What News Sources Are Invalid Here?

[Edan]

On indymedia:

Originally posted by GePap
1. Can you porve to me its unreliability?

Wasn't indymedia the one that "broke" the story that that CNN "faked" footage of Palestinians dancing?

Indymedia Article

I can tell you straight out that you can never discount a specfic story from any source, even if 70% of the time before they have been wrong.

Only single stories can be challenged, not general sources.

Absolutely, general sources can be challenged. If a news media has a track record of relying on unreliable sources, consistently poor fact checking, using misleading quotations and headlines and in general not having any journalistic ethics - and instead having tabloid ethics, then it is irresponsible and isn't worthy of ones time to read or consider true (or debating whether Madonna is really having the love child of aliens from neptune).

Cry wolf one too many times and yes people should ignore you. To do otherwise is just spinsanity.

[Jack_www]

I find FOX news just same as would be CNN or CNBC. You should get your news from many sources, not limited yourself to one. I like to watch all three of the cable news chanels and listen to the radio when driving to work.

[Sirotnikov]

indymedia had for a long time hosted a story about secret underground concentration and death camps in Israel, which could send up to 4000 palestinians to their death each day.

It was online for a year and so, and as of recently the link doesn't work:

http://arizona.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1528&group=webcast

(i'm not SURE it's the correct link. try it)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
On indymedia:
Cry wolf one too many times and yes people should ignore you. To do otherwise is just spinsanity.

Abd yet, do we forget the end result of "crying wolf"? At one point they are right. Again, challange the story: to simply go on some thread and write:"thisd source is bad.." is little better than Spam. If you really s don;t think it true, stay out of the thread.

[mrmitchell]

Well, then I'd put it about on par with the other news for reliability

Really, Indy does have a distinct bias but that's why I also use Apolyton, CNN (only occasionally) and CNBC for my major news sources. I had no idea they had articles about Isreali death camps or anything, but you're actually referring to a specific article instead of an actual..., er, thingie. I don't think there's near as much checking on an Indymedia story before it goes to publication than there is on a story on, say, CNBC or Apolyton. IIRC that's probably part of the "Independent" gist or they're just morons. Hopefully the first

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

Abd yet, do we forget the end result of "crying wolf"?

A broken clock might be right twice a day, that doesn't mean it makes for a good time piece. Under your philosophy, every article/story from every news story, be it CNN, Fox News, PBS, New York Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Daily Tabloid Trash, Indymedia, or the local grapevine (AKA, Auntie Mildred) all deserve equal wight, consideration and belief until and when you find something that directly contradicts that story.

That is utter nonesense.

[GePap]

That is utter nonesense.

Only if you look at it from some self-righteous "defender of truth" way. this forum is about debate. A lot of debarte starts of with pieces people post. When all debate becomes bogged down in "that source is false" crap (and as I said, if you cant find a countersource, you casn never actually be assured of the correctness of your point) then debate dies. People need to excersice common sense and civility. if you don;t like a piece in a thread, think it false, well then MOVE ON. There are always other threads, or start a new one. But people are killing debate with this endless stupidity about sources.

[Dinner]

People quoting the guardian are generally laughed at.

[Dis]

any news that isn't put out by my newspaper is crap and unacceptable.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
People quoting the guardian are generally laughed at.

Only by anti-guardian posters. Given that conservatives are less then 50% of posters, well, you are about 55% wrong there.

But you are loud, so that counts.

[Dinner]

I'd have to second (third) that indymedia is total rubbish which gives even tabloids like the National Inquirer a bad name. Just, total ideologically driven garbage.

[Nubclear]

Haha, when I say Fox News is unreliable...I'm more right than you are denying it

[cinch]

The Way I Do It:

I read the Edmonton Sun (right-wing), and then cbc.ca (left-wing), and then take the middle road between what each of them tells me. I think it works fairly well.

For some reason, I just can't stand the Journal.

[Panag]

hi ,

, al jaz

have a nice day

[Zkribbler]

Like most here, I try to get my news from a variety of sources, but this morning, I finally gave up on Fox News

Their "news story," on Hillary's new book is centered on Fox New's assertion that the book is filled with lies. For example, Hillary "fails to admit" the Flower's affair. Fox News fails to remember that Flower's lawsuit was thrown out of court.

This was followed by a commentator stating how the Democratic Presidential candidates are saying there never were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I may have missed something, but I've never heard any candidate say this. What they've been pointing out is that Bush said before the war that we knew WMD were there and that we knew where they were.

It's really sickening to see a major news channel constantly and intentionally distorting the Truth, and then calling other people liars because they don't agree with this distorted version.