What is legitimate?

[Uncensored2008]

I was in another thread, and one of the rabid leftist offered a cite from "Mother Jones." His conservative opponent dismissed the cite out of hand, due to the source. I admit that I too dismissed the cite as not relevant because "Mother Jones" is not a reliable source.

A short time ago, sources such as Stormfront, ThinkProgress, and Common Dreams were ignored on message boards because they are dishonest and biased. But in the last decade, this has extended to what used to be fairly mainstream. Only a fool would believe what Rolling Stone prints about conservatives or Republicans - they report on the right using all the integrity of the KKK reporting on blacks. "Mother Jones" is a far left publication which traditionally has had a strong bias, but in the last decade has jettisoned any semblance of integrity and engages in pure propaganda.

I'll add in the once venerable New York Times. The Times has been caught dozens of times falsifying data and running distortions to either attack the opposition party, or bury information harmful to the democrats. The result is that the Times can't be trusted as valid source of information either. The Times prints that which serves the party, and buries anything that doesn't. The party is the priority - journalism a distant second, if even considered at all.

And of course the left won't trust Fox. So what IS a valid source, one that is unimpeachable? Have we become too fractured as a society to even have a source that all sides trust?

Thoughts?

 

[Pogo]

We can't dismiss a link on its source alone when it's citing fact. Opinion is a completely different matter. Each story should be vetted individually and confirmed from a separate source. We may have ample reason to suspect Fox Noise, Limblob, the Daily Caller, the Examiners, the Moonie Times, Dimbart, Brent Bozo, Gateway Plunder and Whirled Nuts Daily, but suspicion isn't proof until proof is.

But poisoning the well as an excuse to get out of dealing with the issue it presents is still a fallacy and will always be a cop-out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We can't dismiss a link on its source alone when it's citing fact.

But therein lies the rub; when a source such as Mother Jones is used, there is little chance that what is cited will be fact.

Opinion is a completely different matter. Each story should be vetted individually and confirmed from a separate source. We may have ample reason to suspect Fox Noise, Limblob, the Daily Caller, the Examiners, the Moonie Times, Dimbart, Brent Bozo, Gateway Plunder and Whirled Nuts Daily, but suspicion isn't proof until proof is.

The problem is that few sources distinguish opinion from fact. The Los Angeles Times is one big opinion section, there is no straight news to be had.

You readily attack right wing sources, which may be legitimate. But this further illustrates my point - if the right wing sources distort to promote the right, and leftist sources distort to serve the party, then where is a legitimate source?

But poisoning the well as an excuse to get out of dealing with the issue it presents is still a fallacy and will always be a cop-out.

You know well enough that I cite my claims - as you do. But I've encountered many situations where others rejected the source of my citation, and I have rejected the source of other peoples citations. I simply will not accept Mother Jones as a legitimate source, without some sort of independent verification. Same thing with "Info Wars." Both of this, as an example, have a long history of deceit and outright fabrication, in my experience.

Is the concept of "just the facts" a fantasy? Am I asking too much?

 

[Luissa]

I was in another thread, and one of the rabid leftist offered a cite from "Mother Jones." His conservative opponent dismissed the cite out of hand, due to the source. I admit that I too dismissed the cite as not relevant because "Mother Jones" is not a reliable source.

A short time ago, sources such as Stormfront, ThinkProgress, and Common Dreams were ignored on message boards because they are dishonest and biased. But in the last decade, this has extended to what used to be fairly mainstream. Only a fool would believe what Rolling Stone prints about conservatives or Republicans - they report on the right using all the integrity of the KKK reporting on blacks. "Mother Jones" is a far left publication which traditionally has had a strong bias, but in the last decade has jettisoned any semblance of integrity and engages in pure propaganda.

I'll add in the once venerable New York Times. The Times has been caught dozens of times falsifying data and running distortions to either attack the opposition party, or bury information harmful to the democrats. The result is that the Times can't be trusted as valid source of information either. The Times prints that which serves the party, and buries anything that doesn't. The party is the priority - journalism a distant second, if even considered at all.

And of course the left won't trust Fox. So what IS a valid source, one that is unimpeachable? Have we become too fractured as a society to even have a source that all sides trust?

Thoughts?

You should never completely trust any source, you should always do your own homework.

As for Fox and MSNBC, they get it wrong too much and place their own biased slant on a topic to believe anything they publish 100%.
They are mostly there for Entertainment.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm legitimate!

Everything I say is true.

 

[Billo_Really]

I was in another thread, and one of the rabid leftist offered a cite from "Mother Jones." His conservative opponent dismissed the cite out of hand, due to the source. I admit that I too dismissed the cite as not relevant because "Mother Jones" is not a reliable source.

