have a problem. I would welcome the day if we got back to reading local newspapers. I think internet and social media has ruined everything. BTW, I am a website designer! :)

I have always been skeptical of so many things I read in the newspapers. (The New York Times every day.)I recall when reading about our bombing of Hiroshima that our press did not tell their non-Japanese readers the true story of the death and destruction caused by our nuclear weapons. Every time I hear a certain type of declaration having to do with politics, international relations, war, and so on, I say "wait until the memoirs, biographies, autobiographies, or the histories are published." Although those too can be influenced by the truth or falsehoods writers and journalists are privy to, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment about much of the stuff we read in the papers or what passes for news from the various sites we may follow. (One of my favorites is the BBC app.) I do not listen to TV or radio news. Remember the evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, supposedly George Bush believed it, and his sidekicks Cheney and Rumsfeld tried to make us believe it, but there weren't any. And lastly, the Vietnam War, if ever there was a barrage of fake news it was the narrative of what was taking place there. American readers did not know we were losing and probably never had a chance to win if that was ever in the cards.