ATSNN: One More "No:Bias" Vote For The Road

In the course of submitting articles to TerrorAnalysis, it has become increasingly apparent to me that a few people are not exactly clear on a couple of things, namely what the word "bias" means, when it is appropriate to vote "no:bias" on submitted articles, and when it is appropriate to vote "no: source". Let's see if we can clear things up a little.

The most important thing to remember with bias is that it is like a horrible disease. Like...leprosy, or something equally gross and pus-oozing. Once a news body or website is infected with bias, it will spread to infect and taint every single word, sentence and article that body discharges. Thus, the instant you see anything produced by such a bias-ridden, pus-vessel of a source, you should immediately run to one of the safety zones, which look like this:



or this:

Once in the safe zone, click on it, preferably many times in rapid succession, to ensure you are protected from the possibility of catching any brain-wasting diseases like 'truth' or 'fact'.

Not sure what I mean?

Okay, let's say for instance WorldNetDaily, Al Jazeera, or a government watchdog site report "TOP STORY: The Earth is round!" In this case, you should definitely vote . Why? Because the source is a news network which has been shown to exhibit biased or unproven reporting in the past. Do not allow yourself to be troubled that in this particular case, the source material is absolutely, irrefutably correct. No. The important thing here is that the reporting source cannot be trusted, and thus anything and everything they report is forever pure and utter bunk - just like if one day we break the light barrier, any other theories that Einstein came up with will then instantly become complete garbage, and all nuclear weapons and power plants across the globe will suddenly stop working.

A good example of this phenomenon is how a few years back, many independent media websites reported that the WTC towers in New York collapsed. Since these websites (many of them shamefully free of corporate and government ties or sponsorship) have been shown to be biased in the past, we can safely say that these reports are fabricated and that the towers are still standing, and I therefore propose that the next ATS convention be held in the observation level of the North Tower. That'll be a pie in the face for those lying charlatans!

I must also ask you to please, please refrain from checking the veracity of reports for yourself before voting no. As we all know, this takes too much time, effort and Internet savy to be feasible. Not only that, I'm sure I need not remind you ATS is a conspiracy website and thus, investigating and finding out the facts for yourself is a BIG no-no.

For instance, if an independent media website proclaims that a section of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to search your home without showing you a search warrant first, move your mouse pointer over to the button quick-smart and click that little bugger. Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, take the 2 minutes to google for "Partiot Act full text", open the webpage and confirm for yourself whether that section of the Act actually exists. Similarly, if a website other than CNN, BBC or another media giant claims that the U.S congress has passed a bill taking away any of your rights, do NOT search for the bill on a website provided by the U.S. government specifically for that purpose. Vote as fast as you can and do your part in ATSNN's search for the truth. If you still feel the slight, niggling urge to check and see if the story is true or not, the only acceptable method for confirming the validity of reports is to do a quick google news search. If CNN, Fox, BBC, or any of the other biggies didn't report it, then hey, it's bunk! Easy! Remember that only huge media corporations can be trusted and you can't go wrong.

Victims of the bipartisan illusion (Republican vs Democrat, Labour. vs Liberal, South Park vs Family Guy, Rocky vs Apollo, etc) should take note here: If a news story points out the failings of your particular political party of choice, you must vote out of loyalty to the party, regardless of whether the events reported are true or not. Besides, if an article reports something bad about your party, it is therefore biased by nature, no?

Furthermore, even when the article is from a trusted source, if it reports something that you don't like or don't agree with from your particular perspective of the world, you should vote no because anything that goes against what you believe is, again, biased. If you're a Catholic and CNN reports that the Pope was in the Hitler Youth, by God you should vote because CNN is trying to slander your religious leader and is therefore biased, even though what they are reporting is true. Similarly, if you are atheist and CNN reports that the Pope has done some good works and made the world a better place, you should vote because we can't have people thinking that spirituality is a good thing. Remember, ATSNN is a community-driven news portal, and that means it is there to illustrate your views. The truth is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what you already believe.