A short time ago, sources such as Stormfront, ThinkProgress, and Common Dreams were ignored on message boards because they are dishonest and biased. But in the last decade, this has extended to what used to be fairly mainstream. Only a fool would believe what Rolling Stone prints about conservatives or Republicans - they report on the right using all the integrity of the KKK reporting on blacks. "Mother Jones" is a far left publication which traditionally has had a strong bias, but in the last decade has jettisoned any semblance of integrity and engages in pure propaganda.

I'll add in the once venerable New York Times. The Times has been caught dozens of times falsifying data and running distortions to either attack the opposition party, or bury information harmful to the democrats. The result is that the Times can't be trusted as valid source of information either. The Times prints that which serves the party, and buries anything that doesn't. The party is the priority - journalism a distant second, if even considered at all.

And of course the left won't trust Fox. So what IS a valid source, one that is unimpeachable? Have we become too fractured as a society to even have a source that all sides trust?

Thoughts?

There's nothing wrong with Mother Jones and Common Dreams.

They both print the absolute truth.

 

[Pogo]

We can't dismiss a link on its source alone when it's citing fact.

But therein lies the rub; when a source such as Mother Jones is used, there is little chance that what is cited will be fact.

"Chance" doesn't enter into it; an assertion is either a fact, or it is not.

Opinion is a completely different matter. Each story should be vetted individually and confirmed from a separate source. We may have ample reason to suspect Fox Noise, Limblob, the Daily Caller, the Examiners, the Moonie Times, Dimbart, Brent Bozo, Gateway Plunder and Whirled Nuts Daily, but suspicion isn't proof until proof is.

The problem is that few sources distinguish opinion from fact. The Los Angeles Times is one big opinion section, there is no straight news to be had.

^^ Opinion. And blanket generalization. Shall we open an issue right now?

"Sebelius won't slow rollout of Obamacare" - factual; she won't.
"Lawmakers examine delay in jobless benefits" - factual; they will.
"French fight making Wednesday a school day" - factual; they do.
"Family of woman killed in Santa Monica crash sues pilot's estate" - factual; she does.
"Mountain lion killed crossing 101 Freeway was from north" - factual; it was.
"Tesla shares plunge on battery shortage, heavy research spending" - factual; they did.

You readily attack right wing sources, which may be legitimate. But this further illustrates my point - if the right wing sources distort to promote the right, and leftist sources distort to serve the party, then where is a legitimate source?

I didn't "attack" them; I used them as examples. Given your fringe position in the OP I felt an obligation to balance the scale. You're welcome.

Now that that's out of the way, the question is well taken. That's why I say each story should be vetted and confirmed, preferably, if the first source be considered biased, with one considered biased the other way. Somewhere between them usually lieth the reality.

But poisoning the well as an excuse to get out of dealing with the issue it presents is still a fallacy and will always be a cop-out.

You know well enough that I cite my claims - as you do. But I've encountered many situations where others rejected the source of my citation, and I have rejected the source of other peoples citations. I simply will not accept Mother Jones as a legitimate source, without some sort of independent verification. Same thing with "Info Wars." Both of this, as an example, have a long history of deceit and outright fabrication, in my experience.

Yeah I know that, but I too have encountered, as have we all, an instance where, say, Glenn Beck says something absurd and the point is dismissed because the video came from a MediaMatters site --- even though the video is the same regardless of the URL hosting it. On some planet somewhere this passes for legitimate logic.

And no, you shouldn't accept Mother Jones, or virtually anything else, without independent verification. That's what I'm saying.

Is the concept of "just the facts" a fantasy? Am I asking too much?

Not at all. Unfortunately for us this is the waste product of commercialized news, where the priority is not to report straight news, or even to slant it, but to make a profit. And that's best served by taking emotional stances, whether they reflect reality or not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's nothing wrong with Mother Jones and Common Dreams.

They both print the absolute truth.

Of course they do Comrade, the "truth" is that which serves the party - all else is lies.

But alas, this discussion is meant for rational people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Chance" doesn't enter into it; an assertion is either a fact, or it is not.

Very true, and 9 out of 10 times, political assertions made in MJ will not be fact.

^^ Opinion. And blanket generalization. Shall we open an issue right now?

"Sebelius won't slow rollout of Obamacare" - factual; she won't.
"Lawmakers examine delay in jobless benefits" - factual; they will.
"French fight making Wednesday a school day" - factual; they do.
"Family of woman killed in Santa Monica crash sues pilot's estate" - factual; she does.
"Mountain lion killed crossing 101 Freeway was from north" - factual; it was.
"Tesla shares plunge on battery shortage, heavy research spending" - factual; they did.

And?

I didn't "attack" them; I used them as examples. Given your fringe position in the OP I felt an obligation to balance the scale. You're welcome.

Now that that's out of the way, the question is well taken. That's why I say each story should be vetted and confirmed, preferably, if the first source be considered biased, with one considered biased the other way. Somewhere between them usually lieth the reality.

