The BBC is often used on here and is deemed to be trustworthy and reliable. Nick Shirley a MAGA Youtuber would probably not be seen as such. The BBC has been exposed for being anything but trustworthy and Shirly has exposed more fraud in Minnesota now being investigated by federal authorities. The nature of news has changed and what is deemed to be trustworthy and reliable should now be viewed differently. MSM is no longer the standard and hasn't been for quite sometime.

Feds launch 'massive' investigation after viral video alleges Minnesota daycare fraud

Nick Shirley's YouTube video showed largely inactive centers receiving millions in state funds, including one with 'Quality Learing Center' sign

Federal authorities were conducting a "massive" investigation in Minnesota on Monday, days after a video posted online by an independent journalist on alleged fraud involving daycare centers. 

In one clip, Shirley and a man are seen at what appears to be a largely inactive childcare facility. The building also displays a misspelled sign reading "Quality Learing Center," even though the center reportedly is supposed to account for 99 children and received roughly $4 million in state funds.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/feds-launch-massive-investigation-after-viral-video-alleges-minnesota-daycare-fraud

 

It's not just news source, it's any source of info, so many claiming things on social media it's ridiculous, it's almost like the experts have been sidelined, sadly the gullible will be mislead often

RT News, YT, X & FB ... IF interesting, then I'll research it, and strangely, much of it is accurate.

 

I pretty much ignore everything else.  Does explain 99% of the posting on AN though.  Really enforces, why so many are delusional and simply don't understand how the world works.  

 

Also explains why so many struggle with finances, and seem to work till they keel over.   Almost sad if it wasn't so funny  

 

IGNORANCE IS BLISS

 

Strangest part for myself, growing up in the 60s & 70s, and learned early not to trust govt or news, many of the poster grew up at the same time, probably thought the same, but now, they swallow all the fake news & BS .. Hook Line & Sinker.

 

That's mind boggling 

12 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The BBC is often used on here and is deemed to be trustworthy and reliable. Nick Shirley a MAGA Youtuber would probably not be seen as such. The BBC has been exposed for being anything but trustworthy and Shirly has exposed more fraud in Minnesota now being investigated by federal authorities. 

 

The above statement makes no sense and is simply copy/paste - have you even read it?

As for Shirley he is a Trump hack who spouts only narrative over objectivity, rhetoric over substance, creates stories instead of reports them and uses explosive terminology to garner attention from the likes of you presumably. This isn't ethical independent journalism at all, its Trumps advertising agent.

10 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

It's not just news source, it's any source of info, so many claiming things on social media it's ridiculous, it's almost like the experts have been sidelined, sadly the gullible will be mislead often

Alas who are the experts?  The less than trustworthy and heavily biased MSM?

The drunk next to you in the bar is usually on top of all the latest news, just ask them 

5 minutes ago, Palatus said:

The above statement makes no sense and is simply copy/paste - have you even read it?

I wrote it. Tell me why it makes no sense.

No sources are neutral, and social media algorithms focus your feed on your natural biases, so you need to select sources with opposing views plus obvious bias and the 'truth' is down the middle.

 

Fox and CNN are a good pair for this.

 

Or BBC and GB News.

 

Surprisingly, CGTN looks to be fairly neutral for international news about anywhere except China, so is an option if you want a single source.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Alas who are the experts?  The less than trustworthy and heavily biased MSM?

 

If the last 3 USA election cycles  & the scamdemic didn't open people's eye & minds, then there really isn't much hope for intellectual free thinking in the future.   

13 minutes ago, Palatus said:

The above statement makes no sense and is simply copy/paste - have you even read it?

As for Shirley he is a Trump hack who spouts only narrative over objectivity, rhetoric over substance, creates stories instead of reports them and uses explosive terminology to garner attention from the likes of you presumably. This isn't ethical independent journalism at all, its Trumps advertising agent.

Right. So exposing more fraud is simply a right wing Trump loving thing. It's a huge story that adds to an already huge story of multi-billion dollar fraud that's been going on under Waltz's nose. Just think he could've been the VP.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It's a huge story that adds to an already huge story of multi-billion dollar fraud that's been going on under Waltz's nose. Just think he could've been the VP.

