Media Source vs Content

[EvMetro]

I'm seeing a strange fallacy on this site where some members propose a notion that how true an article is, is contingent on the source being a left or right leaning source, rather than the merits of the content. How many of you think it makes sense to dispute an article because of the source, rather than the content?

 

[EvMetro]

When I begin referring lefties to this thread for attacking the source when they can't attack the content, we will see that not one person from either side of the aisle thinks that it makes a lick of sense to attack the source instead of the content.

 

[whitehall]

Political discussion is about opinion and opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. When the source is consistent with mostly biased content it's logical to point it out. When the source is some obscure op-ed penned by some unknown writer it's important to point that out. Testimony based on opinion is allowed in a criminal trial but the witness has to be qualified as an expert in the field. The source of a politically based post is likewise subject to scrutiny.

 

[EvMetro]

Political discussion is about opinion and opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. When the source is consistent with mostly biased content it's logical to point it out. When the source is some obscure op-ed penned by some unknown writer it's important to point that out. Testimony based on opinion is allowed in a criminal trial but the witness has to be qualified as an expert in the field. The source of a politically based post is likewise subject to scrutiny.

Can you explain how a true fact can become untrue if it was reported by a shady source or a source you don't trust?

 

[EvMetro]

Political discussion is about opinion and opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. When the source is consistent with mostly biased content it's logical to point it out. When the source is some obscure op-ed penned by some unknown writer it's important to point that out. Testimony based on opinion is allowed in a criminal trial but the witness has to be qualified as an expert in the field. The source of a politically based post is likewise subject to scrutiny.

What good is it, or what do you think can be accomplished by attacking the source instead of the content?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm seeing a strange fallacy on this site where some members propose a notion that how true an article is, is contingent on the source being a left or right leaning source, rather than the merits of the content. How many of you think it makes sense to dispute an article because of the source, rather than the content?

This is why I don't click links or usually supply them.

This board lacks the maturity to make it worthwhile.

My link is legit and yours wears army boots.....

Ridiculous

 

[EvMetro]

My link is legit and yours wears army boots.....

Indeed, we have a shortage of people who can objectively vet an article.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Indeed, we have a shortage of people who can objectively vet an article.

I don't discount any source. Even CNN is right once and awhile. If the article cites an actual source then blasting the mouthpiece is stupid

 

[EvMetro]

I don't discount any source. Even CNN is right once and awhile. If the article cites an actual source then blasting the mouthpiece is stupid

I treat ALL media sources as biased, untrustworthy, and shady. I don't trust ANY. All I believe is what I can vet.

 

[EvMetro]

Here are a couple examples of lefties attacking source instead of content. I'll start archiving these fallacies here.

Otis Mayfield said:
Another wack job fake news website ran by some guy in his underwear sitting in his mother's basement.

JackOfNoTrades said:
Looks like a skin from the National Inquirer.

Two things,
1) Quote a story from a source that ISN'T part of the British "press".
2) Quote a story from a non alt-right source.

Then we might have something to talk about.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Here are a couple examples of lefties attacking source instead of content. I'll start archiving these fallacies here.

That will be an endless task as that all BOTH SIDES DO.

Renders links POINTLESS

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Thanks for starting this thread.

 

[EvMetro]

Just saw Mac1958 and Lakhota attacking the source in another thread. Like moths to a flame...

 

[EvMetro]

The censorship gods have visited this thread.

 

[EvMetro]

Thanks for starting this thread.

Thank our admins for censoring it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Thank our admins for censoring it.

“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”​

― John Lennon


Except that when Lennon said this, words were not yet seen as weapons. How in the hell did we let it get this far?

 

[EvMetro]

Just saw Otis Mayfield attacking the source in another thread. Seems like it is mostly lefties that use this fallacy.