Your source is Wiki or U-tube? "Wiki Hoax Dupes Journalists"

I am curious as to how a person's credibility would be lost or removed? Followup: Do you support that loss of credibility/status for a journalist who doesn't check his YT or Wiki links?

Once you alluded to maybe having skills in the AV field, I must ask (and I apologize for my attitude, sincerely). ...A lot of of video journalism has to go through channels, before it could be shown. When I upload video to You Tube, I do feel powerful. So my question is: Isn't that an empowering of the public which might prove problematic for some people in power?

But in a similar vein, isn't YT also kinda insidious from a national media perspective? Like, YT might cause lies to get into the US media, and that would be a bad thing? We certainly don't want that. Can you comment?

I am honestly curious. Is it that You Tube might cause an increase in lies whereas The Boston Globe (for a random example) doesn't? Is that what we should be concerned about?

Originally posted by smallpeeps


When you post (i.e., "publish"), you are in effect dealing in information. If an art dealer or rug dealer is shown to be selling fakes, how long will he stay in business, and how would that affect the value of his "inventory?" A legitimate "dealer" of anything valuable will ALWAYS verify its provenance. Fail or cut corners and you risk dealing in (posting) fakes.


Only if the result is misinformation. Since it's easily avoided, there is no excuse for 'dealing in fakes' unless you intend to deceive.

Then, hopefully, you get what you deserve.


Just look at the state of the "mass media" or MSM. They are dying and terrified. They are looking for tax-exempt status and bailouts. Government is trying to crack dowm; just Google what the UK, Canada, China and Australia have done in the past year. Even in the U.S., people like Rockefeller and Immelt are fearful of the internet generally and bloggers/uploaders specifically.

If the FCC re-adopts the "(un-)Fairness Doctrine", it will not be long before those threatened by free speech and open-minded thinking will call for similar regulation of the Internet.

Big Brother IS watching. And scared by what he sees.



If YT spreads lies, they are in direct competition with MSM, no?
In a perverse way, MSM sees YT as taking away their 'soapbox.' Wouldn't you agree that before YT, the MSM had a monopoly on spreading lies to the public?

(Side note: If that student had broadcast his fake info through one of the MSM, this thread would've been warning about THEM, not YT or WP. I have no animosity to any source of information, but take verification/support very seriously.)

I don't think they fear YT lies so much as they just fear the YT alternative altogether. From my own perspective, there is not a single broadcast program that I regularly watch. I read conservative, liberal, professional and entertainment publications. On the other hand, I belong to several forums and, hard as it may be to believe, check YT pretty regularly. If you've checked my posts, you've seen that I even cite Wikis when appropriate.



In my jaded opinion, the larger the potential audience, the greater the temptation to push an agenda. Authors in narrow fora (trade magazines, professional journals, educational webinars, seminars, lectures) have little motive to fudge, and not much chance of starting a wave. On the other hand, a national audience almost guarantees word-of-mouth and third-party coverage so that a message, true or not, is more likely to become "common knowledge."

So, even though I can't give you specific alternatives as credible sources, I think we should be careful about "passing along" information without being reasonably assured of its accuracy.

(There is an active thread on ATS right now about a very important issue that relies on a single source of dubious credibility. The OP is being challenged, criticized and even ridiculed in almost as many posts as those in support.)

You seem as resourceful as you are concerned. Keep an open mind, but be vigilant. Most successful journalists become so by adhering to a single basic tenet: "Verify your source."

jw

p.s.: Your last post reveals a 'statement-question' style that indicates interview expeience. You write and publish. School paper? Newsletter? E-zine?
jw
(edit to add post script)

[edit on 9-5-2009 by jdub297]

I would hope people aren't quoting sources like Wiki or Youtube for facts and information. That would be foolish. Books are difficult and expensive usually to publish, and people put a lot more on the line when they publish a book in their own name.

Newspapers are becoming less and less of a source for news everyday. Pretty soon, well need a concensus for the facts to establish themselves properly.

reply to post by videoworldwide

---

Welcome to ATS.

It seems that because of a lack of credible reportage, "facts" are now determined by consensus instead of truth.

We are wise to be careful of any source, regardless of its popularity.

jw

Wow, this last post of yours causes me to genuflect now, and I appreciate the words you've typed here and after I was so snarky.

You really are trying to help, and that is cool. Thanks.


This is a good point. I am wondering how your words relate to a non-Wiki/YT source, say, The Boston Globe in 2004:



Here I am posting to ATS, by quoting Wikipedia, to reminded ATS members of a seriously historically embarrassing moment for a major New York-owned media channel called The Boston Globe. I'm guessing that in this case, Wiki trumps the Globe and the New York presses that run it? That is to ask: "Who watches the watchmen?" Do you agree with my answer in that these powerful news-titans (now falling and dying) are sometimes kept honest or in check by YT and Wikipedia?


