Media: which ones are accurate and fact check?

Good question.

I'm thinking anything from PBS is reliable.

PBS and BBC.. and New York times...

NPR, PBS, BBC

D) None of the above.

Copied and pasted for your information:

False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical “News” Sources


Some of contents of this educational resource/google document, specifically the list of potential false, misleading, clickbait-y, and/or satirical news sources, have been removed in order for it to be transferred to and expanded on in a more permanent, dynamic, and collaborative home. This page will reflect updates as they become available.


Tips for analyzing news sources:


Avoid websites that end in “lo” ex: Newslo. These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).
Watch out for websites that end in “.com.co” as they are often fake versions of real news sources
Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.
Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.
Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.
Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs).
Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.
Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.
If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.
If the website you’re reading encourages you to DOX individuals, it’s unlikely to be a legitimate source of news.
It’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media frames. Some sources not yet included in this list (although their practices at times may qualify them for addition), such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News, vacillate between providing important, legitimate, problematic, and/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources.


Bio: I am an assistant professor of communication & media, and this list started as a resource for my students, who are learning about journalism/social media/media literacy.


Update 1: I’ve received hundreds of emails with suggestions, very few of which are duplicates, so it will take me a while to sift through and verify them. I will add them as appropriate. (EDIT 11/15/2016 @ 3:42 EST: I have a list of sources, suggested by all of you, that will take me a long time to get through)


Update 2: Yes, I am considering further coding/categorizing these sources for clarity and creating a more durable/dynamic database. This is likely just step 1.


Update 3: Some people are asking which news sources I trust, and all I can say is that I read/watch/listen very widely, from mainstream, corporate owned sources (The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes) as well as The Atlantic, National Public Radio, and various local and alternative sources with different political perspectives, some of which are included on this list. The problem: Even typically reliable sources, whether mainstream or alternative, corporate or nonprofit, rely on particular media frames to report stories and select stories based on different notions of newsworthiness. The best thing to do in our contemporary media environment is to read/watch/listen widely and often, and to be critical of the sources we share and engage with on social media.


Update 4: A group of AWESOME librarians will be working with this list to provide more detail, examples of the news articles in question, etc. I will post what they make here when it is complete.


Update 5: It should be noted I’m not the first person to call out some of these websites. When I first started compiling this specific large list on Monday, some friends alerted me to many websites doing similar and great work, such as Ed Brayton’s recent post at Patheos (I included many of the websites on his list after checking them myself if I was unfamiliar). I plan on providing more links to outside resources in the near future.





© 2016 by Melissa Zimdars.
The work 'False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources'
is made available under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Oh, I forgot to say that I think CNN qualifies as a formerly respected source that needs to have their feet held to a raging and huge fire.

Wondering what you mean by this?  There is a difference between predictions of what MIGHT happen (like polls) and reporting on what HAS happened.

They got the polls wrong.  Do you have examples of how they got the news reporting wrong?

I agree with craftykitten that all media outlets have a "spin", and that is why it is important to get information from more than one source.  It's also important to look at what is being presented as "fact" and what is being presented as opinion.  The reputable networks and newspapers are very clear on which is which.  Many of the on-line-only sites don't seem to distinguish between the two.

I was really disappointed in fivethirtyeight getting it so wrong, but it's looking more and more like people were not giving true answers to pollsters.

I think as a nation, we've gotten way too reliant on polls, and been way too trusting in how accurate polls are in the first place. IMO, the media as a whole has been irresponsible with the obsession on polling numbers. It's time to move away from all the speculative and first to report or call attitude, and focus more coverage on facts and actual issues.

disclaimer-I'm not saying never use or mention polls. Just use them as one thing to report and stop all the obsessive coverage of poll numbers.

I think this is a very valid concern.  I've heard that calls for a complete audit have started from multiple groups or sides or whatever.  A thorough audit seems like a good idea at this point.  Accuracy and truthfulness are always important, especially with elections like this one.

I agree that this isn't how data usually works.  I thought 538 had the best way of compiling lots of varied polling data, and was surprised that so many polls and poll watchers got it so wrong. 
Save

I had to work with NPR regarding a story in 2015 and 16. I'll never believe their "unbiased" persona ever, ever again based on that experience. It was quite disappointing and the political agenda was quite, quite clear from the get go.