It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What determines the credibility of a news source here?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 07:30 AM
No mainstream news sources should be given credibility. They all use the same techniques, as learned at uni, to persuade the reader/viewer to a certain viewpoint.

The LOL Forum on here is used at the owners' discretion and a procedure or policy is not followed when declaring a thread a LOL. Much like the hoax forum.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 08:19 AM

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Simple. If it supports trump it's real. If it doesn't it's not.

You're the CNN/Clinton sycophant.

^ shows how you think on these topics.

Shows you are a Fox News /Trump sycophant. See how easy that was? No thought required. Stop being an echo and start using your brain, please. Our country needs to find something to unite it before it's too late. Let's hope it doesn't take the form of an alleged "North Korean attack."

Are you basing that on a single post, or my collective posts on the topics?

Because I don't think you are doing that. So this tit for tat, shows more to me than you implied.

Myself, my post was directed to silly for her consistent denial of evidence, and her continual acceptance of the fake news narrative. Her outright glee in supporting hillary despite the overwhelming evidence to show her as a nullified and redundant candidate.

Sorry there, but you didn't even come close to the mark.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 08:26 AM
a reply to: TheMadTitan

You could similarly argue that the Daily Mail, and many pro-corporatist news outlets, in the print media, as well as most of the output of Fox News, is also unreliable, as they have been repeatedly shown to be allergic to taking the truth into consideration, when composing articles, as well as allowing columnists and anchorpersons to assert opinion over fact repeatedly, in many aspects of their reportage.

The war on Fake News is no such thing. Its a war on news which is inconvenient to those who currently wield power, and that is ALL it is. You do not see people calling "FAKE NEWS!" when papers write columns and reports praising the business record of Donald Trump, while skimming over the sordid details of how he came to be in at least a billion dollars of personal debt. You do not see the FN zombies coming out of the woodwork to decry those who echo the Presidents statements, even when those statements are objectively false, propaganda at best, or proof that the leader of the United States is a know nothing hack at worst (I honestly have no idea, at this point, which is the more terrifying prospect).

The reality here is that fake news is only fake news when it looks bad for the President or his agenda, or those who support his agenda. When HE makes a false statement, when his supporters parrot his falsehoods and take them as truth, when people from Brietbart and Fox make statements which are not only objectively untrue, but also deliberate attempts to propagandise toward their viewers, no one bats a God damned eyelash, not even a quiver, not even a drawing of breath from the Fake News patrol.

Its a lie, its a sham. Its not an assault on fake news, or more properly (lets call it what it really is) propaganda. If it were, then for all that CNN have been flat out wrong about things, as has ANY journalistic outlet, even ones with the best of intentions, it is ABSOLUTELY the case that in a competition between all the available news sources in the entire western world, the ones which are found to be not only incorrect in their statements on the most occasions, but engaging in deliberate attempts to damage the ability of their readers and viewers to form opinions based on facts, are those who are most strongly allied with the right wing.

As a percentage of their output, Fox and Brietbart talk more absolutely unsupportable, factually inaccurate, divisive and propagandist BS than the other networks all combined together. This is a fact. One does not argue about the facts, ones ability to debate a point successfully does not change a fact. A rock is a rock, no matter how compelling the argument may be, for calling it a marshmallow, or a lego brick, or a soccer ball.

And despite this, the networks whose direction shows that they understand this the best, are those being lambasted the most by the fake news zombies.

I put it to the membership, that it is impossible to have a genuine dislike of fake news, while peddling propaganda based on opinion rather than fact. I put it to the membership that for Trumps administration, which has been the issue of some of the most unimaginable lies, inaccuracies, and deliberate propagandism seen this side of the Second World War, to call ANY other group of people, engaged in ANY area of life, for their lack of truthfulness, is in and of itself, a fraudulent position, one designed to deflect attention away from the goings on of state. I put it to the membership also, that if this apparent war on fake news had a genuine spark behind it, rather than a desire on the part of a despotic little manchild of a tyrant to avoid just criticism, then the first heads on the block would be those who are doing the talking on behalf of the White House, Fox News, and Brietbart, who are, in this period in time, the market leaders in lying, omitting the truth, and hiding the truth, and the absolute top of the leader boards when it comes to peddling propaganda.

