this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

15770 readers
1597 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, but unlike with Biden it is unfair to judge her by the crimes of her children! /s

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its not about just the kids crimes, its a question of how Joe was involved.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You realize there has not been one single piece of credible evidence provided suggesting that he was at all involved, right? If there was, don't you think it would be on Fox nonstop?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure there is, but you guys dont hear about it because you listen to the lefts corporate media. People that listen to Fox dont do this kind of social media, if you want to insult them use Ben Shapiro, or Larry Elder.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're saying there is evidence that Biden was involved, correct? Could you provide an example/source?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would be what was on the laptop and what he has been doing for and with his son. For example there was "10 for the big guy" thing. And then there is Joe lying about interacting with his sons associates. And then there is why they were all paying his son so much but not getting the influence they were obviously buying. And then Joe getting the prosecutor that was investigating the company his son was getting money from. And a bunch more. There are all kinds of podcasts that will lay it all out and list it if you are actually wanting to know.

The main problem is they should have an extensive investigation like trump had with russia. At best Joe would have a series of conflicts of interest, but they would need to look into all the things.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So mainstream news sources aren’t trustworthy, but random podcasts are?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are only as trustworthy as they are. I think that most corporate news sources mislead at best, and lie directly if it is in their interest. I think there are many podcasts that are not always correct, but they are trying to tell the truth. Do you think mainstream sources are trustworthy?

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For the most part yes. Everyone has their biases, which is why I usually check multiple sources. I’m more inclined to trust a source that is run by people who have backgrounds in journalism, who provide their sources. Articles go through professional editors, who can fact check the information. Paid professionals are involved in the process, and stake their reputations on the quality of their reporting. There has certainly been a decline in the quality of mainstream journalism - largely due to mega corps buying up local news - but I will turn to the BBC before I turn to Joe Rogan.

I find that even podcasts I like and consider informative can often have misinformation. Podcasts are often more focused on entertainment and commentary - it is a different set of priorities.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can literally point to three stories this week by the corporate media that were false or misleading off the top of my head.

Why do you keep trusting them when they just report things without thinking or maybe worse, dont report stories because they harm a narative?

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Did you determine that they were false or misleading based on Ben Shapiro podcasts? I can point to probably thousands of podcasts that regularly are false or misleading.

There are multiple corporate medias. “Corporate media” is not a single organism. I don’t “trust” them - as I pointed out in my previous comment, I critically evaluate multiple sources. (Back in the day, I had an amazing Google Reader setup, Feedly sucks 😢). I tend to discard most science reporting and read the articles directly though my university’s library. For current events, I usually try to find a local news source.

I’m not sure why the fact that corporate media can be inaccurate means that we should turn to random, much more likely to be talking out their butts, podcasts on the internet. That seems to be a way to get trapped in an echo chamber that confirms your pre existing beliefs.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn’t Fox literally claim in court that no one would ever take them at face value? (Or was that just Tucker Carlson?) Why would you want to take anything Fox News says seriously?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dont know, I think both MSNBC and Fox have said something like that as a legal argument. But if it were not clear, I dont listen to Fox or watch cable television, I am in my 40s not 70s.

[–] Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think your (pretty solid) point got swallowed whole by your unnecessary “the lefts corporate media” spiel.

Next time just make your point clear and let it stand on its own.