Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

He gave you reasonable advice and you repaid it by trying to turn him into your google. Then, you got your feelings hurt when he pointed out your laziness which you followed up by showing you are a racist too.

Proverbs 17
27 Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,
and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.
28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.

Method Man said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

He gave you reasonable advice and you repaid it by trying to turn him into your google. Then, you got your feelings hurt when he pointed out your laziness which you followed up by showing you are a racist too.

Proverbs 17
27 Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,
and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.
28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.

---

I asked him to explain himself, and instead he showed his ass.

F***k him and **** you too.
Old Bear will be joining Charlie soon enough.....so I don't really care.

What I really care about is a win over Arizona St tomorrow.

---

Dude. This is unacceptable. You have crossed the line! Red flag for your last post. I hope the moderators step in and boot your ass off of here.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

He gave you reasonable advice and you repaid it by trying to turn him into your google. Then, you got your feelings hurt when he pointed out your laziness which you followed up by showing you are a racist too.

Proverbs 17
27 Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,
and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.
28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.

---

I asked him to explain himself, and instead he showed his ass.

F***k him and **** you too.
Old Bear will be joining Charlie soon enough.....so I don't really care.

What I really care about is a win over Arizona St tomorrow.

---

Dude. This is unacceptable. You have crossed the line! Red flag for your last post. I hope the moderators step in and boot your ass off of here.

---

Remember that sometimes you could be dealing with a person is experiencing diminished capacity or mental illness of some sort.

D. C. Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

He gave you reasonable advice and you repaid it by trying to turn him into your google. Then, you got your feelings hurt when he pointed out your laziness which you followed up by showing you are a racist too.

Proverbs 17
27 Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,
and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.
28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.

---

I asked him to explain himself, and instead he showed his ass.

F***k him and **** you too.
Old Bear will be joining Charlie soon enough.....so I don't really care.

What I really care about is a win over Arizona St tomorrow.

---

Dude. This is unacceptable. You have crossed the line! Red flag for your last post. I hope the moderators step in and boot your ass off of here.

---

Remember that sometimes you could be dealing with a person is experiencing diminished capacity or mental illness of some sort.

---

The type of guy that would assassinate someone for having diverse political opinions.

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

Charming riposte.


And a threat to go with it?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

He gave you reasonable advice and you repaid it by trying to turn him into your google. Then, you got your feelings hurt when he pointed out your laziness which you followed up by showing you are a racist too.

Proverbs 17
27 Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,
and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.
28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.

---

I asked him to explain himself, and instead he showed his ass.

F***k him and **** you too.
Old Bear will be joining Charlie soon enough.....so I don't really care.

What I really care about is a win over Arizona St tomorrow.

---

Dude. This is unacceptable. You have crossed the line! Red flag for your last post. I hope the moderators step in and boot your ass off of here.

---

Remember that sometimes you could be dealing with a person is experiencing diminished capacity or mental illness of some sort.

---

The type of guy that would assassinate someone for having diverse political opinions.

---

Think I found him?

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

So I wonder who gave two stars to "go eat dirt with your boy Charlie"?

Guess it proves we have Democrats among the membership?

Method Man said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Looks like Clemson has stepped up to the plate as well.

"Clemson fires employee for Kirk posts. Two more removed from teaching duties

Read more at: https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article312116755.html#storylink=cpy

---

All hail our Lord and Savior Charlie Kirk.

---

Did you publicly celebrate his murder for advocating for free speech in political debates?

---

To be honest....I don't care at all. I'm much more concerned about the Arizona St game tomorrow.
I'd never heard of Kirk before he got shot.

This epidemic of white on white crime and the assassination's attempts on Trump, Kirk and the politician from Minnesota is scary and a reflection of Trump's America.

These are dark times we are living in.

---

You think the assassination attempt against Trump was "a reflection of Trump's America?"

That's an interesting rhetorical statement.

"[It is] a reflection of Trump's America."
R(x, f(T)) It's a statement structure readily available to use for any topic.

You are reiterating the same claim a large number of people make about the Kirk assassination: that it was the victim's fault he was shot at.

It's true there is a certain way of thinking and speaking by many in this culture that makes this a darker time in our nation than usual. This way of being towards others/the world seemed to take off in 2020, and found its reflection in the multiple areas (CHAZ/Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc.) in the US that were not under state control at any level for anywhere from three weeks to one year. Even scarier than the white on white on crime is the FBI homicide stats from 2021 to 2023 for black on black murder/manslaughter, which surpassed even white on white murder/manslaughter for the total percentage. But I'm not sure why you focus on race if you are wanting to look at an overall national trend. Violent crime was much worse in 2020 and peaked in 2021. We have been coming down off that high ever since.
What is coming to the fore lately is directed political violence from the left. You mention the two assassination attempts against Trump and the murder of Kirk at a campus debate.

