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.


Political Blogs vs. Editorials

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:52 PM
This thread was inspired by modcast 2 which I encourage everyone to check out.

As we all know, over the last months the political threads got so infected with blog citing, hateful and inaccurate threads, which precipitated the recent draconian measure.

And for the few that are familiar with my ExposeD threads, which battled these kind of blogs, it would seem logical to assume that I would be in total agreement with their restriction.

But to be fair, one must consider the following:

A blog (a contraction of the term "Web log") is a Web site, usually maintained by an individual [1], with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or


An editorial, leader (UK), or leading article (UK) is an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or

But many newspapers as they try to keep up with electronic media, have journalists who have their own blogs on the newspaper's websites.

And there are many political websites which rival the quality of writing and research of the New York Times or the Washington Post.

So it seems to me that the line between "editorials" and "blogs" can be at times very blurred.

It is fair to say that it is easy enough to recognize the extreme blogs that lie and distort.

But it is not fair to say that information is inaccurate and not ATS worthy simply because it is sourced to a blog by definition.

So I don't know any more where I stand on this.
It hasn't really been an issue as I grew tired of political threads and have stayed away from them.

But I think this is a valid point, addressing a complicated gray area of political news, which I would love both members and member/mods to chime in on.

[edit on 9/28/2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:00 PM
I just wanted to give you an example to highlight what I am talking about.

This thread is a great example of a thread which sites a well written and accurate blog:
Al credit to JanusFIN for posting that.

But under a strict interpretation of the new threading guidelines for political forums, this thread would break the amendment of the T&C.

And there in lies the issue. How does one decide what is "good" enough a blog that meets the standards of of an editorial or even the standards of a newsworthy story?

[edit on 9/29/2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I can't believe I'm the first one here

guess everyone's attention is elsewhere - it's like watching a train wreck

I think - since either source is essentially opinion - as long as you credit the source there's not much of a difference

you could argue about which source is more credible - but there are some pretty lame editorials out there - and some brilliant blogs

I see it as using someone's opinion to support your own - or as an example of what you don't believe in or agree with

either way - it's just an example - to help explain or backup your own position

if we were talking about facts it would be different - but to me, one opinion is as valid as another - as far as opinions go

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by schrodingers dog

...but there are some pretty lame editorials out there - and some brilliant blogs

I totally agree, and electronic media blurs the lines of "blog"/"editorial."
And a lot of these actually provide newsworthy material and are backed up by facts and are thoroughly footnoted.

That's exactly why I say that it might be slightly unfair to be excluded from the political forums by definition.

top topics

log in