This also applies to the events above of 2004, where a major newspaper seriously screwed up as quoted above. What was the cause of that disastrous error? ...And perhaps they WERE trying to "deal in fakes" because they wanted to show the troops in a bad light.

That seems pretty egregious, I'd say. Where can Wikipedia or YT screw up on such a global scale as did the Globe?

Also it seems that YT and Wiki are maybe .01% as powerful as the unions which control the New York and Boston presses and news behemoths. Also, these press giants serve as obstacles to grassroots politics, wouldn't you agree?



I am wondering where YT or Wiki will ever obtain the political and financial clout/power equal to this single American paper and the money behind it. I think recently they asked their union for a 5% pay cut and this was a problem? Forgive me while I laugh uproariously.


I see, and hear.

I do not fear the FCC, and I believe all newspapers in the US could shut down with little to no loss of actual truth. They are smokescreens, and yes, you are right to have called me paranoid earlier. Having general citizens print news off their inkjet printers would be a better way to actually get truth out there, imo. To borrow your analogy, where news is compared to works of art? Well, TRUTH is a work of art, and I think it comes from individuals, through small efforts, and NOT through corporations.

Perhaps we are at different poles on this subject, but I feel the newspapers are diversionary FIRST and informative second. So this is where you'd need to give me some hope that the powers which control the MSM actually do want to provide news to us. I guess I'd need you to convince me that there is a newspaper in America worth reading. And I started reading the newspaper daily at age 5, cover to cover. For years it was my news source because I was in an American church that was scared of "alternative info" and their members are kept in mental prisons. Of course, they do allow newspapers to be read by their members, but this church would see YT and Wiki as being much more dangerous than The Globe, for example. Oh and this church I was raised in also produced Dwight Eisenhower though he had left that church at age 20 or so, to join the Army. It's an American institution of religious propaganda, this church of which I speak. They wrote and globally published (in hundreds of languages no less) a book called "The Truth That Leads to Everlasting Life". I'm not sure if they checked their sources.


This makes sense. I see now that you know the MSM does lie to us at times. I am understanding your point better now, thanks.



My experience came at the doorsteps of thousands of Americans whom it was my duty to offer "hope" to, through the aforementioned propagandic efforts of a church which converted my parents and raised me.

When one is raised to militantly hand propaganda and to believe that one is involved with "truth", it is quite a revelation to accept the collapse of that worldview. After I left to find my own way, I stopped preaching to anybody an started learning everything I could. My learning path was drastically altered by the events of the morning of 9/11.

Since 9/11/2001, ATS has been the only place I've posted my thoughts for the past 8 years. I've not written anywhere else nor have I tried to coin money from my words. I work with computers for a living as an IT dude.

I only respect alternative media. I have no respect for any channels except those that are person-to-person. I suppose I could see myself as a paid blogger like the types which the MSM is trying to raise up now, these paid bloggers and such. But I don't see myself selling out to a paycheck because then I'd have to deal with an editor, which means submitting to the political bridle as The Globe describes on their Wikipedia page. Why would I allow an editor to wrangle me?

I would say the best journalist I've seen recently was the guy who killed himself, Gary Webb. Now if we are going to go into a discussion of relevance, I'd say it's a damn shame this particular reporter, is dead. That guy was probably the only journalist of my lifetime, that I really read about and liked.



So if I were to become a MSM writer, I'd take his same path and do the sort of death-risk reporting he did. He died with integrity, and was a better human than 95% of the people in the news game. Could I keep from getting as severely depressed? Maybe not, but either way, this man stands head and shoulders above everyone in that trade, begging for their dollars. He got shut out and killed. There's your battle-lines.

This is a war, but only the people at the top, know that.

Thanks jw for your efforts to get through to me, and your thread here is fleshing out nicely thanks to your post here. I understand better now, and I thank you for that.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by smallpeeps]

reply to post by smallpeeps

---

Printing leaflets on a home printer is equivalent to another rabble-rouser and true revolutionary. Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac" was a self-published critique of the society and PTB of his time, 250 years ago!

As for YT compared to Boston Globe? Today, the NYT, their subsidiary Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune and LA Times are foundering. They cannot compete with YT, WP and the myriad bloggers and blogspots, e-zines and e-mail newsletters.

If BG had more credibility, it would have more readers and advertisers. It doesn't have any of these. It is finished.

If MSM intended to inform us, they would. They intend to sell adspace.
That's why fearmongering counts as news. More readers equals more ads and revenue.

MSM is now entertainment and propaganda. The internet caught the old, tunnel-vision publishers and broadcasters off guard.

They will never catch up.

Look at topical forums such as ATS for avenues of expression or alternative viewpoints.

