OP/ED: What Exactly IS a "Credible" News Source?

OP/ED: What Exactly IS a "Credible" News Source?

None available.

(visit the link for the full news article)

NOTE TO MODS: If this isn't an appropriate place for this, please feel free to relocate to the proper venue. I could not think of a better place for it than here.

It is not uncommon, when perusing the ALT.NEWS forum here at ATS, to run into the term "credible news source".

This leads me to question just exactly what makes a news source "credible".

While a good number of people consider any link from the mainstream media as "credible", I must disagree with this. If anything, we have witnessed the mainstream media, time and time again, post fabrications, either knowingly or unknowingly, and pass them off as fact. That being what it is, how can we possibly look at these news sources as anymore credible than any others?

Then, we have other news sources such as "The Drudge Report", "Rense.com", "Whatreallyhappened.com" and "Inforwars.com". These news sources are undeniably biased in their reporting. On Infowars, for example, you are not likely to read any "good" news that pertains to the "global elite" no matter WHAT the news is. However, does the fact that they are biased make them totally nreliable? My answer is NO.

While the above mentioned sites do carry a very strong bias, they also tend to post quite a few TRUE news stories that you will not find if all you do is surf the mainstream media websites. Sure, some of the stories are spun to the point of outright fabrication, BUT, you also find a great number that need absolutely no spin to make them "alternative" newsworthy.

From there, we move to the unheard of news sites and the "junk" news like the National Enquirer, Sun and others. While the unheard of sites do happen to carry a load of bunk, they also find themselves breaking the news before anyone else on many occasions. Just because they aren't known world wide, does not mean that they are unreliable. As far as the "junk" tabloids go, the same can be said for them. Sure, they make a living off of printing outrageous claims and reporting that Elvis has turned up alive every few weeks, but, they HAVE had their fair share of TRUE news scoops in the past. It has been said, by others, that some of the best reporters on the planet are employed at these junk tabloids. While this can be disputed, it can't really be disproven.

It is my opinion that there really isn't any such thing an a "non-credible" news source. It is my belief that there is only "non-credible" news.

Because a source happens to post 1, or even 100, false news articles, it does not make the source "non-credible". If the source posts 4000 articles that are false and only 1 that is true, does that make the true article any less true? I think not.

Perhaps we should stop judging news stories based on where they came from and begin judging them SOLELY on whether or not they can be corroborated in some shape, form or fashion.

After all, we are here to talk about ALTERNATIVE news stories, and for that reason, a good deal of the news stories that truly fit this category are likely to pop up first from a source that is deemed "less than credible" by at least a few members of the community.

It's the news that is important, not the source.



Jasn




(visit the link for the full news article)

Credibility means just that, that we can trust what they say/write/show, it does not mean that they are always truthful or always liars.

If some news source publishes one truthful news piece in 100 then we can not trust them, but, as you said, that does not mean that all their stories are fakes, it just means that the possibility of their stories being fakes is higher than the stories from other sources.

That is why I prefer to have more than one source, even if the source is reliable; most people have a little bias or at least they have different ways of interpreting the news.

[edit on 3/11/2007 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP


I have yet to find any news that was truly unbiased. I actually put more credibility into the little known news sources. From my experience, they tend to have a smaller B.S. factor than some of the more popular ones.


Jasn

I understand what a inproper news source is, Prison Planet, Jihad Watch, Minutemen HQ, but after examining some links by a Chris675 in the "Hezbollah in Mexico" thread, I'm no so sure anymore of what a "credible" news source is.

MSNBC, CNN, FOX, all have an extreme bias on particular subjects. They might disagree on the insignificant thing, but seem to sell the same news concerning illegals, Muslims, and terrorism. Not to mention the blatant smear campaign of Ron Paul.

It's sad to see everything you've ever known to be truthful, and good natured turn out be on par with your average criminal. Lying, misleading, telling half truths constantly.

I think your question was posed perfectly.

These days, what exactly is a "credible news source?"

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


As I said, it's my opinion that there are no "credible" or "non-credible" news sources anymore; Only "credible" or "non-credible" news STORIES.

The sources have past the point of no return as far as credibility goes. Now it's little more than a crap shoot as to what's true and what is not.


Jasn


EDIT TO ADD: Hey DFB, in regards to that short little "comments" exchange we had the other day, I"m scoring that one Jasn -1 : DFB - 0 You must redeem yourself amigo hahahahahahaha.


j

[edit on 3-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

Originally posted by SimiusDei


As I said, it's my opinion that there are no "credible" or "non-credible" news sources anymore;

in a way your saying there are No 'Absolutes' ....
(selected 'credible sources' was the trap our FBI, CIA, NSA, Counter-terrorism units, including the Bin Laden unit fell into...
as they dismissed any information which did not fit into their models.)

Only "credible" or "non-credible" news STORIES.

The sources have past the point of no return as far as credibility goes. Now it's little more than a crap shoot as to what's true and what is not.

with that added thought, i'd say there are credible sources & stories
and one must then decide to rate the item or source as
'credible'
'incredible'
less than likely/credible


we all have our own screening filters,
i think that's why 'X Files' had it's time of popularity, the series played on the theme that even in the instutionalized hive mind of the FBI, there
was a chaos element in the mix...Fox Mulder had his own value of 'credible'

I personally like rense.com , but all news sites are biased in one way or the other. I like Rense because of the stories that i have read about there, then days later they appear in the MSM sites. It can be a bit liberal sided, but I do love how they bash whoever is president, Clinton, Bush it doesn't matter.