What is interesting about the mindset that has been growing for the past decade is that it reveals itself in its spite towards children if it can find a way to drape a political aura over them. For example, this summer we had the elementary school girls who were crushed and drowned in the Guadalupe river flood at a church camp. There were a surprising number, at least to me, of professionals who rejoiced at the deaths of these children and proclaimed on social media sentiments that basically meant those kids got what they had coming to them because they were Christians, Republicans, Texans, whatever group they wanted to focus their contempt on. Kirk was not the beginning of professionals getting fired for really ugly public behavior. People got "canceled" for the things they stated during this summer, like a pediatrician who was fired by Texas Children's Hospital. This mindset that rejoices in the death of children if a political meaning can be given to their deaths is a manifestation of this darkness in our culture.

Method Man said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Looks like Clemson has stepped up to the plate as well.

"Clemson fires employee for Kirk posts. Two more removed from teaching duties

Read more at: https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article312116755.html#storylink=cpy

---

All hail our Lord and Savior Charlie Kirk.

---

Did you publicly celebrate his murder for advocating for free speech in political debates?

---

To be honest....I don't care at all. I'm much more concerned about the Arizona St game tomorrow.
I'd never heard of Kirk before he got shot.

This epidemic of white on white crime and the assassination's attempts on Trump, Kirk and the politician from Minnesota is scary and a reflection of Trump's America.

These are dark times we are living in.

---

Two assassination attempts on Trump and you say "Trump's America", huh?

Is this kind of hateful rhetoric an example of Linda's Baylor?

Texas A&M "fires" a President, now they are looking to hire a DEI President

Texas A&M-Victoria’s sole presidential finalist, Christian Hardigree, has an extensive track record of promoting diversity and equity throughout her career. https://t.co/eJurj8ie67

— Texas Scorecard (@TexasScorecard) September 20, 2025

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising

---

---

• AllSides: As of December 2024, the media bias rating organization AllSides rates the Associated Press as "Left".
  
  • This rating was updated from "Lean Left" in November 2024, based on multiple editorial reviews and blind bias surveys.
  • AllSides specifically rates AP's coverage of U.S. politics and its "Fact Check" section as "Lean Left"

-3.03 Left (strong left) for NY TIMES

How we determined this rating:

• Independent Review
• Editorial Review: Feb 2025, Sep 2018
• Community Feedback: 36,399 ratings
• AllSides has high confidence in this bias rating.

Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content.

From what Sam posts here, it would appear all his sources seem to lean left. And he craps on Fox News for it's Moderate, slight right, content

---

Earning its name NYSlimes

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

wYou know, it may be a good idea for you to run your posts by a normie or two before posting.

Could save you a ton of embarrassment.

---

What is a normie?

---

That explains a lot

---

Speak English or STFU you stupid ass clown.

Go eat dirt with your boy Charlie you old ass wrinkled MOFO.

---

So I wonder who gave two stars to "go eat dirt with your boy Charlie"?

Guess it proves we have Democrats among the membership?

---

Libtards gave those 2 stars.

ScottS said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising

---

---

• AllSides: As of December 2024, the media bias rating organization AllSides rates the Associated Press as "Left".
  
  • This rating was updated from "Lean Left" in November 2024, based on multiple editorial reviews and blind bias surveys.
  • AllSides specifically rates AP's coverage of U.S. politics and its "Fact Check" section as "Lean Left"

-3.03 Left (strong left) for NY TIMES

How we determined this rating:

• Independent Review
• Editorial Review: Feb 2025, Sep 2018
• Community Feedback: 36,399 ratings
• AllSides has high confidence in this bias rating.

Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content.

From what Sam posts here, it would appear all his sources seem to lean left. And he craps on Fox News for it's Moderate, slight right, content

---

Earning its name NYSlimes

---

Are you in the Epstein files!

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising

---

---

• AllSides: As of December 2024, the media bias rating organization AllSides rates the Associated Press as "Left".
  
  • This rating was updated from "Lean Left" in November 2024, based on multiple editorial reviews and blind bias surveys.
  • AllSides specifically rates AP's coverage of U.S. politics and its "Fact Check" section as "Lean Left"

-3.03 Left (strong left) for NY TIMES

How we determined this rating:

• Independent Review
• Editorial Review: Feb 2025, Sep 2018
• Community Feedback: 36,399 ratings
• AllSides has high confidence in this bias rating.

Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content.

From what Sam posts here, it would appear all his sources seem to lean left. And he craps on Fox News for it's Moderate, slight right, content

---

Earning its name NYSlimes

---

Are you in the Epstein files!

---

Nope but full disclosure...I"ve been to St Thomas and St John, but not Little St James.