You don't have to "subscribe" to their ideologies, but it's good to know what other people are thinking and saying.

jw

[edit on 10-5-2009 by jdub297]

I cannot agree with posters who say that YouTube does not carry reliable or accurate, up to date news items.

If you consider the recent conflict in Iraq and the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, I think the footage shot by allied ground forces, represent actuality and not the sanitized version shown in the news.

For that reason alone, I think YouTube is a good research tool.

reply to post by fritz

---

YT in that example is as good as any mainstream "news agency." MSM will not give you an unvarnished perspective.

Why do you think they shut down an Arabic-focused American broadcaster?

But, the same medium that carries eye-witness footage also provides intentional hoaxes and distortions.

The thread is a call for vigilance and critical evaluation. It does not advocate any source over any other.

Every source has its own value/merit. You just have to be careful how and for what purpose you choose.

jw

Yep, I'm hearing you jw. So I went to the library yesterday and did my own research and I didn't use Wiki or YT.

I used the library copy machine and spent .60 cents.



I am wondering how this record of "The Boston Idiot" relates to what you were saying about Americans printing their own newspapers from their inkjet printers. I think you are onto something, but I doubt the Globe is gonna do a piece on an idiot.

But Wiki does have some info:



Power to the People.

I still think that Wikipedia is the cherry on the cake, and an absolutely superb resource when used appropriately.

Sure, some if it has the accuracy of a blog, but if the content is linked and supported you should be good to go.

To me the point of this story wasn't so much that Wikipedia is unreliable, but more that the journalists didn't verify the links supporting the quote, i.e. they were lazy.

reply to post by smallpeeps

---

Thanks to the Internet, we don't even need a printer or press as Trumbull and Franklin, et al did; or even a soap box to stand on and be heard over the street noise.

We can post.

Everywhere. Look at all the news forums and blogsspots to which you can contribute. In addition to school, community and local publications, Disinfo.com, reddit, open minds, digital journal, associated content, helium, examiner and dozens (hundreds?) of other sites are always accepting news and insightful commentary.

Share your ideas.

jw

Originally posted by Retseh


According to follow-up reports, the WP administrators twice asked the author for credits. Before he could respond or delete, lazy reporters around the world used the bogus info.

The thread could just have easily spotlighted the errant publishers of the disinfo, but it would've missed the example of the ease with which such trash can get into the pipeline and passed along as fact (even unkowingly).

Can you imagine the reporters trying to explain to their editors who have to explain to the managing editor who has to explain to the publishers who have to explain to the readers how they got the fake "scoop" for the stories?

Vigilance.

jw

Originally posted by fritz


Some on ATS do not agree:

"You Tube Free Speech Purge Accelerates, Infowarrior Channel Banned"
www.abovetopsecret.com....

They cite an article here:
www.infowars.com....

vigilance.

jw

I thought I'd post Gary Webb's resume here.

The idea is that this man couldn't get hired? No, he was blacklisted. Was it due to his courage? Of course it was.

So why on Earth, would any young person ever want to be a journalist? If you aren't prepared to fight battles like this an d accumulate a resume like this --and then be left for dead... Then yeah, see what topic those major newspapers will touch.



Too bad he didn't concentrate on Wiki or You Tube because maybe he'd be alive? But no, he focused entirely on mainstream media and obviously was determined to die against that rock.

Well, it's You Tube that lets him talk from the grave:

YouTube Link

reply to post by smallpeeps

---

Despite Webb's awful end, he continued an active life despite the blacklist. This included and important presence ... ... ...where?

On the Internet! Webb helped lead the fight that exposed Banamex and its drug ties, and the defense of the e-zine that fought to expose it.

I shudder to think what things would be like if Barack Obama had been president in an era before the Internet and subject to the watchful eyes, and fingers, of 'net bloggers.

No one needs MSM papers anymore, nor do they need the "Big Three (Four?) broadcasters. Unless Obama and the Congress step in to prop them up, they are gone; victims of their own lost credibility and lack of accountability to truth.

jw
jw

I would, personally.

The thing about video is that the visual component of your brain overrides other connections. A good example was shown by a neurologist who had an adult patient patient who couldn't recognize his own mother after he had a stroke. When the mother called the patient on the phone, he recognized her voice immediately. But when she came into the room, because the stroke affected the visual field, the vision of the person overrode the connection that the auditory areas made. Although he could recognize his mother's voice if he couldn't see his mother, when she walked into the room, he couldn't recognize her even when she spoke.

So... we see the pretty picture and we go right along with what they're saying because it's hard to stop, back up, get the facts and words right, and think critically about it.



I don't think so. No single user has the power of audience of a television show.




Fact checking on Youtube is nonexistent. There is no standard for what goes there, and there's no independent review board.