Your News sources shape your Perceptions

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (22 posts)
  1. Ken Burgess profile image80
    Ken Burgessposted 3 years ago

    The ability for Americans to be able to communicate with one another where politics is concerned is becoming a widening gulf.

    Those who believe the likes of CNN and MSNBC only have disdain for Fox News.

    The same goes the other way around.

    Those finding flaws in the biased extremes of these outlets, picking neither "side", find themselves labeled and attacked by one, if not both sides.

    I cannot tell you how many times I have linked something in the comments section, only to be told "that's rightwing give a legitimate source" I've even had that reaction when I've linked to an NPR article.

    I like to skip ALL of the current MSM Cable News sources.

    I try to stick with the WSJ, AP, Reuters, even some Al Jazeera and the Economist for issues on the Global stage.

    But I often foray onto Youtube for less mainstream views, such as TimCast and Blaze that often discuss things you will never hear about in the MSM news.  IE:



    Global News

    Just some examples of REAL news.  I suspect at least half of it, never even mentioned by our MSM sources.

    If you want a unbiased, fact based idea of what is really going on in the world, you can't rely on the likes of CNN or Fox to give it to you.  They have their biases, and with CNN its been proven over and over again, they outright fabricate some of their "news".

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Sadly, you are correct in your premise.  Most new sources if one can call them that are unabashedly biased to an extreme degree.   New sources in the past used to be pure journalism.  However, the concept of pure journalism is a thing of the past.   

      Now let's discuss the crux of the issue at hand.  People do form opinions based upon the respective news sources they listen to.  The majority of people are unthinking so they don't discern the news source in question.  They just reiterate what their favorite news source state & damn their unfavorite news source.  Only a discerning few question their news sources.  The art of critical thinking is slowly becoming extinct.  People are becoming unthinking which is dangerous for a democracy.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image76
        Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, what factors can you figure for the unthing mess?

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image76
          Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Source matter much. Originality is protective. But to misinter

    2. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      As my wife (from former Soviet Union) used to say: "People in the west never learned to read between the lines".

      What she means: If you know that information sources are biased, you better switch on your own brain and process the data and at best compare with personal experience. But the West and the US in particular spends a lot of educational effort on telling people they are protected by democracy, freedom of choice, free will.

      What is freedom of choice (between media) worth, if you never learned to read between the lines?

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        People have to use discernment & critical thinking skills.   Too many people take things at face value which is an immature methodology.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image80
          Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Agreed, or they want to take from it what fits into their preconceived notions.

          The biggest problem of the MSM is that they feed people's own biases exacerbating their perceptions, fueling the disparity and distrust.

    3. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "I try to stick with the WSJ, AP, Reuters, even some Al Jazeera and the Economist for issues on the Global stage."

      I concur Ken, these are sources I rarely have problems with in terms of objectivity and fairness.

    4. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with your point Ken, but was very surprised to see your inclusion of Blaze TV. I certainly don't share your confidence in their credibility as an unbiased news source.

      I think Glenn Beck was booted from Fox News because he was too far Right— even for them.


      1. Ken Burgess profile image80
        Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        True enough, however that site will delve into and report on things that you will not find anywhere else.

        For instance that first link, there is little I would say is biased about that.

    5. Sharlee01 profile image80
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It is amazing how a report can be so twisted from the facts by cable media. One can find the truth, but it takes lots of digging.

  2. Readmikenow profile image93
    Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

    I agree.  I am constantly amazed how you take one story based on one event...and have many different angles to it.  I've posted things from a news outlet from the left and an outlet from the right.  Same story, same facts, written completely differently.  Sometimes you have to read multiple sources to discover the details of a story.  When I was in journalism school we were taught to report the facts and let the reader decide.  It seems many reporters today don't  know the difference between facts and opinion as well as manipulation of the facts and telling the truth.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image80
      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You don't get objectivity or impartiality from our MSM news sources.

      And in their efforts to be the first to report something, they often will have facts wrong, or be missing proper context.

  3. Nathanville profile image91
    Nathanvilleposted 3 years ago

    I know from previous discussions that most here will disagree with me; but I can only comment as an observer from across the pond on how American news media portray ‘American foreign Affairs’ of Britain and the EU.

    Namely Fox News constantly does tell lies (fake news) about matters in Britain and the EU; in contrast CNN doesn’t.  However, although what CNN reports about in Britain and EU is generally factually correct, CNN does have a habit of weighting the emphasis of the facts in such a way as to make Britain and the EU look worse than it really is, and by doing so make the USA look not so bad in comparison e.g. by highlighting and over emphasising the negative points, without balancing it out with any of the positive aspects (which if CNN did do would help to put things into perspective).

