Snowden Movie

I two was an early supporter of Asanges For me that ended when he announced that he was in possession of the e-mails but would withhold them for a timed release.

A friend would have given us as much time as possible to survey and ascertain the meaning and value of those e-mails. Instead he used them as propaganda to grind his own ax...in OUR elections.

No longer a fan..

I use Reuters daily. I use to read Arstechica, but fell out of the habit, no reflection upon them.

But George you won't find anything substantially different on those two sites than you will on the sites I listed.

There's a reason for that and it's not conspiracy. They all report on reality. It's bound to get repetitious.

What I objected to on the first site you listed is a biblical quote where it harms both region and the press.

Giving proper due to neither.

I don't want a "Christen" view of the news, thank you. I like my news straight up.
I'm not interested in the news' view of biblical text. Or a listing of an editors spiritual resources or motivations.

These should be kept as hidden as possible when reporting the news and show only in the integrity of the reporting.

We live in dangerous times. We should be very careful to separate fact from editorial.

"the last token of the freedom of the press will be silenced."

Silenced in what way? I listed a 5 or 6 news outlets. You listed 5 or 6 news outlets. So who is being silenced?

I'm sorry but you are not demonstrating that you know more than I seem to grasp.

Nazi's march in full public view, Counter protesters gather to make them feel as unwelcome as possible
Ten Dozen reporters on hand to deliver as close to the truth of the situation as they can,

What part of the press' or my freedom to assembly has been lost?

I'd be a lot happier if the news was simply written by actual journalists. I mean those who have bothered to look up the word journal in a dictionary!

Just give me a record of the facts about what happened today. I don't want their personal views or opinions.

I can't help but think the news was better when printing was expensive and newspapers were only 1 or 2 pages. They had to keep stories short, and so there wasn't room for opinions.

Wouldn't it be ever so nice if politicos who lie could be impeached? You know, just for lying to us.
They would have to find a whole new way of dong business.":O}

It's the same in the UK, politicians have certain parliamentary privileges.

I can see why they have some form of protection, otherwise it would be all too easy for someone to set them up for a fall.

But, if someone is clearly abusing their privileges they should be kicked out.

Immunity should never mean that a person can just do whatever they want.

I see the problem now. We live in different worlds.

You seem to think that news is something only a few can properly report on. I do not. Stay away from Fox news and you can get fairly reliable reporting anywhere...that is if uses professional reporters and editors.

So like when are we going to arrested for speaking our minds?
We won't be because OBVIOUSLY Freedom of speech is alive and well.

So what you gained from my stating a broad range of news sources is that I pick and choose my news to suit my own bias? But your rejection of TV news is well founded because they always lie?

Web news forever because they have freedom of speech so cruelly denied to all others?

To my mind this is not making sense .I'm not in the market for web news. And Once you slap your Christian Logo on a site fair and accurate can no longer be assumed.

After all Christian, Muslum news and Jewish news are always reliable as their news comes straight from god and God has sanctified all their reports.

You can't claim to be news while showing a bias towards religion great enough to put it on your front page.
The ONLY one I know of to pull this off is The Christian Science Monitor Who employees Pros.

The only time web news is accurate is when it come from the API. Unless they are professional. Unless they do their own research conduct interviews, supply verified documentation.

And George, TV news is and has been an acceptable way to gather news since around 1950.

As you point out it's really easy to avoid news you don't like I have some for you!

Web news is no more and often far less reliable than TV news. The news is no one's special friend.

You either tell the truth or your propaganda.

Believe who you like, believe what you like. But the air of superiority does not suit you.
I listed 5 I could have listed 8. But it seemed irrelevant to do so.

So OK show me where your better informed than we low life TV news folk?
Show me a difference that actuality makes a difference.

We obviously were in the mood to eat worms! ":O}

As I said in the beginning we have a right to our own options, we don't have a right to our own facts.

One cannot simply assert ones opinion as a substitute for facts.

One cannot assert the superiority of one source over another except by means of fact.

All that has been offered here is a belief that web news is superior because they are not limited by fact.

I'll hazard this claim. The news gets it right well over 90% of the time. Were it not for mainstream media fumpy turnip would have free rain over the facts.

Right now two things are keeping us afloat. You reject one or both at your peril.

The first is the Press that has done an excellent job of revealing what the first discovers though time worn legal procedures led by Bob Muller.
It will be the press and Muller that brings the terrible two year old to justice.

The more others cling to crack pot information the harder this will be for them to do.

I find arbitrary assertions that the press can not be trusted or that Bob Muller is not to be trusted incredibly destructive especially in light of the fact NO ONE has offered ANY evidence that either case is true.

There is nothing special about the news. It simply reports the facts anything that goes beyond this is editorial .

The Editorial seeks to explain those facts and has a proper place in the news only when they strictly adhered to what has been established by fact.

To assert that one persons news is better is stupid. One persons news may or may not be correct. But news can not be better or worse. It can only be less or more accurate.

NO One here has said one thing to make me reevaluate my news sources, I have said why this is.

the internet will allow me at this point in time to say, or claim anything I like. No burden of prof necessary. No adherence to fact required..
This being so I look for Established news organizations whose livelihoods depend upon accuracy.

I'm not interested in your news sources as I am content with my own.
I give more than enough time to the outer world. More would not profit me or others.

This way you can go on claiming to know what others don't. I make this claim for myself. I know only what others know. I know what I do only because others I trust have told me what's going on.

When something happens in this world there can be many views of an event. But only one set of facts.
My views do not need to meet a burden of proof. My facts do.

My News sources meet that burden of proof. My news source give facts. For the most part, as we see here, I write my own editorials, but I base them upon a solid foundation of what has been established as being factual.

There is an objective knowable world. But to know it one must ascertain what the facts are and proceed from there towards what the Truth may be.

There is no question as to why Russia! Russian attacked us. as they have most of if not all the democracy in the EU. If someone suggests our interests have other origins I will happily assert that they as just plain stupid.

For me this conversation no longer leads to the light, but only furthers disagreements.

I love debate, but have never liked quarrels. When agreement can not be reach by examining the facts then at least one party is disingenuous. For facts are readily knowable things.