Why don't people here source check their "links"?

[California Girl]

I think sources are legit, you can check em if you dont belive them. It's not that hard. Plus some of the more partisan sites do have stuff. If it wasnt for the executive privlege, none of the major sites talked about fast and furious, but it still did exist.

Depends on the 'source'. I dismiss almost all media outlets as 'sources', unless they have links to verify the information.

Great example is the recent plethora of left wingers using a variety of 'sources' to highlight results of surveys undertaken originally by Bloomberg. They linked back to Bloomberg.. but, on investigation of those surveys, it turned out that one survey was 1,002 respondents (with no detail on their political affiliation, likely voter status, age, race, etc)... the other was 734 respondents (again with no parameters). Now, that may be 'legitimate' in the land of the whack-job... but 1,002 respondents is not an academically sound survey. It made the posters promoting those claims look even more ridiculous than they usually do.

Check your sources.

 

[California Girl]

I've noticed that around here people throw up all kinds of asinine links and provide them as if they are some sort of hard evidence of facts. MSNBC is not a legitimate source unless you have access to their source information. The same can be said for Fox news... CNN and just about every major "news" manufacturer out there. Journalistic integrity is at an all time low it would seem. How many times are polls that are designed with predetermined outcomes going to be quoted before people go out and look at the construction of the polls they are quoting? I bring this up because it seems that people on both the left and right are doing word searches in google and and literally finding the first source that agrees with them and posting it. If your link includes something like Issues why don't you verify it before you post it. It isn't a rule, I get that... but why not do it just to increase your credibility?

Just an observation. Flame away.

Mike

You're making the argument that there is no such thing as the facts, which is the argument that people make who don't want to argue the facts because the facts aren't on their side.

It is a well established factthat to reject a claim or argument solely because whoever makes the claim has a bias is a logical fallacy.

Well, let's take for example the 'fact' that watching Fox News makes people 'dumb'. We've seen that claim used time and again on this board. And with links to media to 'prove' that allegation. The problem.... that 'research' was based on 612 in New Jersey. Now, because you believe it, that might be a perfectly legitimate 'source'.... However, to anyone who actually values real research (like me), a survey based on 612 people in New Jersey is... for want of a better phrase... absolutely fucking ridiculous.

There is no legitimate research to back up that claim. None. But that does not stop idiots from regurgitating the same crap time and again... It is fucking ludicrous to have to keep repeating to those idiots that their 'source' is fundamentally flawed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I never trust the 1st site google recommends... I go to tried and true sites that have shown some semblance of crediblity.
Hack sites are outed pretty easily... I wont mention any names

My favorite thing to do is post from youtube... in their own words.

Yes you tube is a good source and Cspan is another.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I have noted here how the 'Conservatives' seem to think that a blog or pundit's opinion peice is of equal weight on a scientific subject as an article published in a peer reviewed journal by an accredited scientist.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I've noticed that around here people throw up all kinds of asinine links and provide them as if they are some sort of hard evidence of facts. MSNBC is not a legitimate source unless you have access to their source information. The same can be said for Fox news... CNN and just about every major "news" manufacturer out there. Journalistic integrity is at an all time low it would seem. How many times are polls that are designed with predetermined outcomes going to be quoted before people go out and look at the construction of the polls they are quoting? I bring this up because it seems that people on both the left and right are doing word searches in google and and literally finding the first source that agrees with them and posting it. If your link includes something like Issues why don't you verify it before you post it. It isn't a rule, I get that... but why not do it just to increase your credibility?

Just an observation. Flame away.

Mike

Where do you get your new from TM?

I go to Drudge everyday for the headlines then I go to FreeRepublic for stories posted by news sources all over the US and Internationally.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Well, I have noted here how the 'Conservatives' seem to think that a blog or pundit's opinion peice is of equal weight on a scientific subject as an article published in a peer reviewed journal by an accredited scientist.

You know thats funny because I've noticed that the 'Liberals' here seem to think that a blog or pundit's opinion peice is of equal weight on a scientific subject as an article published in a peer reviewed journal by an accredited scientist.

 

[California Girl]

Well, I have noted here how the 'Conservatives' seem to think that a blog or pundit's opinion peice is of equal weight on a scientific subject as an article published in a peer reviewed journal by an accredited scientist.

One should always be skeptical of blogs and OpEds... they are fine as 'opinion' but it's not wise to use them as a 'source'. The problem with scientific articles is that, sadly, our scientific research as been compromised by politics. Hence, I call people like Van Jones 'watermelon men'. Because they use really important scientific issues as political bandwagons. That is fundamentally wrong... science must be outside of the political agenda. Otherwise the research is compromised by politics. Whether you are liberal or conservative should not make a difference.

 

[candycorn]

when you compare FOX to CNN you lose all credibility

good night

When they employ the same standards; they lose all credibility.

same standards?

CNN was started to give the Big 3 networks competition. FOX was started in order to conservatism a voice.

MSNBC went liberal under Olbermeister.

no comparison of yours is valid.