    So from my experience CNN is the lesser of two evils; but is far from perfect.

    As Ken says, I find Al Jazeera a good news source as being impartial and unbiased.  Although (unlike the USA) British TV News Media is heavily regulated to prevent much of the trash that you see on FOX News and CNN, when it comes to British current affairs I prefer to study the source data rather than just rely on the British News Media e.g. the ONS (Office of National Statistics) which is an Independent Government Department, who are NOT answerable to the Government but answerable to Parliament; and who publish their data on the public domain monthly.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image80
      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      CNN in the UK is probably as balanced as RT is here in America.

      But once you know that ultimately it is nothing more than a propaganda site with a purpose... it is best to not consider it for information at all.

      That you like, or feel it is closer to the truth (your truth) in its reporting, doesn't change what it is at its core.

      It doesn't change that it will fabricate, falsify, and manufacture news to suit its purposes.

      1. Nathanville profile image91
        Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, and FOX news more so.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image80
          Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          With one substantial difference, while they are both biased outlets, with an agenda, I have not seen evidence of Fox creating/fabricating news.

          CNN has outright created things that did not exist, and over the years has been caught many times doing so.  Its why I won't even consider anything that comes from them as "viable" or factual.

          Until I have seen it reported by the AP, Reuters, or other reliable source, I consider anything reported by CNN to be a lie.

      2. Nathanville profile image91
        Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        We both know from many previous discussions that we have polarised views, and neither of us is going to change the view of the other; so we are wasting our time (I’ve got better things to do with my time).

        We are never going to see eye-to-eye on these (or related) issues because we are so polarised:-

        •    Your politics is staunch right-wing:  I’m a Socialist
        •    You trust Russia more than China:  I trust China more than Russia
        •    You are a Nationalist:  I’m a Globalist
        •    I guess you support fossil fuels and fracking at the expense of the Environment and Climate Change (Global Warming):  I don’t.
        •    I guess you’re a Christian:  I’m a Humanitarian Atheist
        •    I guess you’re a meat eater:  I’m a vegetarian.
        •    You’re American:  I’m European.

        One area where we might have some similarity is that I’m lower middle class, and I guess you’re also middle class?

        Anyway to give a fuller answer to you rhetoric here and in your response below:-

        Reference you first sentence:   For clarity CNN is NOT in the UK, CNN is broadcast in the UK; it’s an American News channel that 99.9% of the time covers America News.

        Reference your 2nd sentence:  Yep, American news media is not ‘Regulated’ so it’s all propaganda (including Fox News), and shouldn’t be trusted for reliable information.

        Reference your 3rd sentence:  Who says I like CNN (I didn’t); I just pointed out that when it comes to reporting on matters in the UK and in the EU, CNN does base its reporting on the facts, FOX News does not.

        Reference your 4th sentence:  FYI CNN does not ‘fake news’ relating to the UK & EU, Fox News does.

        In respect to your subsequent reply (above), I can assure you, when it comes to reporting on UK and EU matters Fox News does frequently create and fabricate news; CNN does not.

        I agree with you to a point e.g. CNN on its own is not a reliable news source; but then neither is any of the American TV news Media, especially Fox News, who does lie all the time.

        FYI, I do not watch American News Media for the News (it’s an unreliable source), I ONLY monitor the American News Media to gauge what trash its spouting about the UK and EU so that I can better understand the mentality (attitudes) of Americans, and the American’s ignorance of European Affairs, when engaging on social media sites, such as here.

        Here is a classic example of FOX FAKE NEWS:

        And eventually (after the damage had been done) Fox News Apology for their ‘Fake News’:

        And in spite of their apology in 2015, Fox News once again aired the same ‘Fake News’ during the American Presidential election in 2016, this time targeting London, claiming that there are no-go zones in London where even the police  refuse to go:  Which is a complete LIE.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image80
          Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          That is your opinion of what I am, I don't subscribe to it.

          Russia and China are allies, China is far more powerful economically, with a far larger army, and is the world's #1 industrial nation.

          Globalism only gives more power to the few over the many.

          You guess wrong, my largest holding is Tesla, I support Musk's goals and think he is a legitimate progressive thinker.

          One cult identification is as bad as any other.

          A Pescatarian, if you insist on a definition that is most suitable.

          And yes I am American, you are European, and that certainly makes for a substantial difference... as different as if I were Russian, or Chinese.

          1. Nathanville profile image91
            Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Well I’m not far off:-

            •    You do fear China more than Russia.
            •    You are a Nationalist.
            •    Your politics is hard right-wing.
            •    You are religious.
            •    You are American.
            •    And I guess you are a meat-eater.
            •    And I guess you are middle class like me.

