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
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
. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.