Okay, we seem to have cleared up some misconceptions about bias and source voting. Now, let's take a look at where you should look for bias. The voting explanation for no: bias states:

Use this button to vote no, and send the author an anonymous message that you think the introduction section (first paragraph) is too biased for ATSNN.

Also, on the news submission form next to the "Your comments" section it states:

You must give us an additional one to three paragraph comment, in your own words, that will help our members understand your analysis or point of view on the news article you're submitting.

Now, you may be a little confused as to what all this means. I know, the language is a little complex, but what it basically means is that the entire article must be free of bias, not just the intro paragraph. It's true! Believe it or not, hidden messages (placed by those oh-so-tricky ATS admin) within the riddle-like sentence "your analysis or point of view" actually tell the author to simply state the facts in that section too. If the author gives anything resembling their point of view at the end of the article, you should immediately vote , and possibly even consider reporting the transgression to a moderator. NB: This applies only if you disagree with the views expressed. If you agree, then you should of course

instead.

Last but not least, when you vote no on news submissions, be careful to ensure that you are not too picky with which kind of "no" vote you click. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is a complete waste of your valuable time. A no vote is a no vote is a no vote, and they all have the same effect in the end. Remember that the author of the submission did not put any serious work into putting the story together, and he or she couldn't give a rats derriere why you voted no. Nor will they, after seeing your no: bias U2U, rack their brains trying to think of how to fix their article to make it suitable for upgrade. As Snopes.com has already proven time and time again, the rumour that ATSNN contributors care about their stories is an urban myth.

I hope you enjoyed this article and it has shed some light on the TerrorAnalysis voting system for you. Following the guidelines outlined above, we should, as a community, be able to ensure that ATSNN remains a mindless regurgitator of corporate media content, while the shaman arts of analytical blogging and Internet-based investigative reporting remain forever banished from our realm. Let's leave that to the rest of the Internet hacks.

To finish off, I feel it is my duty to state that all of the above is completely false, deliberately fabricated, and well, simply not true. You see the author, himself being an ATSNN contributor, is ridiculously, hopelessly biased on the issue.

Happy voting!

Excellent post wecomeinpeace!

The bias vote is used far too often, even in cases where the source is sound and is a straight-facts story that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

I try to avoid the temptation to use the bias vote, even when I'm disturbed by the story, unless the take on the story is blatently biased and drawing conclusions that aren't warranted by the story.

edit:spelling

[edit on 4/23/2005 by djohnsto77]

This shouldn't be a news item.

I clicked on all the NO, BIAS buttons but they didn't make any noise.

edit/ Jeeze... Did I kill this thread? Nobody here has a sense of humor? wow:

[edit on 4/23/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]

You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Excellent post! Made me chuckle and it highlighted (in a satirical way) that few people here seem to understand the following:

A) What bias actually means.
B)The difference between the opening paragraph and the comments section
C) Many have the inability to actually think for themselves or outside the box....even just once in their lives.....go on, try it.....you might like it

Nice one WCIP!

[edit on 23/4/05 by stumason]

wcip

Hard to follow. I had to read it 3 times and still am a little confused
(maybe a lot)

I agree with you on the bias thing.

ATS is trying to come up with a news OP/ED angle that works. Sad that a few (I presume) have an agenda that issues a NO for topics either not to their liking or from people/posters they don't support (yes Dorothty, the 'hidden submission' thingy really does not work)



Wendy's site

See, ATS is trying to come up with a system that more or less polices itself- at the present it is being Xploited to get around the (submission being hidden) thing. SO and those folks are well aware of this and working it.

dj77 and stu expressed neatly what it took me 14 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea to say. This has been bugging me for quite a while now (in case you couldn't tell). Not just the bias, but the source issue as well. If you post news from an independent site and the story content is verifiable, then questioning the source is moot, IMO.

Joe, you say there's a way to get around the submitter anonymity? I haven't noticed, but I guess I haven't actively tried to discover a way. What's the deal?

Anyhoot, in the meantime, remember this:

The No:Bias button is thy jealous god. It shall not suffer thee to clicketh other buttons. Thou must sacrifice seven virgin submissions to it before every turning of the moon, lest it become wrathful and doth unleash a pestilence upon ATSNN and all the forums that were, and are and ever shall be.

