On 12/30/2025 at 9:43 AM, KhunLA said:

 

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.   

The problem is that now MSM in every country is attempting to get clicks and make money. They do not follow or care about what they are saying. They hire people who work with the demographic that they are looking for.

The only way to get trustworthy news is to investigate.

Saying Nick Sirley is a MAGA supporter and mouthpiece is easy, but have you actually looked into whathe is talking about?

The challenge that we have is that people online are quick to label a person then ignore what they say.

Many people are not Liberal or Conservative.

Sheeple have this well, everyone in class is saying so, I have to say. What is interesting is that when you ask these people who support socialist ideas or the removal of Israel from Palestine, it is just because it sounds good and they are in with the people. Not the majority, but with a group. To me, the biggest joke is the LGBTQ groups supporting Islam, considering that they would be jailed or shot.

On 12/30/2025 at 10:06 AM, 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. 

 

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. 

Fair comment. The problem with the BBC, however, is that it is not only biased but has also been found out to be lying.

On 12/30/2025 at 3:53 AM, 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.

Fact is that MAGA is a DEstructive movement that focuses on the flaws in society without offering realistic solutions. I.e. there's still no health care plan, and the response to criticism is to send in the troops like the US is Northern Ireland in 1969, and solve immigration with masked gestapo thugs and mass transports. Can happen in any country. Doesn't happen in Germany any more thank god.

Brownshirts don't wear brown shirts any more. They went out of fashion in 1945. They have other accessories nowadays.

The BBC is trusted because (like other similar institutions) it is generally biased towards the broader range of society at large that has an IQ above 60, doesn't cater to those who would rather rage at their pet hates than hear difficult facts, and seeks CONstructive solutions to extremely complex issues that involve at times millions or even whole countries and that work - all the while exposing the MAGA charlatanism and the charlatan in chief. He who now plays Putin in Venezuela as he amasses a fortune in the criminal fraternity's favorite currency.

The BBC among many others is also trusted because it admits its mistakes and is capable of introspection and self-correction. Something the 'MAGA' or 'MAHA' bigots are singularly and blatantly incapable of.

On 12/30/2025 at 6:12 AM, dinsdale said:

Having the BBC at number three says all that's needed to know about this list. 

AI Overview

The BBC was sanctioned by the UK's media regulator, Ofcom, for a "serious breach" of broadcasting rules after it failed to disclose that the 13-year-old narrator of a documentary, 

Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, was the son of a Hamas official. 

Yes it makes mistakes. But acknowledges them and is capable of self-correction. It's obvious from most of the comments here that most have never even swept the floor of a reputable newsroom, never mind actually worked in one.

Latest case being the careless omission of Trump's 'lets's be nice about it' hypocrisy on Jan6. Sadly I suspect the piece could have been even more effective had that sanctimonious outburst been included. But who knows how long those editors had worked, or what other distractions they had on their desks that may have led to a critical misjudgment. Or the second pair of eyes was called away for a moment. Or whatever.

But 5 billion dollars? Go sexual intercourse off dumbos. Trump provenly has no reputation to salvage anyway - at least not one any decent person would want to have. And certainly not in the same league as the BBC's.

28 minutes ago, BusyB said:

Yes it makes mistakes. But acknowledges them and is capable of self-correction.

They haven't exactly acknowledged that they clipped 50 minutes out of a Trump speech to alter the context. This wasn't a mistake. They didn't acknowledge they used a Hamas leader's son in a documentary on Gaza although they knew this was the case and only admitted to it after being found out. Not trustworthy actions IMHO.

6 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

They haven't exactly acknowledged that they clipped 50 minutes out of a Trump speech to alter the context. This wasn't a mistake. They didn't acknowledge they used a Hamas leader's son in a documentary on Gaza although they knew this was the case and only admitted to it after being found out. Not trustworthy actions IMHO.

They have full acknowledged it. They selected the operative quotes (and let's face it, no organization would post 50 minutes of a speech in a documentary of an hour or so) and carelessly omitted one mendacious attempt of his to sound conciliatory towards democracy and the Constitution. He is of course provenly not conciliatory to either. Omitting that quote was a lost chance as far as I'm concerned.

Truth is, only the blindest MAGA dunderhead could even listen to Trump for 50 minutes. Or a Jan6 'freedom fighter'.

Not aware of Hamas details. It seems from my position that some at the lower end of the food chain were aware and didn't pass it on. Their decision to include him was understandable from an operational position, but obviously unacceptable ethically. It was a mistake. IOf course it only became evident after the event. The first response higher up sadly was to circle the wagons. That has since been corrected.

I repeat, these are abilities which are totally absent in MAGAworld. Your post underlines my message. You are incapable of accepting simple life truths if they don't fit your agenda. That is fortunately why the whole thing will collapse long term. MAGA is incapable of self-reflection and adaptation. It only wants to destroy and oppress all it doesn't like and is too complex - the enlightenment most of all.

BBC has acknowledged both cases. Many heads have rolled and careers been ruined as a result. And while Trump's incredible, Thaksinite corruption levels are amusedly dismissed by MAGA as 'just him being him', you all jump with glee on others people's simple mistakes with a vengeance in a manner entirely unholy, judgmental and unforgiving.

You think Trump and MAGA/MAHA is trustworthy? Time for a look in the mirror.

I've been told that Ground News is a reliable source. I've no problems listening or reading news on Fox News. I happen to like some of their commentators, too, so I also watch some of their content.

UK Column. Richie Allen. 21 Century Wire.