By DemocracyRules
Gina recently asked me where I source my stories, and here’s my answer. Our readers might be interested.
I look for high-accuracy sources. I avoid filling my mind with fact abuse and truth pollution.
(1) The source should be recognized as authoritative. It should be as close as possible to the original source material.
(2) The source should be physically located as close as possible to where the news event is taking place.
(3) The source should cite references for anything controversial. For example, if AP says “Georgia started it” they must their cite sources. Otherwise I don’t believe them. To prevent mind pollution and wasted time, I skip reports which cite “unnamed sources”.
(4) I must be able to cross-check the statement against other sources. The truth replicates itself, and it remains true no matter which way you look at it, or who says it. Falsehood constantly changes, depending upon who is repeating it at what time. If the AFP said two US ships were going to Georgia, and Reuters said there were seven, then I would dig deeper (the correct number is three).
(5) The statement must be logically possible. For example, if Russia invades Georgia on August 7, and that same day the AP says there are 2,000 dead, my logic detector begins to make a loud sound in my head. Counting 2,000 dead just a few hours after a conflict begins is not possible. Furthermore, AP had no reporters on scene.
(6) The only news aggregator that’s any value to me is Drudge. It highlights the interesting stories as they appear. However, since it links to stories from AP, Reuters, the BBC, and other unreliable sources, I don’t take any Drudge story at face value. For example, Drudge recently linked to a story which claimed that the North Pole ice is disappearing. When I dug further on meteorology and ice survey reports, I found in fact the opposite is true. Newsmax is useful, but it has similar problems.
(7) Specific favorites:
The White House website. Instead of reading a report about what Bush said, it’s more accurate to just read the speech. Prima facie, what the speech says is exactly what the President said.
The State Department website. Same idea. Press conference transcripts are also available, plus video of speeches. If Condi says something she thinks is important, it will be on the State website.
Department of Defense website. Same idea. Also, the DOD has stories about what the military is doing. These may be biased, but they almost always get the basic facts right. For example, if the DOD says they are sending three ships to Georgia, then they are sending three ships to Georgia .
The Georgia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They may be biased, but at least I know what they are concerned about lately.
The Economist. They expect the reader to understand big words and long sentences, but they try to be accurate. They have to be cross-checked carefully. Their editorials and opinion pieces are pretty useless.
The CIA fact book, to get to know a countries’ basic stats in just a few minutes.
Strategy Page. Common-sense military pieces, no frills. Also Military.com, Army Times, Aviation Week.
Global Hot Spots
Russia et al.
Kommersant.ru is a Russian dissident newspaper. They are quite independent and they like to poke Russia in the eye. Russia very much needs it. One of Kommersant’s excellent military/defense reporters was murdered while working on a sensitive Kremlin military piece. They threw him out his apartment stairwell window, with the oranges he just bought bouncing down the stairs. “Suicide”, yeah, suicide.
Also, Ukraine News, Asia Times
Middle East
Debkafile.com. They are often wrong about details, but they’re often the first to smell a story. Also, Arutz Shiva, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Naharnet.com (Lebanon). The comments sections say a lot about what’s occupying people’s minds.
Iran Focus. They try to be accurate. They have to be cross-checked carefully.
Europe
Corriere della Sera
Others: Hot Air, Michele Malkin, Atlas Shrugs, Jawa Report, John McCain.com, Iranian.com, Freedomhouse.org, VOANews.com, Taipei Times, Small Dead Animals, ifeminists.com, and of course Gina Cobb.
Someone should compile a list of news sources and rate them for accuracy. There should also be an online pig pen for irresponsible reporters.
Pro Patria
Dear Mr. DemocracyRules,
I beg your pardon for annoying you with one more piece of what you usually call the 'defence of details', but I feel something is to be cleared.
Here you say:
"I look for high-accuracy sources. I avoid filling my mind with fact abuse and truth pollution.
(1) The source should be recognized as authoritative. It should be as close as possible to the original source material."
This is the exact quotation of your own words done using a simple copy-paste method.
In "SITREP Russia - Georgia War Aug 27 08" just about one day ago you wrote:
"Russia Moves to Annex Georgian Provinces
Yesterday Russian president Medvedev and the Russian parliament recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russians have cited a USSR law as the legal basis for this move. This is pretty silly given that the USSR is dead and gone."
Could you please name the sources for this particular statement.
The official source of what our President says is www.kremlin.ru; there are careful English translations there, which include
Medvedev's statement on South Ossetia recognition. This is not @as close as possible to the original source material; this IS the original source material. Just like the White House website for what Bush says.
Medvedev said what he said, and he did not mention the USSR in his statement in any way.
Could you be so kind to relief me and readers of this site from thinking that your words sometimes do not coincide with your acts (and facts).
With all the best regards from the greatest (largest, or hugest, if you wish) country in the world,
Sincerely yours,
Vladimir Samarin
[From DR -- I have added a quotation to the story, citing Medvedev's statement]
Posted by: Vladimir Samarin | August 29, 2008 at 02:06 AM
Just a PS:
Don't you think that taking anything from The White House website, The State Department website, the Department of Defense website and the Georgia Ministry of Foreign Affairs won't be:
TOTALLY
biased?
Sorry but why don't you have as many Russian websites that you take news from - like the Russian Governemen, dept of defense, foreign affairs, etc?
Nope - even though you do look at one or two other websites I cannot agree that you are trying to get true facts that are not one sided.
The fact is that you ALWAYS write AGAINST the Russians, including blatent antagonism - such as the silly picture of a dog dressed in Russian uniform, joking about the Russians and I quote "I do agree with his point that the Russian Navy should patrol the oceans. Patrolling the worlds' roads would be very awkward for the Russian Navy. "
That only means one things - that your posts are absolutely one sided and against the Russians.
If you accept that then fine - but don't try and tell us that you are writing neutrally.
[From DR -- WHEN DID I SAY I WAS NEUTRAL? I AM NOT NEUTRAL, CANADIANS ARE NOT NEUTRAL. WE STAND UP FOR TRUTH, FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY! If Russia grinds GEORGIA'S FACE IN THE DIRT, you can expect me to speak up... LOUDLY! -- Pro Veritas]
Posted by: Yes but truthfully | August 29, 2008 at 06:35 AM