Summary
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired National Intelligence Council Acting Chair Mike Collins and Deputy Maria Langan-Riekhof after they contradicted Trump’s claims about the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
A declassified NIC report found no Maduro-directed effort behind TDA’s U.S. activity, opposing Trump’s justification for suspending Venezuelan migrants’ due-process rights.
Whistleblowers accused the officials of undermining Trump. Gabbard is relocating the NIC from the CIA to her office.
Critics warned the firings suggest intelligence is being shaped to suit political agendas, not facts.
Serious question. But where do I find unfucked sources of news? Like I use to be able to take things like the NIHS, CDC seriously but can’t anymore. Government is pretty much syncopating towards the executive branch.
I am more or less looking for sources of news that is in their interest to report the facts as accurately as possible.
I find the AP to be the most level headed source most of the time. No place is infallible
Look towards the news sources that Trump is trying to shut down.
Or look to international news sources that aren’t American owned.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/ Unbiased?
European News Agencies are a lot more unbiased than american ones I believe. BBC for example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies
Eh…
Be careful there too. Daily mail for example isn’t a great source.
The Guardian has been great
Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg were by no means unbias (particularly Kuenssberg) and they were both previous BBC Political Editors:
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24627111.laura-kuenssberg-worst-moments-boris-johnson-deleted-tweets/
The BBC were also found to be bias during the Scottish independence referendum:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report/
And they’ve had journalists call out pro-Israel bias:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
The BBC are a giant government funded media company, they know how to present a good image of themselves and have years of good publicity and marketing to solidify that image. But be under no illusion that they are unbias. They push political agendas as much as any American private news organisation, just with more subtlety and an air of professionalism and officialdom to more legitimise their stance.
That’s not to say they don’t do good journalism or can’t be used as a credible source at times. But just to remember that they too are bias and have masters who push agendas.
Edit: to add more context:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/apr/22/bbc-tells-pm-evan-davis-to-stop-hosting-heat-pump-podcast
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stephen-doughty-labour-mp-s-jeremy-corbyn-onair-resignation-prearranged-by-the-bbc-a6801846.html
Unbias**-ed**
Why do so many people conjugate this verb incorrectly?
Because English is an arse of a language and I am a dumb dumb 🙃
A dumb dumb capable of providing credible sources though, which is funny considering the downvotes and the context of this thread. Maybe y’all aren’t as different from Gabbard as you think…
Well yes, there is no such thing as an unbiased news agency. That doesn’t exist. But the bbc is in no way comparable to American News such as cnn and fox news
Did you read any of my sources?
The BBC doesn’t outright say red is blue, because they’re not idiots and their target audience aren’t idiots, but to state they’re not comparable flies in the face of reason. They have shown on multiple occasions to push agendas, to the point that the criticism page on Wikipedia is huge. They are not the bastion of good journalism that they’re held up to be by the general public.
The Guardian has it’s flaws too of course but that is a far far better source than the BBC. It doesn’t claim to be unbias, it doesn’t lie to you that you’ll hear fair and even coverage from “both sides”, it doesn’t give preferential treatment to the ruling party in government because of fears its funding will be removed.
Edit: What’s scarier? An obvious bias source screaming nonsense 24/7 or a supposed unbias source subtly distorting facts when it suits them? Which will have more influence on public perception? Which is a better propaganda machine?
Well it’s already proven the biased source yelling at you 24/7 is the better propaganda machine.
Proven? Is it? Care to provide some sources or argument beyond just an assertion? An administration does not an empire make.
It’s intriguing that posts with references get downvoted but posts without get upvoted. Great critical thinking Lemmy users 👍
gestures broadly at the usa
gestures broadly at the UK…
Zero, everything is being controlled because that’s exactly what dictatorships do.
Europe, maybe?
The way I see it is no label is trustworthy or ever has been, simply look at the sources and compare articles on the same subject.
You have to accept that there are no such thing as unfucked sources and make your mind up accordingly
Exactly, everything right now is being controlled or news agencies like PBS and NPR being unfunded because that’s how dictatorships are born, you only listen to one source of news and that happens to be the news channels endorsed by the rulling dictator party.
Scrutiny is good and all, but I’d like to think that journalistic standards can be expected from some sources. And, those sources can be generally accepted without me having to be a journalist myself. Otherwise, what is the point of journalism?
deleted by creator
Rolling Stone has covered politics for 50 years. They’re not just some music magazine.
Absurd!
I get my news from a teen fashion magazine
Wait, doesn’t some teen girl magazine actually do some really good high quality journalism? I remember seeing some articles a few years ago, blew most papers out of the water.
Teen Vogue. It was publishing good, hard-hitting investigative journalism for a while.
Yes.
Teen Vogue has been killing it.
Yes, Teen Vogue I believe.
It wasn’t Tiger Beat?