So your premise is what? Because you think it was started for a specific reason; they automatically have credibility and their stories are sourced better as a result?

you're an idiot if you think CNN was ever a voice for liberals or the DNC. They go after all parties and ideologies. Always have. They have no god in the fight.

While some people may lean left or right, FOX was started as a right wing voice echo chamber. fact

Actually, I never said that. I said that they have the same standards at times. Where do you get me calling them a "voice of liberalism". Either shut the fuck up or go see a shrink because you're reading words not on the screen.

As for proof of the standards being lax, it isn't hard to find.

 

[tinydancer]

when you compare FOX to CNN you lose all credibility

good night

When they employ the same standards; they lose all credibility.

same standards?

CNN was started to give the Big 3 networks competition. FOX was started in order to conservatism a voice.

MSNBC went liberal under Olbermeister.

no comparison of yours is valid.

you're an idiot if you think CNN was ever a voice for liberals or the DNC. They go after all parties and ideologies. Always have. They have no god in the fight.

While some people may lean left or right, FOX was started as a right wing voice echo chamber. fact

I have fond memories of election night 2000 when CNN called Florida for Al Gore. Karl Rove called in to let them know that the Panhandle (R stronghold) was in a different time zone and the polls hadn't closed.

It was wonderous watching Judy Woodruff almost sob live on air.

Ah, memories.

 

[California Girl]

I never trust the 1st site google recommends... I go to tried and true sites that have shown some semblance of crediblity.
Hack sites are outed pretty easily... I wont mention any names

My favorite thing to do is post from youtube... in their own words.

Yes you tube is a good source and Cspan is another.

I treat YT with the same skepticism as any other source... it is fine and dandy to have their own words... however, more than once, those words have been taken out of context. Context is absolutely vital for decent sourcing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I use a lot of different sources. However, if i see name calling or otherwise demonizing a group of people, or reporting things that are obviously not true I just close the page.

 

[tinydancer]

I prefer to utilize off shore media outlets for factual information. BBC is fabulous for timelines for example.

Although they lean left, lo and behold they actually report the news. And from all corners of the planet so one gets the "big picture".

Daily Mail is a tad conservative but they are very good.

France 24 is excellent as well. And one of my favorites is Al Jazeera because then you really see the world from a different perspective.

And I'd say these outlets list excellent and reliable sources. Frankly, I don't trust the U.S. media generally any more.

Instead of editorials being on the editorial page, they are now on the front page. It's agenda instead of journalism.
Selective editing is the norm whether it be print or television. Perfect example is MSNBC's Mitchell's botched editing of Romney and Wawa. Just disgusting.

And when in a debate with a liberal, I always and with great glee link to a very left wing media outlet whenever possible so I don't have to endure "OMG you linked to WND!!!" or the ever smarmy comment
"Faux News again".

 

[usmcstinger]

I've noticed that around here people throw up all kinds of asinine links and provide them as if they are some sort of hard evidence of facts. MSNBC is not a legitimate source unless you have access to their source information. The same can be said for Fox news... CNN and just about every major "news" manufacturer out there. Journalistic integrity is at an all time low it would seem. How many times are polls that are designed with predetermined outcomes going to be quoted before people go out and look at the construction of the polls they are quoting? I bring this up because it seems that people on both the left and right are doing word searches in google and and literally finding the first source that agrees with them and posting it. If your link includes something like Issues why don't you verify it before you post it. It isn't a rule, I get that... but why not do it just to increase your credibility?

Just an observation. Flame away.

Mike

If a News Group does not mention it's source, I take what they say as nothing more than their own biased opinion. They can also slant a story by the what they don't say. Completely ignoring a story can be another indication of their bias (most recently Eric Holder's Fast and Furious Debacle).

As far as posters and their sources, many do not even list a source. Some that do are clueless as to what constitutes a trustworthy source.

Many posts indicate just how bad our education system has become.

 

[California Girl]

I prefer to utilize off shore media outlets for factual information. BBC is fabulous for timelines for example.

Although they lean left, lo and behold they actually report the news. And from all corners of the planet so one gets the "big picture".

Daily Mail is a tad conservative but they are very good.

France 24 is excellent as well. And one of my favorites is Al Jazeera because then you really see the world from a different perspective.

And I'd say these outlets list excellent and reliable sources. Frankly, I don't trust the U.S. media generally any more.

Instead of editorials being on the editorial page, they are now on the front page. It's agenda instead of journalism.
Selective editing is the norm whether it be print or television. Perfect example is MSNBC's Mitchell's botched editing of Romney and Wawa. Just disgusting.

And when in a debate with a liberal, I always and with great glee link to a very left wing media outlet whenever possible so I don't have to endure "OMG you linked to WND!!!" or the ever smarmy comment
"Faux News again".

The Daily Mail is a 'tad conservative'? That's like saying Karl Marx was a tad socialist. The DM is totally without credibility politically.

