help me finding good objective information source that challenges all narratives

some news I can find only on “wrong” sources

      • HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
        81·
        1 year ago

        Seems like anyone can write and submit articles and claims there. You need academic papers cited and such for it to count as sources.

      • foo@withachanceof.com
        6·
        1 year ago

        Also assuming you’re not just a troll with this comment…

        You’re posting link to this website “vigilantnews.com”. Have you looked into who is behind it? According to their about section, it’s made up two people. One simply called “The Vigilant Fox” and another named Dallas Ludlum. (https://vigilantnews.com/about)

        The latter, Dallas, runs a blog dressed up with a newspaper with clearly a hard right take on politics here: https://conservativecompass.substack.com. He’s also quite active on Quora for giving job seeking and career advice: https://www.quora.com/profile/Dallas-Ludlum.

        More interestingly, from a reverse image search, this person’s headshot also shows up on an eastern European photographer’s website here: https://sebastianszulfer.com/en/services/headshots-portraits/. Yet Dallas claims to be on the east coast of the US on his Twitter account. Traveling to Europe just for a photo is quite the trek.

        At best, the sources you’re listing are simply one or maybe two person’s opinions dressed up as a newspaper in order to generate pageviews and thus ad revenue. At worst, between the anonymous “Vigilant Fox” persona and the fake headshot profile photos, it’s likely this is part of a larger fake information dissemination campaign.

        Is that “challenging the narrative” enough for you?

        • fluid_neutral@lemmy.todayOP
          12·
          1 year ago

          accepting the doubt, but still are articles wrong?

          will try to find better sources

          those are not my only posts, I tried to find some articles about protests in Canada, but all sources were labeled as not trustworthy, I thing we should give anyone a chance if it information is not available, then people can make their own mind at the end

          I think I will just stop, I’m good on my own anyway

          • foo@withachanceof.com
            3·
            1 year ago

            I’ll be honest with you: I have better things to do with my time than debunk the same old re-hashed covid vaccine bullshit. It’s been almost three years since the vaccines were given to billions of people. If the clinical trials did truly miss awful side effects or there was something else wrong with them we’d know by now. It’s all bullshit and always has been. I’m done wasting my time debunking something that obviously has no credibility.

            There’s no mass conspiracy about any of this stuff. If you want to get to the root of it just follow the money. Who profits from you and other people clicking on and reading these outlandish articles that promise to shed light on some massive conspiracy that the whole world is otherwise missing? The people that run the websites. They collect their ad revenue by peddling bullshit. If you’re not paying for something, you are the product, not the customer.

      • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
        31·
        1 year ago

        I did some quick digging on your first post about the Kisielinski study on rebreathing CO2… basically if you google it you will find that the paper was only published on sites that do not validate the studies, where literally anyone can make a post (and most of them have disclaimers at the top stating this). Of the actual discussions I could on this paper, they all came to the same conclusion – the author didn’t “study” anything at all, but simply listed a bunch of other studies that backed up their opinion on the matter. As one article put it: if wearing masks was such a huge problem then where are all the paper from the previous CENTURY of use by actual doctors and surgeons who have been wearing masks for extended periods of time through their entire careers?

        Here’s a tip… If you are reading articles about subjects that are expressly for the benefit of one political party who also believes that vaccines cause autism and any efforts to help protect other people’s lives are a direct attack on their own “freedoms”, then you are probably being lied to. Honest scientific articles are accepted regardless of any political affiliation or religious beliefs. It’s fine to have some skepticism about current events but as soon as you see a bias from the people referencing something, that’s a sign to run away fast.

        If you want as easy comparison, look at the current political climate… Donald Trump: Has multiple lawsuits pending from Federal, State, and personal sources with direct public evidence of wrongdoing. Joe Biden: Being pursued by Republicans with official statements by their own members that no laws have been broken, but the Party has taken an official stance that they will continue digging through records until they can find something incriminating. No seriously, that it exactly what is happening, and yet sites such as vigilantnews.com have an obvious bias towards demonizing Biden and praising Trump. If you are truly trying to find unbiased news sources then this is one of the last places you want to look for it.

          • Sami@lemmy.zipEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            So I guess since we’re not wearing masks anymore we should focus on decreasing the main source of CO2 in cities being cars and other modes of transport that run on fossil fuels and impact air quality and by extension cognitive ability. Would you agree?

              • Sami@lemmy.zipEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                You’re already paying a car tax through income tax which goes to fund public roads that are predominantly worn out by private vehicles.

                Unfortunately, a lot of economic growth historically has been tied to increased fossil fuel usage so until we can decouple the two through cleaner energy sources, the only way to maintain living standards in rich countries is the continued reliance on fossil fuels, plastics etc.

                That is not to say that this is an issue that regular people need to address on an individual level but that the move toward a less poluted world involves a decreased dependence on poorer countries for the production of goods that exposes them to the majority of the health risks and harms associated with industrialization. This will most likely impact your way of life if you live in a rich country because you depend on these processes even if you’re locally poor yourself.

                There is a whole other discussion to be had about wealth inequality within countries and on a global scale and how neither you nor someone from a poor country should have to worry about being able to afford a dignified, healthy life.