 

Just think how much corruption is going on, and directly benefiting, the current POTUS.

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Alas who are the experts?  The less than trustworthy and heavily biased MSM?

Specialist Doctors Vs YouTubers as an example

11 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I wrote it. Tell me why it makes no sense.

You say "The BBC is often used on here and is deemed to be trustworthy and reliable. Nick Shirley a MAGA Youtuber would probably not be seen as such." 

So you imply you prefer to use a political hack (Shirley) as your trustworthy news source. Understand now? I guess you don't as its why the US is in the state it is now.

There are no reliable news sources really. You have to do a hours of reading across various sites to get the truth.

1 minute ago, Palatus said:

You say "The BBC is often used on here and is deemed to be trustworthy and reliable. Nick Shirley a MAGA Youtuber would probably not be seen as such." 

So you imply you prefer to use a political hack (Shirley) as your trustworthy news source. Understand now? I guess you don't as its why the US is in the state it is now.

The US economy is flying.

Just now, CallumWK said:

 

Just think how much corruption is going on, and directly benefiting, the current POTUS.

I guess that's something that needs proof rather than just an allegation based solely on how buthurt you are that he's POTUS. The fraud in Minnesota has already been proven with more to come and this round of childcare fraud has been brought to the attention of authorities by a YouTuber.

4 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Specialist Doctors Vs YouTubers as an example

Specialist doctors like those who said getting the jab means you can't spread Covid. Same ones that said safe and effective. You mean those types of "Specialist Doctors". Remember "Specialist Doctors" also said Thalidomide was safe. Next you'll be saying Wikipedia isn't biased and is a reliable source that hasn't been hijacked by the left or MSNBC is unbiased.

13 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Right. So exposing more fraud is simply a right wing Trump loving thing. It's a huge story that adds to an already huge story of multi-billion dollar fraud that's been going on under Waltz's nose. Just think he could've been the VP.

It is not a reasonable thing to use the word fraud and Trump in the same sentence, since he is likely the most fraudulent president in history.

 

He is the man who has committed the most fraud during his career, and the man who had profited the most from the US presidency in under one year, so fraud is synonymous with Trump, like scams, hucksterism and conman is. 

8 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

There are no reliable news sources really. You have to do a hours of reading across various sites to get the truth.

It's a fair point which goes to the crux of what my OP is about. Sadly some people simply rely on MSM and think they're been told the unbiased truth.

There is accurate information to be found on the mainstream media and the same applies to BBC, however it's important to understand that (just as is the case with Fox News and other conservative platforms) there is always a bias, and as long as you understand the bias you can view the news with that in mind. 

 

Podcasts also have some accurate information, but I would guess that 90% are misleading, inaccurate or greatly exaggerated. And that applies even more so to Instagram and Tiktok. 

 

Of course some of the topic specific podcasts like car reviews or repairs, wine criticism, culinary criticism, and DIY type videos tend to be a lot more factual but still many opinions. As long as you're conscious of those opinions no harm done. 

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

It's a fair point which goes to the crux of what my OP is about. Sadly some people simply rely on MSM and think they're been told the unbiased truth.

I wonder if you're trying to imply that Fox, Brietbart, Newsmax, and the Daily Wire are somehow not MSM, just simply because they're conservative? 

 

They are all MSM regardless of what side of the aisle they're on. 

12 minutes ago, Palatus said:

You say "The BBC is often used on here and is deemed to be trustworthy and reliable. Nick Shirley a MAGA Youtuber would probably not be seen as such." 

So you imply you prefer to use a political hack (Shirley) as your trustworthy news source. Understand now? I guess you don't as its why the US is in the state it is now.

This is a ridiculous statement. This hack as you call him has uncovered more massive fraud something that the multi-billion dollar networks couldn't or possibly wouldn't.

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There is accurate information to be found on the mainstream media and the same applies to BBC, however it's important to understand that (just as is the case with Fox News and other conservative platforms) there is always a bias, and as long as you understand the bias you can view the news with that in mind. 

 

Podcast also have some accurate information, but I would guess the 90% are misleading, inaccurate or greatly exaggerated. 

