It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do we need to discuss sourcing?

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
It has been my perception that sourcing has fallen REALLY lax leading into the last U.S. election for political sourcing. Proper and correct sourcing is the single most important reason I came and still continue to come to ATS, I understand opinions vary. While when discussing conspiracy or other "into the fray" topics, it is fully realized that sources could come from anywhere and have some measure of validity. IMO, that is not the case when discussing something mundanely subjective as politics.

When I see an article that sources another article, that raises a flag.
When I see sources that indicate anonymous officials or unnamed officials, I'm skeptical.
When I see ONLY severely biased media report a story, I'm leery.
When I see the exact same headline spanning the search engine...it's time to put the tin-foil hat on!

Agree/Disagree? Have more to add?




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I particularly don't care for the articles and 'news' organizations that use 'Government Officials' or some similar bullcrap as the 'source' for their article.

Too many of the so called 'news' organizations are just pawns of the CIA and other powers. The chance of us getting real information from these people is slim to none.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Society is merely conforming to the standards being set, your subconscious says if Anderson Cooper can quote únnamed sources or pull information out of his ass,so can they



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Agree. I think supplementary sourcing is in order for all the source types on your list.

I would also like to add that when a story is sourced DIRECTLY from the primary and best source...it is solidly sourced-- even if NO MEDIA OUTLET is willing to report the story. Case in point.

to you


edit on 15-5-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
It would be prudent to add that simply if any of the previously noted things exist, that doesn't necessarily invalidate a story. It should simply be added to with something other than what is listed.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Many of the sources I use on ATS myself aren't ones I would use if writing an academic paper or in court. This is a topical and conspiracy forum after all...

But I do struggle with the issue of sources, I will admit. I have canned several new topics I think might have been interesting to others just because I couldn't bring myself to use whatever source I would have been citing.

For example, Zero Hedge -- a source I know others have used frequently. I asked about it in Board Business here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I try to be appropriately conscientious given the nature of ATS, but at the same time, I see threads started all the time with the dumbest goddamn sources imaginable.


edit on 15-5-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: JinMI

Society is merely conforming to the standards being set, your subconscious says if Anderson Cooper can quote únnamed sources or pull information out of his ass,so can they


I really hope my subconscious doesn't think of A Cooper!


I do hope you are wrong in your assertion, however I don't have immediate factual basis to deny it. I like to think that most people at heart want the absolute truth.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You and a few select others are great examples of how to source your claim. Some posters here put in huge amounts of time to back up what they are attempting to share. To me, that is what brings about a measure of respect and admiration for those that I do have differing views from.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I can understand. Multiple views on a subject from differing sites could certainly aid in that endeavor.

Of course there is always just putting the point out there that, "hey this is one source so take from it what you may."



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I am almost to the point of disregarding any sources that don't come with a name, position (so we kniw if they would logically have the information), their political affiliation (to remove partisanship), and if they were ever the source for previous false "breaking news". About the only caveat would be those whose life would be at risk...not job, but actual breathing safety.

The other thing that needs to be discussed is "breaking news." Great line from Greg Gutfield's show this last weekend...the big guy (Titus?) said they should start calling them all "breaking opinions", with 5-10 minutes of actual, factual news at the end of each hour (paraphrased the last part, but the message was the "news" shows are 80-90% opinion anymore and maybe 10% factual, if we're lucky).
edit on 15-5-2017 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)


And now that I see other replies, I see you meant ATS sourcing, not the original repoters. Ah well, felt good to vent.
edit on 15-5-2017 by Lab4Us because: Misinterpreted OP, provided admission.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
With the media now it is a race to the bottom!



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Reliable source- infowars




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

It depends on what we're talking about.

With ZeroHedge, they were the only ones who were freely posting the WikiLeaks emails during election season without directly sourcing WikiLeaks, so I would use them to pull from then.

I also might use them if I feel their take on a political topic is a different that sheds some unique insight into the political climate of the day. After all, in my opinion, so much of politics anymore is spin rather than actual fact. The basic facts are out there and all that's left is to find a number of different angles to try to parse out what is or is not the actual truth of how it all fell out.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us




About the only caveat would be those whose life would be at risk...not job, but actual breathing safety.


Nice. I'd not thought about that. Those who would put their journalistic integrity on the line for the truth, to get the facts out without fearing the risk.

ETA:

And now that I see other replies, I see you meant ATS sourcing, not the original repoters. Ah well, felt good to vent.


It is one in the same. We essentially are reporting the same subjects and should be held to a standard.
edit on 15-5-2017 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
I am almost to the point of disregarding any sources that don't come with a name, position (so we kniw if they would logically have the information), their political affiliation (to remove partisanship), and if they were ever the source for previous false "breaking news". About the only caveat would be those whose life would be at risk...not job, but actual breathing safety.

The other thing that needs to be discussed is "breaking news." Great line from Greg Gutfield's show this last weekend...the big guy (Titus?) said they should start calling them all "breaking opinions", with 5-10 minutes of actual, factual news at the end of each hour (paraphrased the last part, but the message was the "news" shows are 80-90% opinion anymore and maybe 10% factual, if we're lucky).


Yes, that's exactly right!

I try to always post the source first, then the subject in the "insert a link" function. Like this...

ABC News: Man claims cat was abducted by aliens, probed, brainwashed

I wish others would follow the same practice.

PS: To the best of my knowledge, no one's cat has been probed by aliens lately. That was just an example...



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SBMcG

It depends on what we're talking about.

With ZeroHedge, they were the only ones who were freely posting the WikiLeaks emails during election season without directly sourcing WikiLeaks, so I would use them to pull from then.

I also might use them if I feel their take on a political topic is a different that sheds some unique insight into the political climate of the day. After all, in my opinion, so much of politics anymore is spin rather than actual fact. The basic facts are out there and all that's left is to find a number of different angles to try to parse out what is or is not the actual truth of how it all fell out.


Right on! That makes perfect sense.

This subject needed to be brought up, IMHO. Glad the OP did!



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Natural law is about the only truth I am aware of and very few in society have a clue because these laws are occult and heavily hidden from the sheep,if your ever interested Michael Tsarion and Mark Passio are good starting points...and as these individuals have found out most DONT want the truth.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI


When I see ONLY severely biased media report a story, I'm leery.
When I see the exact same headline spanning the search engine...it's time to put the tin-foil hat on!


These are concerning to me. It generally indicates a talking point has been released. You can see it happen in real time on social media. A story comes out and everyone is spitballing different ideas about what could be happening then all of sudden a majority of people on conflicting sides of an issue are all saying similar things.

If the author of a story isn't named I question the source.

Anonymous sources don't bother me so much, you just take it with a grain of salt. Deep-Throat was an anonymous source until loooong after Watergate.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

I am charmed by you bringing up natural law. It's not that 'natural law' is occult, but I do believe that most people want to look to man for 'written law'/positive law.







edit on 15-5-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: PistolPete

Point taken.

I think it is import to realize the balance of severity and claim.

For example
Pisotlpete murdered 12 people claimed an anonymous source.

Vs.

Pistolpete wins FPS video game award says Wired Magazine.

I realize that is bordering hyperbolic but you see the meaning.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join