The Need For Reliability In Alternative Media

I think they need to re-do the forums here...unless what I'm posting is philosophic/spiritual, I basically never know what forum to put any of my threads in, so I just pick one that seems least wrong...

Aaaanywho, yea, there is a need for reliability in alternative media. Here is the issue. I see all these threads linking to all these random websites saying these things that sure, are pretty shocking if true. But it's just some random website, I have no idea how legitimate what they're saying is. You can find websites saying all sorts of crazy # as if it were a 'news story.' Now, let me just say, I am hugely supportive of alternate media. I have a strong dislike for the mainstream media in its entirety, as an establishment. I love that the internet has opened up so many new pathways for obtaining information that is unregulated.

Somehow though, we need to 'separate the wheat from the chaff.' With the unlimited potential for alternative media, reliability does need to develop. Any random website can't just be taken as fact. I see on here all the time, people post stories from some random website, and sometimes it's so ridiculous that it's pretty obviously not true, but everyone responds as if it's just some fact. You can't just believe anything any random website says. Reliability needs to develop. Even if you're alternative, you should be held to a certain standard, whereby actual trust in you as a source can develop. And basically, people need to stop being so un-questioning of what they read. It's like, they have an idea, and find some random website that has a story which conforms with their ideology, so they just spread it like it's fact. And people accept it. Reliability is important, is basically what I'm trying to say. I don't know how to go on, this is basically the point. I hate seeing so many stories and just not really knowing if they're actually true or not.

a reply to: TheJourney

The difference between the now and the land before internet is that on the internet we have discourse,two opinions where only one existed before.

Thats suits an old codger like me just fine.

Its easy enough to go back to the old ways of main stream only. Just watch TV news, read newspapers and listen to radio.

shudder…

originally posted by: TheJourney

Reliability is important, is basically what I'm trying to say. I don't know how to go on, this is basically the point. I hate seeing so many stories and just not really knowing if they're actually true or not.

What a fantastic concept....

What we need to establish is a "Reliability Corps" to police and censor the offenders.

I nominate you as the "Reliability Czar" to lead us fools into the light of truth!!

are you comfortable in that position? Who decides what is truthful and what is lies is my question....

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: TheJourney

Reliability is important, is basically what I'm trying to say. I don't know how to go on, this is basically the point. I hate seeing so many stories and just not really knowing if they're actually true or not.

What a fantastic concept....

What we need to establish is a "Reliability Corps" to police and censor the offenders.

I nominate you as the "Reliability Czar" to lead us fools into the light of truth!!

Yea, clearly I, who stressed my own uncertainty, am saying that I have absolute knowledge and everyone else is a fool...makes total sense...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TheJourney

The difference between the now and the land before internet is that on the internet we have discourse,two opinions where only one existed before.

Thats suits an old codger like me just fine.

Its easy enough to go back to the old ways of main stream only. Just watch TV news, read newspapers and listen to radio.

shudder…

Yea, given the content of the OP I clearly love the mainstream media...

Now, let me just say, I am hugely supportive of alternate media. I have a strong dislike for the mainstream media in its entirety, as an establishment.

It is great when there are two sides you can draw from and come to your own conclusion. That is different from some random website with some random story.

Its hard to know the reliable sources, especially as the alternative media are always biased in one direction or another. Not much different from the MSM really.

Our personal world views usually determines which alternative media outlets are reliable to us.

originally posted by: Daavid
Its hard to know the reliable sources, especially as the alternative media are always biased in one direction or another. Not much different from the MSM really.

Our personal world views usually determines which alternative media outlets are reliable to us.

I hate the mainstream media because it has a clear agenda, and it is able to successfully indoctrinate the vast majority of the population into an ideology of their choosing, and always present things in a way that confirms to the masses that ideology. That makes me despise it. The one thing it has going for it, is it can't just straight up make things up. They can/do lie, but if they lie it's like a part of a conspiracy, it's not just some guy going 'who gives a # I can just say what I want' and then make some random thing up. There is an agenda, there is massive distortion, but at least they can't just make up any random thing they want.

With the internet, people can literally just make up anything, and then they just don't cite sources so there's really no way of knowing if what they're saying is true or they made it up. However, they present alternative ideologies from the MSM, and that is great. I want more and more people to be seriously exposed to ideologies different from what is peddled on the MSM. My desire is simply that a comparable level of accountability that the MSM has can develop in alternative media outlets, and alternative ideologies can be explored in ways that people don't have no way of knowing whether any given thing they read is just made up.

a reply to: TheJourney

I totally agree.

Im still looking for an independent, impartial, unbiased news media outlet. I guess I'll be looking for a while.

The MSM do have an agenda, I agree, but so do the alternative sites, only they have much less influence so cause much less damage. They are ALL biased though.

Like I said, it's a personal thing. On ATS no matter where you get a story from, someone will claim its not a legitimate source.

originally posted by: TheJourney


I hate the mainstream media because it has a clear agenda, and it is able to successfully indoctrinate the vast majority My desire is simply that a comparable level of accountability that the MSM has can develop in alternative media outlets, and alternative ideologies can be explored in ways that people don't have no way of knowing whether any given thing they read is just made up.

Might I make a suggestion....?

If media in general disturbs you; start your own network.

You can start with this..

www.celtx.com...

and find a broadcast platform here..
en.wikipedia.org...


There are also plenty of www. channels you can take advantage of.

My class and production license cost $l50 bucks and I produce and distribute documentaries . Join us!!






















4

originally posted by: Daavid
Its hard to know the reliable sources, especially as the alternative media are always biased in one direction or another. Not much different from the MSM really.

Our personal world views usually determines which alternative media outlets are reliable to us.

The bold portion, of course, is defined as confirmation bias. That's no bueno either. It's far better to not only read that which confirms one's own personal views or beliefs but also to read that which opposes it with an open mind.

I have seen some pretty embarrassing things go on here on ATS all the way down to mistaking satire for a serious article. It's bad; however, it is a public forum and, as such, there is hopefully going to be a wide diversity of people discussing a variety of subjects. The largest problem is that I have seen threads where the OP has presented something as an actual news article when it was, in fact, satire from a known satire site and untrue and despite numerous posters observing that it was untrue and satire, the sheer number of people who thought it was a legitimate news article was still staggering.

Adopting some basic tools to discern what one is looking at is pretty simple and just requires answering a handful of questions and a little digging.

1. Who runs the site and what are their intentions?
2. Do these intentions affect the content of the article?
3. Are they using provocative speech to steer opinion?
4. Are the claims in the article justified or supported by the evidence within?
5. Do the claims in the article have more than one source or are they the only source?

Those little steps can help separate the wheat from the chaff and avoid embarrassments like posting a satire piece as a news article.

a reply to: TheJourney

Own knowledge is the best tool for deciding what you think is viable or not, with it you can read almost everything and decide if the information is believable or not. I don`t think limiting yourself to a few sites is the best way to go.