I hate drudge, and Fox, conservative noise IMHO.

It's really hard to find a moderate news source.

reply to post by SimiusDei


How did you win? You're married and well... I'm a hustla'!.


It's all perspective, I guess.



Oh, and Simus... I never lose. Ever.

I got lots of credible news sources at work, but they are mostly classified. I have to use these news sites to do my job since I must trust what they say because people's lives are on the line. How many people do you know trust CNN/FOX/ABC/etc. when it comes to someone's life? That life can be your own, your families, or your friends.

Why do I mention this? To let you know that there is a source of news that is unbiased and tells the truth. Getting access to them is another story since you need a security clearance and the need to know, not to mention a signed NdA. The news that is public gets twisted for many reasons and there is no conspiricy in that since we all know it happens. If one man owns 40% of all the media that the public watches I wonder if he will be attacked by the gov't when he reaches 50% and has a monopoly going?

I only wish that more people on this site would be able to see what really goes on. I am happy that you made this thread and i'm even happier that I can post a reply like this since I mention nothing that will hurt national security. While public news outlets may lead you in the right direction, or have the latest breaking news stories before anyone else, they usually don't post the detailed info that we are all looking for. They also don't name sources for the info they get. If you want to be credible you better list your sources.

Don't take this as me saying the public news sources are all wrong, but we all know that they aren't all right. They give you an idea of what is going on and that is about it. Someone mentioned using the smaller sources instead and I would say the same since they shouldn't be as corrupt as the major news outlets but I could be wrong if their sources are the same.

Originally posted by SimiusDei


As I said, it's my opinion that there are no "credible" or "non-credible" news sources anymore; Only "credible" or "non-credible" news STORIES.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

This creates a bit of a problem; how do you verify a story printed by the media other than by researching it firsthand yourself? The energy needed to confirm a story without using other stories which themselves would need to be confirmed is impractical, and for someone who just reads a website like CNN or something, they can confirm that none of it is true. Therefore, unless someone sees it firsthand, nothing we hear from the media can be treated as true.

Your bias point is well taken, but my approach is to look at the commonalities between various stories and, essentially, take the common denomenator. And, yes, there's a fair bit of my bias that factors into it too, just like everyone else.

A "Credible" news source is not one that shows extreme bias (such as many hardcore left leaning sites)

A "Credible" news source would also have a clean history.. people on ATS have no problem with alternative news sites, nto at all.... seems to be a problem with news sources that have been debunked time and again. Worldnetdaily. Thats a fine example of a horrrrrriiiiibbbllleeee news source!


But then Fox, ABc, CBS, MSNBC have all shown at one time or another to show fabricated news stories.. however for daily news they still remain the top ones as far as truth goes. Personally I read the Wall street Journal (Which not to long ago, sadly, was purchased by the Fox corporation) and Bloomberg.com Credible news sources, but used far less often then the official mainstreem.

To get a better perspective on world news--which is not very well covered in American media--I look to foreign sources. 1/2 hour segments of news programs from Hungary, Italy, France, Greece and etc. are on many cable systems late at night. While these sources undoubtedly have their biases too, at least I know more about what is happening elsewhere. I also watch the BBC World News, which I find reasonably credible although the British press has its biases as well. For other news I prefer magaz ines like The Economist and The New Republic because I believe they are well researched by intelligent people. Sometimes I watch CNN just to keep up with the headlines, even though I am more skeptical about what I see there. I don't find everything on ATS credible, though many posters are also intelligent people who do thorough reasearch. I sometimes look at tabloids like The Sun and the Daily Mail to get some news I couldn't get elswhere, and for fun.

What each of us considers a "credible" source tends to be one we agree with. I do not believe genuine objectivity is possible. The best we can do is try to look at issues from as many perspectives as we can. Unless you have unlimited time for reading, that is easier said than done.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I put the one-two on ya, that's how.

"something tangible" followed by the nifty smart arsed personalized vegan tag.





Jasn

Originally posted by Sestias


What each of us considers a "credible" source tends to be one we agree with. I do not believe genuine objectivity is possible. The best we can do is try to look at issues from as many perspectives as we can. Unless you have unlimited time for reading, that is easier said than done.

ding ding ding!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

That's what I was looking for heheh.


Sestias, you get a cookie.


Jasn

your own eyes when you were there.

everything else is hearsay.

My personal opinion is that a "credible news source" is one that reports things in an unbiased (as much as is possible) and truthful way.

Very rare nowadays, unfortunately.

Originally posted by dionysius9
your own eyes when you were there.

everything else is hearsay.

YES! But good luck convincing anyone else of what you've seen.

Great OP. I completely agree that the answer may well depend on your perspective and that no source is completely credible in a world of information for sale by the latest ratings/publicity seeker or agenda driven shill.

You may just as well ask what constitutes "breaking news" on ATS. I mean really, if I can turn on cable and see it for myself, why bother posting it on ATS UNLESS you have additional information or an alternative spin or speculation.