There seem to be two sorts of people; those who are able to assess the reliability of news sources, and those who cannot. As this forum often demonstrates, we do not lack posters who fall into the second category.
I have been involved in open-source intelligence for several decades, and my normal practice is to take information from a wide range of sources, but to be aware of which sources are likely to be reliable, and which are not. So yes, I have to read stuff from propaganda outlets such as RT, FARS, and KCNA, and probably still have a few copies of the long-defunct ‘Soviet Military Review’ (which was once dubbed as being ‘designed by Smersh to kill by boredom’). But the signal-to-noise ratio from such ‘alternative sources’ is very high.
As for your claim that the BBC etc are “usually proven to be lying”, I have over the years been an occasional visitor to the news and current affairs studios of the BBC and other broadcasting organisations, but was always able to speak freely when being interviewed, and was never asked to take a specific ‘line’ or viewpoint.
I’ll just leave this here. I wasn’t aware of the extent of the use of total obfuscation and propaganda of western media like the BBC until the Syria war. And the coverage of Aleppo has brought it to a whole new level. The coverage of Aleppo in the last 2 weeks has been a blatant lie.
Sign In