BEHOLD!! THE GREAT NO:BIAS BUTTON!!


external image




[edit on 2005/4/23 by wecomeinpeace]

The "anonymous" submission system is more leaky than a colander. No offense to SkepticOverlord or anyone else working on this, I'm sure it would take much more programming effort to make it completely secure than it's worth, and I think the current system is quite satisfactory. I know how to get around it, but it takes much more time than it's worth, so I almost never do it before voting.

The old system wasn't perfect and neither is this one. The best thing to do is to choose good stories and write well. You will always have those who will vote their biases or even hit the wrong button, but most of the time your story will be upgraded, if it is good. I have done some extensive reworking of some of my submissions, too!

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
(submission)

Don't believe those that tell you it is difficult. I stumbled across it following up a suspicion.

I won't post it. I turned it in (a few saw the expose' ^ ) prior to it going to the trash bin. I sent it to SO and he is very well aware of it. Tracking logs and all.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by JoeDoaks]

Thanks again for the post wecomeinpeace, I think you expressed the issue quite well and thoroughly.

I posted a more general rant about 'NO' voters here that still applies as well.

I use the "No:bias" button sparingly, too. In fact, I hate to vote down a story, at all, but I have to say this about the "Your comments" section. Sometimes the analysis is so off the wall that it destroys or perverts the meaning of an otherwise good story. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, the boiler-plate options don't fill the bill. You have to make your point the best way possible.

[edit on 05/4/24 by GradyPhilpott]

You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

i question your source, but i think your bias is biased, so i won't be not voting yes to not no bias voting.

delve into the world of your brain's own bias for more fun. visual bias, aural bias, tactile bias, kinetic bias, proprioceptive bias,.....smell it all with your third nostril.

[edit on 24-4-2005 by billybob]

I think the whole voting system is a way to reduce the work load of ATSNN, and in my opinion, if you are going to boast and maintain a News Network of any substance, you need editors. People willing to spend the time and effort to make sure the news pieces are verifiable and accurate. Throwing your news network out to the masses to vote on their submission, then wondering why this method tends to demonstrate a bias in voting?
Let's say I started a thread that said Bush Snorted Cocaine up his nose at Camp David, there are more than a few bush fans here that this story, more likely than not would not make the ATSNN. For one reason, they would claim this story to be biased... well duh. All news, all information is biased, there is no such thing as unbiased, the very word defies human consciousness... And Bush DID snort coc aine up his nose at Camp David, however, neither Fox, ABC, or CBS, or any other major media really delved into the story, so even though members of Bush's own family have stated publicly that he snorted coc aine up his nose at Camp David, more than likely I would have to rely on more independent sources for the information, which is of course unacceptable to skeptics. If you want to run a news network, you have to actually run it. Not trying to be facetious, but that is a basic concept in professional journalism, and one that will ultimately serve to discredit the ATSNN as a reliable source if we allow it to continue thusly.

The no bias has to go or not be included in the decision to upgrade the story. Maybe use it as a heads up to those who have the most voting power or just let those with the most voting power have access to the no bias button. They can decide if the story should be upgraded or not. Currently theres not enough news stories getting upgraded. The past system seemed to be upgrading 7 out of 10 stories, the new system might be upgrading 2 out of 10. So ATSNN has declined. I use to come to ATSNN for my daily news, now I have to go some where else or dig through submissions. Thats another thing, it is taking too long to get stories upgraded.

twitchy may be right, editors would help but they shouldn't have control of ATSNN. If you could combined the new system with editors to help move stories along, I think it would work more efficiently.

I rarely post to ATSNN any more, all I was getting was this article is not suitable or it was biased. I liked it better when we had dedicated editors and even that had flaws.

I too have stopped submitting as much. With more stories not being upgraded, it makes the effort of posting a story not worth it.

I know how you feel man.

I got a #load of "no:bias" votes on a thread that was just a new tech release/announcement and the inventor getting a reward for it ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...