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: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Oh ya, that's annoying. In a society that reads only headlines misleading titles can drive a narrative if even the body of the story doesn't coincide with the headline.

Drudge is guilty of this in how he links some of his stories. The link will say one thing while the story is about something completely different with maybe one innocuous sentence relevant to how it was presented.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

People have no concept of the sovereign being anymore they submit themselves to the boxes of politics,religion,science or new age nonsense waiting for that guru,messiah,teacher of piece of technology to save them... and returning to the topic of this thread blindly believing the information they are presented without using any process to create knowledge or deduce the veracity or otherwise of what they are being presented. .



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: PistolPete

As with drudge or any news type aggregate, I use the tooltip on the bottom of the screen that shows when you hover links. If it's to Infowars or some other crazy site I generally don't click on it.

For real digging, it's best to follow the source. Something like Local news



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


You may remember back a few years when the Slam Dunk was all the rage, becoming the rage in basketball, that the rule of 'traveling" was greatly neglected just so players could build up for the big slam.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I usually don`t even comment on threads that use "unnamed officials" as a source for the info.

ATS has kind of become the national enquirer of the internet, it`s astounding how many national enquirer stories rely on "a Hollywood insider" for their source.


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



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I'm not sure how to make the media responsible for it's work or how do make it dedicate itself to only the facts.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.


I agree.

That is not really a source. That is just someone claiming to have a source.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

The problem is the internet. The print media, in its death throes, has to compete with the alternative media and the lax journalistic standards. That in combination with the fact that the CIA has funded and fed much of MSM has lead to an inability to trust them.

I agree with a lot of the points you make. For me, however, it's not black and white. It's more of a spectrum. One always had to be aware of the political leanings of a particular reporter or news agency to really gauge the how much was truth. Now I think it is necessary to find independent reports citing something other than the original article, to determine if there is even a grain of truth in what is being said.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PistolPete
a reply to: JinMI

Oh ya, that's annoying. In a society that reads only headlines misleading titles can drive a narrative if even the body of the story doesn't coincide with the headline.

Drudge is guilty of this in how he links some of his stories. The link will say one thing while the story is about something completely different with maybe one innocuous sentence relevant to how it was presented.


.... and so many don't read beyond the headline...



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson




The problem is the internet.


I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Access to information is an incredible thing, however manipulation of it was always the endgame.

I didn't intend for my thread to be an either/or issue. I wanted to bring up the very basics aspects of posting a political story.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

My point was that an inability to compete with internet media sources resulted in a lessening of journalistic standards is all.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

No, I got ya.


Unfortunately, until some places can make a name for themselves under integrity instead of slant/spin/bias it's what we have. Also, I have bad news for youtubers, it's not enough. There is still a need for written sourced press, now more than ever.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Agreed



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Good. Now that that's settled:





posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
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?


Well one such good way of sourcing information is citing Federal cases from PACER as information is more likely accurate if they come from a database of filings. There are other ways to validate information and artifacts or objects.

Other ways to have reliable sources is Affidavits and people admitting under Oath of their claims.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
With some publications, I don't even click on the headline link to read the story. Waste of time. Slate.com is one of them.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I agree, and investigation and following the sources to try to get to the original source has all but disappeared on a site that used to pride it's self on finding the truth and "denying ignorance" it has turned into ignoring and/or spinning in the name of cheering your team or jeering the other team.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Interesting to note that this thread is all but ignored, but the Trump “revealed more information to Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies” is still going strong, even though the story has been debunked straight from the horses mouth.

Deny Ignorance indeed.

I don't understand why threads like that, that have been debunked from 'original' sources don't get thrown in the hoax bin.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

That is evidence of the ultimate culmination of a media gone awry. In this case it is McMasters word against unnamed sources.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

In the UFO forum you see things get trown in the hoax bin with way more "proof' as i see in many political threads.

Maybe they like the "activity" and clicks?




edit on 16-5-2017 by EartOccupant because: An unnamed source corrected me.




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join