            So apart from misjudging you on your environmentalism (assuming you do truly support the concept of replacing fossil fuels including fracking with Renewable Energy with earnest speed) what else did I misjudge you on?

            Russia and China are no more allies than Europe and the USA are allies; they each have their own goals e.g. China seeking world trade (Globalism), and Russia seeking to destabilise the West.

            Yes, China is far more powerful economically than Russia.  China is interested in Globalism (World Trade), Russia is NOT.

            Yes China does have the largest Army (which I shall come back to in a minute).

            Yes, China is the world’s #1 Industrial Nation; that’s their goal (Globalism); World Trade.

            As regards ‘Globalism’, your comment “Globalism only gives more power to the few over the many”; that’s where we disagree.  I, with qualifications, training and work experience in various aspects of ‘economics’ have a differing view to Globalism vs Nationalism:  Nationalism stunts international trade and economic growth; to the detriment of all; whereas Globalism (International Trade) stimulates world economic growth and benefits all, including the smaller nations.

            Getting back to your point about the military might of China:-

            With Respect to Personnel, yes China has more military personnel than any other country, but considering the size of its population it’s not unrealistic:-

            But to put it into perspective:

            The Top Three Countries for Military Personnel are:-

            1.    China = 2.81 million personnel
            2.    Russia = 1.52 million personnel
            3.    USA = 1.37 million personnel

            But also note that:-

            •    NATO = 2.95 million military personnel, and
            •    The EU = 2.35 million military personnel.

            When it comes to military spend per capita:-

            •    Russia is 21st in the world with 10.39 military personnel per 1,000 population.
            •    USA is 57th in the world with 4.84 military personnel per 1,000 population.
            •    China is 108th in the world with 2.23 military personnel per 1,000 population.

            However, when it comes to the military budget (Spending) the data is more telling:-

            •    USA annual Military spend is $732 billion
            •    China annual Military spend is $261 billion
            •    Russia’s annual Military spend is 65.1 billion

            And military spending as percentage of GDP:

            •    Russia = 3.9% of their GDP
            •    USA = 3.4% of their GDP
            •    China = 1.9% of their GDP

            So from my perspective (as a European): 

            •    The USA spends almost 1.8 times more as a percentage of their GDP than China.
            •    The USA employs over double the military personnel, per capita than China, and
            •    The USA spends 2.8 times more money (in real terms) than China on its Military.

            You might fear China but the USA does by far have the superior military, spending far more money on it than China spends on theirs.  And since the end of the cold war, Russia has been the aggressor in far more military action (in Europe) than China.

            And when it comes to nuclear weapons the top 9 counties in descending order of number of warheads are:-

            •    Russia = 6,490 nuclear warheads.
            •    USA = 6,185 nuclear warheads.
            •    China = 320 nuclear warheads.
            •    France = 290 nuclear warheads.
            •    UK = 215 nuclear warheads.
            •    Pakistan = 160 nuclear warheads.
            •    India = 150 nuclear warheads.
            •    Israel = 90 nuclear warheads.
            •    North Korea = 40 nuclear warheads.

            The USA also has military basses in other countries (European countries) with nuclear weapons (all pointed at Russia) as follows:-

            •    Turkey:  Number of USA nuclear warheads in Turkey = 50
            •    Italy:  Number of USA nuclear warheads in Italy = 40
            •    Belgium:  Number of USA nuclear warheads in Belgium = 20
            •    Germany:  Number of USA nuclear warheads in Germany = 20
            •    Netherlands:  Number of USA nuclear warheads in Netherlands = 20

            So don’t tell me that China is the bad guy.  When you look at all the data, and put it into perspective; Russia is the aggressor, and the USA is a military might that supposes any other country in the world.

            In past discussion you cite China showing off its military in its annual parade; but you forget to mention that Russia does exactly the same every year:

            Russian Military Parade 2020:

            For most of the rest of the year much of that Russian military hardware is concentrated on the border between Russia and the EU.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image76
              Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks for all these information.                                                                 It's an eye opener.                                  Actually, the prepoderance of military personnel in a country is a sign of fear and weakness. Discipline is what mattered in a modern army.

              1. Nathanville profile image91
                Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, I think you may have a point there.  In the UK the Gurkhas (very dedicated fighters) makes up 2.3% of the total personnel of the British Armed Forces; and in any major combat the British Army always send the Gurkhas to the frontline because they are so feared throughout the world for their fearlessness in battle. 

                Who Are Nepal's Gurkhas?

                The Life-changing Journey of Being Selected as a Gurkha in the British Army:


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)