What News Sources Are Invalid Here?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Yes, but with that broad range don't you end up with a moderate consensus? As for the last sentence, name me one MP that doesn't fit that description.

A range from the far left to the centre right does not make it middle of the road. It makes it center left.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: What News Sources Are Invalid Here?

Originally posted by Agathon
The Grauniad? What's not credible about it?

Well thier recent Wolfowitz article seems to show a certain disregard for even basic fact checking.

[*End Is Forever*]

Yes, but with that broad range don't you end up with a moderate consensus?

No, it means that you end up with different policies in every single constituency in the country. In York, where the yellows took power this year, they focused on planning issues... and their leaflets were completely contradictory even in wards less than a mile apart!

For General Elections, they're well known for printing "northern" and "southern" manifestos... the best example is that one manifesto (1997 perhaps) would have simultaeneously awarded the same defence contract to Scotland and the south coast!

As for the last sentence, name me one MP that doesn't fit that description.

Most politicians at least broadly follow some set of guided principles. The Liberal Democrats have none.

[Q Classic]

anything is suspect, but worthy of a read.

play them off against each other, and see what's uncovered.

[Cruddy]

Any of you guys ever read "The Final Call"? I think that's what it's called.

The Nation Of Islam is a truly terrible reporter of news. Even Tass was less biased.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

A range from the far left to the centre right does not make it middle of the road. It makes it center left.

Marxist <> Far left.

Comunist 1 party dictatorship = Far Left.

[Shi Huangdi]

indymedia
salon
democratic action
90% of the stuff Che links too and expects us to believe as credible sources.

[Q Classic]

anything religious tends not to be a good news source... philadelphia trumpeter, for instance.

[*End Is Forever*]

Agreed Shi!

[GePap]

None, or all.

Certainly I think Foxnews is blatantly and openly biased, but as was already noted, all newsources are biased in one way or another. Total objectiveness is impossible.

As for the guardian, they retracted what they said about Wolfie online(and it never made it into print anyway).

Personally, I think the whole: "sorry, won;t listen to them, they are biased" strawman should itself be what is banned or openly ridiculed. If YOU can not come up with an alternative source that disproves the one you refuse to believe, then you refusal to believe is based solely on your personal prejudice and is therfore NOT any sort of arguement. After all, that is how the whole bit about the Gurdian and wolfie came up, somene checked the source material and pointed out the problem. That should be the only way to attack the source, since that is trully the only honest way to do so. Everyone here"clammors" for "unbiased news", yet is openly biased against certain sources?! Give me a break, hypocrites!

So again, if you think a source is wrong (it must be, its not what It think!), then find a countersource and make a good arguement about it, but this mindless 'strawan" of "I won;t believe them!" is both getting very old and seriously getting in the way of arguement and debate in this forum.

[Az]

GePap: So, if I make a website named www.thetruenews.com, and I start publicizing things about pink unicorns on the other side of the moon, someone can freely quote me, and use me as a valid source?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Azazel
GePap: So, if I make a website named www.thetruenews.com, and I start publicizing things about pink unicorns on the other side of the moon, someone can freely quote me, and use me as a valid source?

From a UK perspective, anyone who starts quoting websites as credible sources is invited to join the Intelligence Dossier team.

Seriously, web sites are never thought of as credible sources - who is to say someone hasn't hacked the site and put up their own HTML documents everywhere?

Trying to do this with a newspaper, TV or radio isn't nearly so easy (although I suppose just technically possible for a short period of time).

[Az]

Been done for years by tabloids. All they should change is their editing to broadsheet, and they'll start having much more legitimacy. People often give the written word much more credit than it deserves.

( In Israel, the biggest papers are tabloids, but suprisingly, they make OK papers ( not like the British tabloids ). But I like it: more pics, more illustrations. That's what we savages need. )

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
GePap: So, if I make a website named www.thetruenews.com, and I start publicizing things about pink unicorns on the other side of the moon, someone can freely quote me, and use me as a valid source?

Someone is free to quote youyes. And everyone would be free to read your statements carefuly and question your news finding methods. But until they could prove you lied, they can not just ignore you, becuase by doing so they ae guilty of the same thing they accuse evryone else, of bias.

What is a bad report? Lets look at the Guardian Wolfie piece online. The reporters took a quote out of context and ran with it. BUt since they had to give the source material anyway, even to misquote, anyone who wanted to find out for themselves could go and look at the source again, and that is exactly what was done. How would yo make up a pink unicorn stry that would sound evenjournalistically plausible? Whom would you quote? What source or study would you site? Even those sources being called biased must site, give sources, so forth. Now, we are at a disadvantage, we are not all journalisst 9we have only one, I believe) and our ability to get sources is limited, but that has always been true! In theoyr, you can not trust anything you are told unless you can by your own sense veryfy it, and even then you run into the problem of it being staged, and thus some sort of Potemkin scam.

If people here want to make up a set of rules for a reports by which its relative credibility is to be established, fine. but such rles ca not be simply by the name brand of the source, which is meaningless, but by how the report is written, and what kind of documentation it gives. That is the only way to be fair and balanced and unbiased with a report, which is what everyone is claiming is what they want with their news.

[Shi Huangdi]

To restate without making it seem like picking on Che or anybody, a source posted on Apolyton should be something acceptable to most of the members here. A source should be avoided if it obviously has a political bias. Personally I am ok with Fox News, but I try to avoid it for Apolyton since many here don't consider it a reputable source. Sources such as Newsmax or Democratic Underground should be avoided for posting news, it is generally good to rely on sources that are well known for objectivity, such as the New York Times or CNN.