Credible Websites/News Agencies

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Mar 16, 2006.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Which websites and or news agencies do you find to be credible sources of information and why?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bad site
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
    They buy 'news articles' without checking them from fiction authors.

    Bad site
    http://watch.pair.com/
    Dominionist theology (they are trying to take over the
    world so Jesus can come back, i.e. post-mills)

    Bad site
    http://www.whale.to/
    what nation is 'to'???
    conspiracy site
    their HOAX SITE is a hoot [​IMG]
    http://www.whale.to/b/hoax.html

    Bad site
    http://www.texemarrs.com/
    At least he has replaced his 40s picture
    with his 70's picture. That 40s picture did him
    good for 30 years
    -- conspiracy site, especially the GREAT SATANIC C.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Assoiciated Press. Seems to give the news pretty straightforwardly.

    www.ipsnews.net - Gives a worldwide span of news.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good sources of information assume their readers are competent
    to check other sources of information AND WILL.
    So these sources make sure that what they report is checkable.
    Today, with the internet, there is really no reason to frequent
    places that don't bother to do this.

    Bad sources of information assume their readers are idiots and
    won't notice that they made up what they discuss.
    Especially bad are agencies that buy stories from people
    and don't bother to check to see if anybody else is 'covering
    the story'.
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Okay, let's say they do assume this and they do have readers that are competent enough to check other sources and are willing, what percentage of these competent readers would you say do take the time to check other sources, does this include the average competent working people, the busy mom's and dad's that work away from home all day? How many of these competent readers that are willing to check other sources would you say on average have the time to check other sources?

    How often do you personally visit credible sources?

    How many articles from these credible sources would you say you read on average when you visit them?

    Do you always check other sources each time you read one of these articles?

    Do you have any good sources of information you watch on tv? Do you check to see if others are running the same stories? Do you check other sources on the net after you viewed them on tv?

    Are you willing to say that the tv news broadcasters rely on a competent audience that are willing to check other sources?

    What percentage of viewers do you think are just average folks that are competent and willing to check other sources just turn on the tv to watch the news everyday while eating a cheeseburger and drinking a coca cola and never bother to check other sources? Or hear it over the radio?

    For how long? I've seen most of the major mainstream sources run certain stories just once then they're gone, disappeared, not to be found, not in the archives, no cache nothing but dead links. In those cases I have gone to sites that make it a habit to cache stories like this and guess what those sites would probably be defined as bad sources but sometimes they are the only sources that have the stories. Are you willing to say that stories that have been wiped from the good sources archives are no longer credible because they have been cached on another site?

    How many dead links would you say that you run across each time you are checking other sources Ed? I run into them all the time while I'm checking other sources.

    I'm assuming you have some favorites you frequent that you consider to be good reliable trustworthy sources, so based on that assumption, do you find that you always check other sources on each story or article you read in these favorites that you frequent or would you say you check other sources most times, some times, or rarely?

    Would you be kind enough to post a few links to the sources you consider to be good Ed Just in case there are some of those idiots you speak of lurking around BB that have never had the good fortune to stumble across them before. Even idiots deserve a chance to view good sources of information once in awhile, wouldn't you agree?

    Guess I'd have to agree with that, but how does one identify an agency that buys it's stories from people and don't check to see if anybody else is covering the story?

    [ March 17, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]
     
  7. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed Edwards: //Good sources of information assume their readers are competent
    to check other sources of information AND WILL.//

    Poncho: //Okay, let's say they do assume this and they do have readers
    that are competent enough to check other sources and are willing,
    what percentage of these competent readers would you say do tak
    the time to check other sources, does this include the average
    competent working people, the busy mom's and dad's that work away
    from home all day? How many of these competent readers that are
    willing to check other sources would you say on average have the time
    to check other sources?//

    I don't think most have the time. That is why we network on the
    BB (Baptist Board): if I don't check it, perhaps someone else will
    and report in the topic. Also, there are opinions and facts
    (black and white) and lots of shades of gray and even color [​IMG]