Any objective analysis of the statements made by these three entities will show the exact same thing.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: TheMadTitan

... lately whenever someone posts a story and uses a link to CNN most people LOL at the link.

This sites 'alternative' news perspective stands on its own accord.

But even deeper, wanting people to consider anything main stream news-ish to be considered 'credible' is as funny as waking up in a Matrix bathtub.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: and14263

And now for the top news "Stories"...

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: TheMadTitan

Just wanted to add, the credibility of any news story or source is usually best determined after it is discussed by both sides.

Thats the cool thing about the internet and alternative websites, you get 'both sides' of the story.

No matter how many main stream outlets you get a 'Story' from , they will all say the same thing.

Theres your sign

edit on 30-1-2018 by intrptr because: additional, spelling

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:00 AM

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: and14263

And now for the top news "Stories"...

Yes, very true, very true.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:08 AM

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: TheMadTitan

At this point, credibility seems to be in the eye of the beholder.


And, I don't know why everything has to be filtered through a news source, anyway, to be considered credible.

People no longer trust their own minds to evaluate facts and evidence and then draw logical conclusions. They need a 'news source' to do that for them.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:18 AM

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
We have the likes of secureteam quite rightly not allowed due to hoaxing but what about plain old reporting bias and false reporting? There is at least one news station which falls into this category, CNN, and lately whenever someone posts a story and uses a link to CNN most people LOL at the link. If a majority of people who use this site LOL at CNN links and are unable to take them seriously, shouldn't they not be allowed to be used as a credible source seeing as they are, incredible?

Example: There is no such thing as "junk" mail... It's still "mail"*. News? Same.

*Newman the Postal worker on "Seinfeld".


posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:25 AM
a reply to: TheMadTitan

Slippery slope there. Who gets to define what “objective “ reporting is? The majority of posters? In which case, Breitbart, Zero Hedge, Fox News, Hannity, Russia Today and random right wing blogs will become the only fountains of truth.

CNN is more a voice that people here don’t like, regardless of what they are reporting.

They don’t like it sos they lol. Welcome to ATS.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:28 AM
a reply to: TheMadTitan

For most of ATS, its only real news if its pro trump, no matter what the source. Sad, but true.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:45 AM
a reply to: MotherMayEye

People no longer trust their own minds to evaluate facts and evidence and then draw logical conclusions. They need a 'news source' to do that for them.

I remember the first time I heard one of the news stations advertise, "We don't just report the news; we tell you what it means..."

I shuddered. That was so Orwellian I couldn't believe they were even saying it! That's when I realized just how much people had changed.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:52 AM
a reply to: TheMadTitan

What determines the credibility of a news source? The same as anything else you would consider credible.

The amount of evidence and named sources. If people won’t put their name to their sources, then how do we know if it is credible? It may be, it may not be. But you can’t accept a story as fact if you have niether credible evidence or credible named sources.

Once you get these two things, then you can start an investigation as to whether the claim is valid. Anything less is likely bull# until proven otherwise.

Now, for those media companies who will print a hit piece story with their sources listed as “ officials” or “credible witness”, you just can’t take them seriously, and they pretty much all do it, soo....

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 09:54 AM
a reply to: TheMadTitan

What determines the credibility of a news source is the same here here as it is everywhere: it follows its own ethics and guidelines.

edit on 30-1-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 10:08 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The following is my own personal opinion. It is not an official stance of the owners of ATS, Admin or Staff.

As most of you should know, the reason that threads using certain YouTube channels automatically get moved to the Hoax forum, is because time and time again those YouTube channels have proven to make fabrications in order to increase the amount of views they get, so they can get more money. ATS is not going to support that.

