Whenever an information, or news source, that seems reliable for accurate, effective, and factual information is found, I apply another evaluation criteria. Is the news delivered without editorial opinion. In other words, is the news allowed to speak for itself? When the reporter becomes commentator they rapidly enter the margin for me. Interpretive reporting smells of agenda. If it’s opinion we want, that’s what we will look for. OK!?
Dane Wiggington, the host of Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, loads a lot of information into weekly broadcasts, however, each broadcast is packed with opinion. He encourages the listener to do follow up research, and references actual data sources, which does prove to reinforce most of the key points of the reporting, but as an interested researcher, I consistently suspect that the host has some self serving angle. The subject matter is sensitive, alarming, and certainly serious. Taken on it’s face, you wouldn’t be human if you didn’t become emotional by the news. It’s important, however, to trust the person that’s listening to the news, and not tell them what to think. Sarcasm and suggestion are not the rule here. Just give it to us straight. When a host trusts us, I’m positive it’ll be easier to trust the host.
The overall value of being up to date on current events is debatable. Pursuing liberty involves making decisions of what to do, and, in ways, how to do it. When conviction comes about of how something has been helpful and useful for personal growth then one might very well like to share it. This could be helpful! Sharing information that serves to effectively challenge, fortify, corroborate, or improve a worldview has a real value. It would be a shame to corrupt the information with opinion. Sharing Global Alert News has a big caution. Dane does a good job of maintaining relevancy, so threads of coherence are discernible, and metaphysical (big picture) themes do manifest. I haven’t missed many installments over the past ten years or so. Man?! The years a passing quickly!! Over this period of time there hasn’t been many retractions or major corrections. The reporting has been consistent. It’s been largely on point. Rightness and correctness stand up on their own validity. It’s way more about what is right than being right. It would be great to share a broadcast that doesn’t come off as an effort to tell you how you should think, as opposed to understanding that there are things that may help you with what you do think. Just give it to me straight.
At the risk of making an imposition, check out geoengineeringwatch.org