help me finding good objective information source that challenges all narratives
some news I can find only on "wrong" sources
Assuming you're not trolling…
When one narrative is objective reality and the other nonsense, you can't "both sides" that. One is fact, the other nonsense.
Your best bet is to stick to the wire services (AP, Reuters) since they're pretty much facts only, have high journalistic standards, and don't have significant biases.
I recommend checking news sources against Media Bias Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/exclusive-source-bias-ratings-search/) and looking for low bias and high credibility. MBFC is ran by a non-profit, independent agency and is highly rated.
They 100% are trolling. The account is literally an hour old and they've posted half a dozen articles about how vaccine bad and transgenders are rapists.
Oh, well, then. I was trying to be generous and give the benefit of the doubt.
deleted by creator
It sounds like you're just going to muddy the waters even further. There's nothing I can do to stop you, so you do you I guess.
deleted by creator
That's not being a troll that's just being an idiot
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Idk better news?
We don't know what you classify as wrong though
I'm being criticized about my sources, but not about validity of information, like "that is right source" or similar
What are your sources?
deleted by creator
Also assuming you're not just a troll with this comment…
You're posting links to this website "vigilantnews.com". Have you looked into who is behind it? According to their about section, it's made up two people. One simply called "The Vigilant Fox" and another named Dallas Ludlum. (https://vigilantnews.com/about)
The latter, Dallas, runs a blog dressed up as a newspaper with clearly a hard right take on politics here: https://conservativecompass.substack.com. He's also quite active on Quora for giving job seeking and career advice: https://www.quora.com/profile/Dallas-Ludlum.
More interestingly, from a reverse image search, this person's headshot also shows up on an eastern European photographer's website here: https://sebastianszulfer.com/en/services/headshots-portraits/. Yet Dallas claims to be on the east coast of the US on his Twitter account. Traveling to Europe just for a photo is quite the trek.
At best, the sources you're listing are simply one or maybe two person's opinions dressed up as a newspaper in order to generate pageviews and thus ad revenue. At worst, between the anonymous "Vigilant Fox" persona and the fake headshot profile photos, it's likely this is part of a larger fake information dissemination campaign.
Is that "challenging the narrative" enough for you?
deleted by creator
I'll be honest with you: I have better things to do with my time than debunk the same old re-hashed covid vaccine bullshit. It's been almost three years since the vaccines were given to billions of people. If the clinical trials did truly miss awful side effects or there was something else wrong with them we'd know by now. It's all bullshit and always has been. I'm done wasting my time debunking something that obviously has no credibility.
There's no mass conspiracy about any of this stuff. If you want to get to the root of it just follow the money. Who profits from you and other people clicking on and reading these outlandish articles that promise to shed light on some massive conspiracy that the whole world is otherwise missing? The people that run the websites. They collect their ad revenue by peddling bullshit. If you're not paying for something, you are the product, not the customer.
Seems like anyone can write and submit articles and claims there. You need academic papers cited and such for it to count as sources.
I did some quick digging on your first post about the Kisielinski study on rebreathing CO2… basically if you google it you will find that the paper was only published on sites that do not validate the studies, where literally anyone can make a post (and most of them have disclaimers at the top stating this). Of the actual discussions I could on this paper, they all came to the same conclusion – the author didn't "study" anything at all, but simply listed a bunch of other studies that backed up their opinion on the matter. As one article put it: if wearing masks was such a huge problem then where are all the paper from the previous CENTURY of use by actual doctors and surgeons who have been wearing masks for extended periods of time through their entire careers?
Here's a tip… If you are reading articles about subjects that are expressly for the benefit of one political party who also believes that vaccines cause autism and any efforts to help protect other people's lives are a direct attack on their own "freedoms", then you are probably being lied to. Honest scientific articles are accepted regardless of any political affiliation or religious beliefs. It's fine to have some skepticism about current events but as soon as you see a bias from the people referencing something, that's a sign to run away fast.
If you want as easy comparison, look at the current political climate… Donald Trump: Has multiple lawsuits pending from Federal, State, and personal sources with direct public evidence of wrongdoing. Joe Biden: Being pursued by Republicans with official statements by their own members that no laws have been broken, but the Party has taken an official stance that they will continue digging through records until they can find something incriminating. No seriously, that it exactly what is happening, and yet sites such as vigilantnews.com have an obvious bias towards demonizing Biden and praising Trump. If you are truly trying to find unbiased news sources then this is one of the last places you want to look for it.
deleted by creator
So I guess since we're not wearing masks anymore we should focus on decreasing the main source of CO2 in cities being cars and other modes of transport that run on fossil fuels and impact air quality and by extension cognitive ability. Would you agree?
deleted by creator
also this post https://lemmy.today/post/1531858
it is from nature, first it got up voted, now it is down voted as I put more posts, people tend to check profile as it matters more than information
I'm not psychologist but…
Ok im not gonna contribute to your discussions about such topics.
That "wrong source" argument can be an indication you're dealing with someone who is closed off to ideas that conflict with their world view. There may be no point in arguing with them.
If you are looking to see "both" sides of an issue, have you already seen the MIT project Improve the News?deleted by creator