Fair enough, but it's a LOT of work. It would be nice to have a reliable source. And in all fairness, I view the National Review as completely reliable; but they are a monthly and not usable for current events.

Yeah I know that, but I too have encountered, as have we all, an instance where, say, Glenn Beck says something absurd and the point is dismissed because the video came from a MediaMatters site --- even though the video is the same regardless of the URL hosting it. On some planet somewhere this passes for legitimate logic.

The issue here is that Media Matters is notorious for editing video. Usually they just grab a snippet out of context, but in some cases they have rearranged and even dubbed video.

And no, you shouldn't accept Mother Jones, or virtually anything else, without independent verification. That's what I'm saying.

It's a shame that we can't trust our media.

Not at all. Unfortunately for us this is the waste product of commercialized news, where the priority is not to report straight news, or even to slant it, but to make a profit. And that's best served by taking emotional stances, whether they reflect reality or not.

True, but I think the Balkanization of the country is also responsible.

 

[jwoodie]

One test of legitimacy is to note the frequency with which fallacious arguments (e.g. straw man, etc.) are used in presenting a story. Another is to note the inclusion of irrelevant and/or erroneous "facts." For example, TV "news" programs often present an image of a fully automatic weapon (i.e., machine gun) while airing a story involving a semi-automatic weapon.

 

[Pogo]

"Chance" doesn't enter into it; an assertion is either a fact, or it is not.

Very true, and 9 out of 10 times, political assertions made in MJ will not be fact.

^^ Opinion. And blanket generalization. Shall we open an issue right now?

"Sebelius won't slow rollout of Obamacare" - factual; she won't.
"Lawmakers examine delay in jobless benefits" - factual; they will.
"French fight making Wednesday a school day" - factual; they do.
"Family of woman killed in Santa Monica crash sues pilot's estate" - factual; she does.
"Mountain lion killed crossing 101 Freeway was from north" - factual; it was.
"Tesla shares plunge on battery shortage, heavy research spending" - factual; they did.

And?

And, your assertion, carefully cut out here, was:

The Los Angeles Times is one big opinion section, there is no straight news to be had.

-- So clearly that's not the case.

Fair enough, but it's a LOT of work. It would be nice to have a reliable source. And in all fairness, I view the National Review as completely reliable; but they are a monthly and not usable for current events.

"It's a lot of work" is irrelevant. It's more work to keep somebody's quote attributions in than just paste and hit the generic quote button too, but it's more accurate.

Yeah it would be nice, but as long as we know that's not the case, a lot of work is what's needed. It would be nice if it weren't but it is, so let's just do it.

The issue here is that Media Matters is notorious for editing video. Usually they just grab a snippet out of context, but in some cases they have rearranged and even dubbed video.

I can't remember anyone making that case; they just crow, "oh it's MediaMutters so it doesn't count". As if it's some kind of do-it-yourself papal indulgence. And anyway I've never known Media Matters to edit video. Feel free to cite one.

And no, you shouldn't accept Mother Jones, or virtually anything else, without independent verification. That's what I'm saying.

It's a shame that we can't trust our media.

Not at all. Unfortunately for us this is the waste product of commercialized news, where the priority is not to report straight news, or even to slant it, but to make a profit. And that's best served by taking emotional stances, whether they reflect reality or not.

True, but I think the Balkanization of the country is also responsible.

Balkanization? Explain...

 

[Uncensored2008]

And, your assertion, carefully cut out here, was:


-- So clearly that's not the case.

The multi-quote function often drops text when quoted. I try and recall what the original text was, but don't always - the above is an exact quote - note how the system dropped the reference.

At any rate, on mundane news, the Times has little option but to report. On anything of a political nature, they are less than stellar.

"It's a lot of work" is irrelevant. It's more work to keep somebody's quote attributions in than just paste and hit the generic quote button too, but it's more accurate.

Ouch...

Yeah it would be nice, but as long as we know that's not the case, a lot of work is what's needed. It would be nice if it weren't but it is, so let's just do it.

In a way, I feel like this is going to McDonalds and having to cook the burger myself.. This is supposed to be their job..

I can't remember anyone making that case; they just crow, "oh it's MediaMutters so it doesn't count". As if it's some kind of do-it-yourself papal indulgence. And anyway I've never known Media Matters to edit video. Feel free to cite one.

There is a reason MM has such a bad reputation.

There is a whole site dedicated to their misdeeds.

http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/

Balkanization? Explain...

{We have become a nation of “special interests” - but what interest can be more special than preserving the greatness of the United States of America and the freedoms of all its citizens?

We have politicians who would rather divide us based on income, gender or race than unite us as Americans. } - Allen West

WEST: The Balkanized States of America - Washington Times