The BBC has improved from its biased left, although it does still lean left, it at least tries to be impartial.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've noticed that around here people throw up all kinds of asinine links and provide them as if they are some sort of hard evidence of facts. MSNBC is not a legitimate source unless you have access to their source information. The same can be said for Fox news... CNN and just about every major "news" manufacturer out there. Journalistic integrity is at an all time low it would seem. How many times are polls that are designed with predetermined outcomes going to be quoted before people go out and look at the construction of the polls they are quoting? I bring this up because it seems that people on both the left and right are doing word searches in google and and literally finding the first source that agrees with them and posting it. If your link includes something like Issues why don't you verify it before you post it. It isn't a rule, I get that... but why not do it just to increase your credibility?

Just an observation. Flame away.

Mike

Most links to online news organizations are simply republications of stories from other sources such as Reuters or the AP. Indeed, a legitimate online news source will cite/link the original Reuters or AP story.

The poster can easily check the legitimacy of his thread by doing a search of the topic and confirming with other reliable sources.

The problem is primarily with blogs, partisan sites such as Breitbart, and other message boards where twisted misinformation becomes ‘truth.’

For example, we had a recent thread bemoaning the ‘banning’ of Christmas displays in a California community. The ‘source’ was a Breitbart story. After a search, however, a legitimate news source was discovered relating a more comprehensive and accurate account. In fact, Christmas displays were not ‘banned’ but allowed to take place on private land. Moreover, Christmas displays were allowed to continue on public land provided they’re not unattended.

Needless to say the author of that thread had no interest in relating the truth of the event, she rather wanted to perpetuate the rightist myth that Christianity was ‘under attack’ by the ‘liberal establishment.’

 

[tigerbob]

when you compare FOX to CNN you lose all credibility

good night

When they employ the same standards; they lose all credibility.

same standards?

CNN was started to give the Big 3 networks competition. FOX was started in order to conservatism a voice.

MSNBC went liberal under Olbermeister.

no comparison of yours is valid.

you're an idiot if you think CNN was ever a voice for liberals or the DNC. They go after all parties and ideologies. Always have. They have no god in the fight.

While some people may lean left or right, FOX was started as a right wing voice echo chamber. fact

Interesting to listen once again to Jon Stewart's comments about where he believes the left vs right conflict in the media started (at 3.15 of interview with Rachel Maddow).

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkHq_wueVMw]Rachel Maddow Interviews Jon Stewart (Part 1/4) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

People don't source check because they're dishonest. They find crap sources that support whatever stupid thing they're spouting, and they use it, regardless of whether or not it's valid.

Case in point, the stupid chart that is supposed to show ... something ...about domestic terrorism. What it shows has nothing to do with what the poster is spouting, and I don't think he even linked it..instead he linked other partisan crap and then pretended it meant something other than what it did, and pretended it was a valid chart.

It's not, he's dishonest, and you get a lot of that sort of cynical shell game shit.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well, I have noted here how the 'Conservatives' seem to think that a blog or pundit's opinion peice is of equal weight on a scientific subject as an article published in a peer reviewed journal by an accredited scientist.

One should always be skeptical of blogs and OpEds... they are fine as 'opinion' but it's not wise to use them as a 'source'. The problem with scientific articles is that, sadly, our scientific research as been compromised by politics. Hence, I call people like Van Jones 'watermelon men'. Because they use really important scientific issues as political bandwagons. That is fundamentally wrong... science must be outside of the political agenda. Otherwise the research is compromised by politics. Whether you are liberal or conservative should not make a difference.

Absolutely 100% spot on.

The problem is how do you change it, when so much of Science is dependent in some way on Maintaining Funding from the Government.

Example, No matter how you feel about the whole man made Global Warming Debate. You have to understand that when you have Thousands of Scientists now Depending on Continued funding to Study it, they have at least some Motivation to Exaggerate or even Invent Problems to keep the Fear going, and the Money Flowing.

Not in anyway saying I do not believe in Global Warming, Simply noting that there is Motive for Scientists to Cover up any Findings that do not support the Narrative that we are in real Danger from Global Warming.

Yet I will be attacked for saying it, Lefties will say I don't care about science, Etc etc, They will never admit that scientists are just people to, and can be corrupted, or just plain wrong.

I guess they missed the 70's when thousands of Scientists Using Public Funding were doing studies and telling us all that we were in Danger of another Ice Age.

 

[Charles_Main]

I prefer to utilize off shore media outlets for factual information.

I don't know why anyone would assume Off Shore Media Outlets have any Reason to be less Biased in reporting than On Shore ones. If anything they are more Likely to Lean Heavily left, and Be Biased against the US in their Reporting. It's not like everyone over seas are all Neutral, they call come from Countries, they all have Political, Religious and Social Beliefs they hold Personally, and as a Network. Whether they admit it or not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I prefer to utilize off shore media outlets for factual information.

I don't know why anyone would assume Off Shore Media Outlets have any Reason to be less Biased in reporting than On Shore ones. If anything they are more Likely to Lean Heavily left, and Be Biased against the US in their Reporting. It's not like everyone over seas are all Neutral, they call come from Countries, they all have Political, Religious and Social Beliefs they hold Personally, and as a Network. Whether they admit it or not.

All media is biased. That is human nature.

It is just that foreign media will report stories, or sides of stories, that our media is afraid to touch.