    Poncho: //
    1. How often do you personally visit credible sources?//

    When it appears a story might be credible, I check it out.
    After 45 years of studying Conspiracy Theory, I have a pretty good
    'quick analysis' standard. Plus, I know many of the Conspiracy
    Theory people of promenance and know the things they say.
    Many of them, to avoid lawsuits ask questions instead of making
    statements. For example, if I say "Does Poncho smoke wierd stuff?"
    I know (but don't say) that the answer is very likely 'No'.
    Being a BB poster of repute, the odds are 90% no, 9% only smokes
    'normal' tobacco, 1% actually smokes pot. So I know the answer,
    but most people will really wonder if my answer is YES

    BTW, I might also mention. I check all scriptures I run across
    of posts that I might respond to. It sure is hard when I have to
    check 15-16 different versions before I find it (if I find it at
    all, some folks cheat :( ) The person making the post should not only
    list book, Chapter, and Verse(s) but also the Version.

    Poncho: //
    2. How many articles from these credible sources would you say you
    read on average when you visit them?//

    14, if I find credibility quickly. Nothing like briefing myself
    up on the important

    Poncho: //
    3. Do you always check other sources each time you read one of these articles?

    Usually, I am, as you described, busy, busy, busy.
     
  9. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Ed. If fox would report news instead of 10,000 murder and rape cases, they would be the closest. Most news in baloney.
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is just easier to list the bad places:
    Bad sources of information:

    911 Lies Group:
    http://www.911truth.org/
    Where guesses are truth and
    where speculation comes written in stone

    misinformation wars:
    http://www.infowars.com/
    where the one-eyed man is king

    Today's news:
    Belarusian State Security Committee Chairman Stepan Sukhorenko has accused the opposition of conspiring to stage a coup, news agencies said Thursday. Sukharenko said he had evidence that the United States and Georgia were backing efforts to overthrow the country’s current regime by force in Sunday’s presidential elections.

    That Stepan said it is probably true, but hardly a harbinger
    of anything except Sukhorenko-ology [​IMG]

    Searches on Googole for:
    Terry Schaivo,
    Terri Schaivo,
    Terry Schiavo, and the correct
    Terry Schiavo
    all list this site first. So this site has paid Google
    for that honor. How cute, first on a list when you mispell
    a persons name. How cool is that?

    America's last real newspaper
    http://www.americanfreepress.net/
    where fiction is truth and truth is paid for by the word
    (this is the site that invented the term 'neo-con')
    Neo-Conservative Trotskyites will love it thaough ;)

    For lovers of anti-Semetism
    http://www.barrychamish.com/
    (Yuck!)
     
  11. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with that!
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like Google News because quite often, you can find 258 alternate sources. Of course, 247 of those will reference the same original source or use the exact phrasing without attribution. Like the Associated Press, Reuters reports facts with very little editorializing and has covers most of the world, not just my little corner of it.

    The New York Times and the Washington Post do good original reporting. Those papers (is that an anachronist term?) attempt to be accurate. I think the so-called liberal bias of the reporters is more than compensated for by two equal and opposite appetites - first to fawn on the rich, famous and powerful, second to bring down the rich, famous and powerful.

    The New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly do excellent longer research articles, complete with fact-checking. The Texas Monthly seems very good, but I'm not familiar enough to judge.

    The Village Voice has some really good reporters but the focus is undeniably liberal rather than conservative.

    NPR doesn't give headline news much, but they interview a wide variety of people. C-Span's Washington Journal would be better if there were not so many callers (I think).

    The Wall Street Journal has well-researched, fascinating articles but their editorials are, well, misguided.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    My point is that most folks don't bother to check other sources, if they see the same story aired on two, three or all the networks then it is taken to be the truth, no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary.

    Take Saddam for example the government climbed on it's soap box and strongly proclaimed Saddam was an imminent threat in front of the cameras and the networks all ran with it and we went to war occupied another country and started building bases there. Nevermind the government's own documents (PNAC) have claimed from the begining that Saddam was only the immediate justification for "a wider role in middle eastern affairs".