"So what about 'Fake News' then?"

Here's the thing: ATS itself is NOT a news site. We're a discussion board, which is member content driven. Membership brings the content here, and of course the sources for that content.

Is that content true? Is it fake? Is it a exaggeration? Is it simply incorrect?

The owners of ATS (along with Admin and Staff) have told all of you many times over: We think all of you are some of the most intelligent internet users out there. You guys research, you dig, you go deep. Many of you have boggled my mind at how much you research and dig.

What that means is: we back here behind the curtain tend to be quite confident that you guys are able to suss out things that are "fake" or lies, or are a hoax.

This means that we let y'all do all the work. Once you have and notify us, we take a look at it, and if the majority of staff agrees that it's a hoax or a lie, we move it to the appropriate forum (Hoax forum, LOL forum, or the Trash), but only if after we discuss it back here we have a majority agreement on it.

Most times: we actually think y'all need to suss it out more. Which is why we do not move something right away when one person has made a complaint claiming it's a Hoax, etc. We'd rather the membership prove beyond any doubt that it is a lie or hoax first.

We do caution people out there to check their sources though. There have been plenty of times we've moved a thread to the Hoax or Jokes forum because the OP didn't notice their source is a News Parody web site. Something that can be found out by looking at their "About" page, as legally they need to declare it so they are not setting themselves up for a law suit.

I seriously doubt that ATS is going to ban the use of links to CNN. That's just my personal opinion, only the owners can set policy like that, but I don't see that happening.

The news has changed over the decades. No longer are we limited to newspapers and 3 networks (ABC, CBS and NBC). With cable, satellite and the internet, there is now a HUGE amount of news networks one can watch, read or listen to. With recent supreme court rulings stating that it's okay for them to actually lie to us, we no longer should be trusting just anything they say either. The all mighty ratings thing is powerful.

My best advice to any of you it to keep your critical thinking caps on. Follow the actual evidence. Dig to see if something has been vetted, and above all: Don't accept everything you hear, read or see as the "TRUTH" just because it's from your favorite news source.....and fits your agenda.

Try to be objective. Try to consider possible hidden agendas or motives.

Many of you here are great detectives and have proven it over and over again. We're quite proud of many of you, so we know you can do it!

(we need a GO MEMBERS emote.......)

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 11:17 AM
All depends on the reader now because If that reader doesn't like what is being reported they just say "fake news".
TPTB have done this on purpose to destroy media credibility even when they are telling the truth.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 12:06 PM
Any news site that prints the truth, no matter how unaccepted it is in our society is probably something we could use as a reference. I guess that means that they do not exist. If someone posted a link from one of those kind of sites, the link would not be debatable, so that means nobody would comment or try to argue the reality of it. So, if you make a thread here that is the whole truth and does not include humor or a great looking recipe for food, you probably will get very few responses, nothing to debate.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 01:34 PM
"What determines the credibility of a news source here?"

Anything that is not Russian, or from China, Iran or any number of crappy tin-pot dictator places where the media is controlled and broken.

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 04:26 PM
Considering The Source

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheMadTitan

ATS has no standard for credibility, beyond banning sites that have been known to perpetrate outright hoaxes.

This, and what constitutes "hoaxes" has to be pretty clear before something gets moved to the associated forum or the owners add a URL to the filter list. But like everything else that requires a judgment call, we can make mistakes, and if anyone should think we have, please let us know.

Speaking more broadly, the notion that "ATS believes this" or "ATS believes that" is based on the assumption that the ATS community somehow speaks with one voice, a misapprehension easily dispelled by simply reading almost any thread in our forums.

Even in the case of the Terms And Conditions Of Use, members are required to abide by them to participate, but that doesn't mean they can't question them, challenge them here in BB&Q or recommend changes.

Ultimately, what is "credible" is up to each of us to decide for ourselves, and because of that, a source of endless debate.

My recommendation: trust no one, suspect everyone.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in