WikiLeaks Alternatives

I like it!

The WSJ still seems to be fairly trustworthy. The downside is, if media outlets decide to pick sides, rather than report news, which has already happened for the most part, information will either be released or buried, depending on who it can help or hurt.

Fox carries the right, every other outlet, the left. Potential whistlesblowers just need to decide who's side they're on before releasing information.

Hillary proclaimed recently that this is one of her favorites.

No slanted news there.

I believe much of the problem is the declining resources of most papers - due to the net & TV. They try to get by with cheaper and cheaper reporters.

The cheapies come with an agenda and are not reporters at all but wannabe editorial writers.

There is a lot of competition. I think the recipe for success would be for a news outlet to start simply reporting the news in an objective manner. Unfortunately, it seems they've all forgotten how.

AH may not agree, and I could be wrong, but as far as what's going on in US politics, I feel that I get a more accurate representation from overseas outlets..........BBC for example, or some of the UK online newspapers.

The outlets in the US are absolutely shameless in their bias.

I still like the WSJ, but that might just be because their bias leans towards my own.

I believe it's more objective than most.

Former NSA Genius Apologizes for His Super Spying Software

What a state of affairs

No kidding! Under the circumstances, any open avenues for whistleblowers are a good thing!

Our government (Canada) appointed a watchdog to look into the complaints of whistleblowers, and in four years not one complaint was investigated nor action taken, except to suppress the goods! Talk is cheap, democracy is an endless struggle.

Interesting theory, however, the editors have the final say and do and will rewrite stories.

There are other signs that point to a systemic bias in these organizations. For one thing, look at who actually owns the organization and see what their political ideology is.

There are non-profit organizations chartered with examining the posts and news stories that rate the bias of these organizations.

Additionally, simple polls of the staffs of these organization of their voter affiliation can illustrate some interesting data. It is pretty well established that the major news organization journalists vote disproportionally democrat. Fox news may be an exception to that.

I think the decline of these organizations is not the root cause of the bias. Rather, these organizations are developing/have developed a group-think culture within them. From an internal perspective the group-think mentality appears to be the norm. When looking out from within the organization at the rest of the world, the perspective appears as if the world is not the norm.

The group-think phenomena is a well established thing. Hollywood, during the early and middle 20th century was predominated by a conservative culture. Hollywood has now swung decisively left in their political beliefs.

Like minded thinking in any organization tends to support each other's beliefs while suppressing dissenters. As the internal bias shifts to one side or another the effect takes on a positive feedback nature over time and ultimately drives the organization to a highly polarized state.

So how do we get the truth?

Do you know of any links or websites where I can get a synopsis of what is currently happening..................without the bias?

I've been looking for that for a long time.

The truth can be found, but it's not easy. It would be great to have a web presence, where I could just pop in for a half hour every day and get updated on current political and economic news................and that's it.

The problem with the current media bias, is not just what's there, but just as importantly, what's not there.

The cheapest way is to read all the various sources and try to integrate the data.

A better way would be to subscribe to various intel organizations, but that costs money and the reports usually lag the real-time news. However, the information is much more solid.

So, you need to ideally do both.

I'm aware that media bias has existed for a long time. I was specifically referring to the bias that will inevitably be applied to these secret leaks, and whether they will be released or not, depending on who it is that they will cause damage to.

My view on this is a little obscure. Yes I don't believe that should exist 'entities' under no control but their own 'good will' and on this, the fear of somebody blowing the whisle could help. But then should all info be released to the uneducated, incopitent to understand implications and easily mislead 'crowd'? Equally not. And then how about the 'angel heart' bearers of these info? Don't they have a view on what should be published and what not, plus the ability to hide a false info among many true ones? And doesn't that give them enough (undue) power out of any control? Let alone the black financial value the info or it's hiding has, that WILL corrupt them if hasn't already and drive them in the first category entities. Begging the question. S.M.

You can't believe anything you read or hear about second hand. It's easy to plant false stories. Wikileaks turned out to be primarily gossip worthy of venues such as Entertainment Tonight. I don't believe anything anymore unless I witness it first hand. Disinformation has been employed by gov't intelligence agencies since at least the Roman Empire, and probably before that. Anything uploaded on SafeHouse or similar sites could be uploaded by an anonymous 8 year old hoaxster.