I would be surprised by this, then I remember why people keep referring to the republican nominees as something of a "clown car bunch".

Celiac disease is conspiracy. Ever notice how it didnt exist before 2012

If you have been diagnosed with coeliac disease you cannot enlist in the United States military. Gluten-Free MREs are not necessary for health reasons.

@Taaj, has anyone said how fucking cool you avatar is?

If not, then it's fucking cool.

It's wierd how many of the people with celiac disease (1% of population) happen to be young adults and/or trendy people.

To quote the Democratic Party before CartEr was nominated:

"We could run an aardvark this year and win"

To quote the Democratic Party before CartEr was nominated:

"We could run an aardvark this year and win"

Next you're gonna tell me Ted Cruz won't order them to include lowfat non-soy non-dairy sugar free latte creamer in MRE's either.

HuffPo is bad, your article is bad, and you should feel bad.

Next you're gonna tell me Ted Cruz won't order them to include lowfat non-soy non-dairy sugar free latte creamer in MRE's either.

HuffPo is bad, your article is bad, and you should feel bad.

Setting aside the joke, can you imagine how terrible a low-fat MRE would be? There's a reason athletes eat a lot, and that reasoning extends to soldiers. If you're that active, the last thing you need is LESS nutrition.

Also, HuffPo is bad. And that's coming from Mr. I Wrote 50,000 Words About Why We Should Accept Refugees And Why Immigration Is Generally Beneficial. When even I think it has a liberal bias, it has a liberal bias.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Setting aside the joke, can you imagine how terrible a low-fat MRE would be? There's a reason athletes eat a lot, and that reasoning extends to soldiers. If you're that active, the last thing you need is LESS nutrition.

Also, HuffPo is bad. And that's coming from Mr. I Wrote 50,000 Words About Why We Should Accept Refugees And Why Immigration Is Generally Beneficial. When even I think it has a liberal bias, it has a liberal bias.

I think it's a good rule of thumb to avoid the heavily-editorialized media options in general. You can usually check the relevancy of a news article by trying to cross-reference it with something like Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, whichever. If you only find it on editorial sites, consider it a fluff piece. Don't matter if it is Fox or HuffPo, left or right.

BBC and Al Jazeera are both questionable sources, and for precisely the same reason as one another. Reuters is one of the better media outlets, as far as objectivity goes. Huffington Post and Fox News don't even pretend to be politically neutral.

@Vilageidiotx
@The Nexerus

Reuters is definitely one of the best, for sure. BBC isn't bad, but definitely not as good as some others. I generally take my news from a bunch of different sources, with all their biases, as well as more neutral ones. It paints a more full picture of the situation, since biased articles provide context from different points of view (An unbiased article on Apple refusing to help crack that phone would simply say that they refuse to crack it, while a biased one might really dig deep into the idea that it could lead to even more government surveillance, and another biased article might make the point that it Apple refuses to cooperate, then nobody will be expected to do so).

_{Also, it's just fun to read all the silly slippery-slope arguments about gay marriage meaning everyone turns into David Cameron in a pig pen and how everything will turn into dystopian cyberpunk with all of us as literal slaves if we don't raise taxes.}

BBC and Al Jazeera are both questionable sources, and for precisely the same reason as one another. Reuters is one of the better media outlets, as far as objectivity goes. Huffington Post and Fox News don't even pretend to be politically neutral.

It's not ideal, but when it comes to getting an outside view on US affairs I can't think of a better choice. Al Jazeera has had a few blatant articles that make me a little leery of them as a source.

But that Huffpo article about Trump winning NH? That was embarrassing. They were always blatantly biased before, but I can't imagine how even the most granola liberal stereotype could ever take them seriously after that. I'm all for being well-rounded and trying to get info from as many sources as possible, but I think a person could completely ignore HuffPo and Fox and they'd be better for it.

<Snipped quote by Keyguyperson>

I think it's a good rule of thumb to avoid the heavily-editorialized media options in general. You can usually check the relevancy of a news article by trying to cross-reference it with something like Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, whichever. If you only find it on editorial sites, consider it a fluff piece. Don't matter if it is Fox or HuffPo, left or right.

My rule of thumb is to avoid all media options. Read the news that interests you, sure, but only read as far as the first citation -- then stop reading the shitty news and go read the source instead. Takes longer, but if you do anything else you're getting a watered-down lowest-common-denominator simplification, and you're not actually getting informed.

So like, when Reuters reports that Texas passed a law about abortion restrictions, you go through the Reuters article -- skipping as many words as humanly possible -- until you find the link to the law itself. Read the law. Then if you feel like it, come back to Reuters and see what some journalist with no law degree thinks it means, but remember that they probably did less research than you did already, so it's okay to ignore most of what they say.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

My rule of thumb is to avoid all media options. Read the news that interests you, sure, but only read as far as the first citation -- then stop reading the shitty news and go read the source instead. Takes longer, but if you do anything else you're getting a watered-down lowest-common-denominator simplification, and you're not actually getting informed.

So like, when Reuters reports that Texas passed a law about abortion restrictions, you go through the Reuters article -- skipping as many words as humanly possible -- until you find the link to the law itself. Read the law. Then if you feel like it, come back to Reuters and see what some journalist with no law degree thinks it means, but remember that they probably did less research than you did already, so it's okay to ignore most of what they say.

That works for laws, and if there is a law you feel it is important to read then it is a good idea to go ahead and read it (though reading a law without a law degree would affect me as much as the journalist).

But it's difficult to do the same thing with, say, something related to the civil war in Syria. I could go looking for eye witness accounts, but those will be just as biased as the accounts of journalists, so you end up having to trust imperfect sources.

I'm going to Syria to read their lawbooks.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

That works for laws, and if there is a law you feel it is important to read then it is a good idea to go ahead and read it (though reading a law without a law degree would affect me as much as the journalist).

But it's difficult to do the same thing with, say, something related to the civil war in Syria. I could go looking for eye witness accounts, but those will be just as biased as the accounts of journalists, so you end up having to trust imperfect sources.

easier now than ever -- we live in the youtube era after all. But yes -- that is always true, and not just in news. Everything you've ever learned about history is wrong for all the same reasons (and some others).

But what you do in that case is, instead of reading the news analysis of the press release, you go find the actual press release (and pay attention to who it's coming from, so you're aware of the bias). The press release will usually be shorter, but nothing else the journalist adds is worth reading anyway.

It's the only way I'll know for sure.

But what you do in that case is, instead of reading the news analysis of the press release, you go find the actual press release (and pay attention to who it's coming from, so you're aware of the bias). The press release will usually be shorter, but nothing else the journalist adds is worth reading anyway.

So, this is an interesting take on things, but... Well, here's why I still read news articles:

I like to know...

• What the media wants people to hear,
• What the media is leaving out,
• And what people are being told.

This may seem silly, but this is a huge reason for me to keep track of what the media is saying. A LOT of people still listen to one or two media outlets and accept everything they say as truth. Now, that's an awful thing to do, but that's what people do anyway. So, I take my darned time paying attention to what the media has to say about things.

Another thing to pay attention to (if you drive a car a lot) is talk show hosts. I live in Texas, so I get to listen to some particularly scary individuals while I drive like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Now, I don't like what I hear from them, but I listen anyway because I know that folks around me like what those two say. Plus, you never know when you're going to have to argue against someone who's getting their information from these talk shows.

I guess I can summarize my opinion as this: being aware of what you're being told is true is just as important as knowing what's actually true.