Yes, critical thinking is needed. This skill would seem to be missing from many members on here.

 

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

What Is A "Trustworthy" And "Reliable" News Source? 

Sky news Australia 

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

 

Just think how much corruption is going on, and directly benefiting, the current POTUS.

Yep ... that's why Trump put DOGE on the case.  Exposed quite a bit of it, especially how much was sent to NGOs after his November win, and prior to. 

 

 Does that surprise anyone  

 

... "Trump administration's newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, was involved in identifying and attempting to cancel billions of dollars in grants issued by the Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to various non-profit organizations and clean energy initiatives shortly after the November 2024 election" ...

 

Stealing as much as they could, in case losing the election possibly ...

 

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Specialist doctors like those who said getting the jab means you can't spread Covid. Same ones that said safe and effective. You mean those types of "Specialist Doctors". Remember "Specialist Doctors" also said Thalidomide was safe. Next you'll be saying Wikipedia isn't biased and is a reliable source that hasn't been hijacked by the left or MSNBC is unbiased.

So you are saying ignore the experts and go with the thickos pretending to have knowledge, ok.

 

Of course experts get it wrong, they are learning

20 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

So you are saying ignore the experts and go with the thickos pretending to have knowledge, ok.

 

Of course experts get it wrong, they are learning

 

I went with the minority of experts, that spoke out against the majority of experts in the recent scamdemic.   And it seems those experts where spot on vs the majority of ignorant, corrupt, bias experts that lead billions of folks the wrong way, as we are finding out.  Causing great harm & hardships in the process, while other profited, and usually the result of people listening to the experts and following the 'science'  

 

What little info that is now being allowed out, sure does expose which ones were the false experts, and which ones should have been listened to.

 

Even in hindsight, most won't admit how gullible they were and simply accept the silliness they were subjected to.  

 

Sadly, they'll be cowering & complying with the next fake event.

Courtesy: ChatGPT 5.0 
Source: https://adfontesmedia.com/reuters-bias-and-reliability

TOP 1–20: Gold Standard

'Where facts start.'
These outlets are the global benchmark for accuracy, sourcing, and correction transparency. They separate news from opinion and rarely get caught amplifying falsehoods.

Top 20 — Most Factual / Least Biased (Oct 2025)

1. Reuters – global wire service; minimal bias and high factual accuracy.

2. Associated Press (AP News) – cooperative wire agency; rigorous standards and neutral tone.

3. BBC News – public broadcaster; transparent sourcing and balanced reporting.

4. Bloomberg – financial and global news; data-driven coverage with low bias.

5. The Wall Street Journal (news division) – strong factual record; slight right-center lean.

6. USA Facts – non-profit data site; evidence-based and non-partisan.

7. Pew Research Center – research organization; survey-based, neutral analysis.

8. Ballotpedia – reference source for elections and policy; consistently neutral.

9. Financial Times – international business outlet; center-right editorial tone.

10. The Economist – global affairs weekly; analytical and classical-liberal framing.

11. NPR (News desk) – public radio news; fact-checked with slight left lean.

12. PBS NewsHour – public broadcaster; in-depth, non-sensational reporting.

13. The Hill – U.S. political coverage; centrist and policy-focused.

14. ProPublica – investigative non-profit; document-based, high verification.

15. Axios – concise political and business news; minimal bias.

16. Politico (news reporting) – political journalism; balanced sourcing and factual.

17. Christian Science Monitor – long-form reporting; moderate centrist perspective.

18. Bloomberg Law / Government – legal and policy news; fact-dense reporting.

19. TechCrunch (analysis only) – technology and startups; accurate and data-based.

20. CNBC (news reporting) – business and markets; center-right factual coverage.

31 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

So you are saying ignore the experts and go with the thickos pretending to have knowledge, ok.

 

Of course experts get it wrong, they are learning

As I previously asked which experts? Maybe left wing fact checkers? How about the "experts" MSNBC gets on? As for "experts get it wrong" then why should we have 100% faith in what they say. Of course some experts are paid handsomely for their "expert" opinion and advice as long as it fits with who's doing the paying..