    The people in the government and media know that the great majority of people will not read their documents or check their sources. They're to busy just trying to make a living and paying their ever increasing debts.

    Another example, I was watching CSPAN the other day a question was asked of Marine Gen. Peter Pace. The question was something like this, "Why does the government keep saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom and democracy when the terrorists keep saying they hate us because of our actions"?

    General Pace didin't even attempt to answer the question but chose instead to say that he has seen no evidence of the terrorists wanting to meet with our government or military to discuss differences.

    The person that asked the question seemed to be satisfied that General Pace answered the question. I'm left wondering yet, why is it that our government and media keep saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom and democracy when the terrorists themselves seem to pretty much agree that it is our actions they hate?

    And how is it that half the people (I say half because of the recent polls showing half do not) find what the government says in front of the media's cameras to be credible when their own written documents stand in contradiction to what they have been saying?
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Poncho: //My point is that most folks don't bother to check other sources, if they see the same story aired on two, three or all the networks then it is taken to be the truth, no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary. //

    I think you have a problem with FACT and OPINION.
    You can find most any opinion on the world wide web you want to find.

    Your example of why the radical self-mutulating Muslims want
    to 'get America' is totally one of OPINION.
    The fact is that the suicidal radical fringe of Muslims want
    to get even with America.

    The year that Terri Schiavo had her feeding tube pulled for the
    last time and she died her presss
    death on the last day of March 2005.
    Here are the Google 'hits':

    15 March 411,000
    21 March 948,000
    23 March 1,410,000
    27 March 2,980,000
    1 April 7,120,000
    3 April 13,200,000
    5 April 11,800,000
    9 April 12,500,000
    11 April 10,2000,000
    16 April 6,220,000
    21 April 5,160,000
    ...
    19 Mar 2006 5,220,000
    (this may be rising for the 1st Anniversery of
    her 'press' death) But notice that the activity
    peacked nine days after something might have been
    done about the situation.

    Needless to say, this is a lot of varied opinion.
    I don't think the www is a valid source of information
    or opinion. But it is a good commentary on those who can't
    tell the difference between facts and opinion,
    at least, i think so ;)

    P.S. before I omitted this conspiracy site:
    http://www.blogsforterri.com/

    But I did discuss it saying:

    Searches on Googole for:
    Terry Schaivo,
    Terri Schaivo,
    Terry Schiavo, and the correct
    Terry Schiavo
    all list this site first. So this site has paid Google
    for that honor. How cute, first on a list when you mispell
    a persons name. How cool is that?
     
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. The NY Times has been discredited on several occasions recently for plagiarism, shoddy fact-checking, and some out-and-out agenda pushing.
     
  16. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    I get all my serious news from:

    www.theonion.com

    They report the stuff nobody else does.

    In no other paper have I read about such important stories such as this.

    Why dont you read about this stuff in the main stream media. What are they hidding [​IMG]

    [ March 20, 2006, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: DeeJay ]
     
  17. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I think you are mistaken.

    One can find alot of facts there also. For instance one can figure out that the neocons have been lying in front of the cameras all along simply by reading what they were saying they wanted to do before they were empowered. They've been doing just what they had planned to do all along, but giving us entirely different reasons for why they are doing it. That's called deception in my book.

    First of all this isn't "my" opinion. This is what the "terrorists" have been saying all along. They hate our government because of it's actions and intervention into their affairs.

    So which is it Ed? Do they want to get even with America for our governments actions like they've been saying or our freedom like our government and media have been saying? What do the "facts" tell you?

    You just can't resist the temptation to use cheap shots like this can you? This type of behavior doesn't add to your credibility...imo.
     
  18. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't say they always succeeded, only that they attempt it - which is more than a lot of papers do (never mind tv & radio news). The Jason Blair affair was several years ago and not only was he fired but Harold Raines, the editor, was as well.

    The agenda they admitted to pushing was the Bush administration's.
     

Share This Page

Loading...