It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the great debate should youtube be a cited source?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
my big question here is how is youtube credible as a reference these videos are made and posted by who knows and anything can and probably will be said i think that ats should get rid of the links that cite youtube as their source agree or diagree and what are your thoughts as youtube as a source?i think that if you cite a sorce it should be aanything but yourseld and youtube at the very least i think a wiki would not be that hard to find the information you need. and if this is in the wrong place moderators please take it down and send me a mwssage to post this where it belongs




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Youtube is neither credible nor uncredible (is that a word?) It is the question of the youtube poster, that needs to be identified. Both credible and non-credible people can post there. So it is a case by case basis. One video from there may be entirely credible while another may be entirely haoxed.
On the other hand lets face it, if you have a credible video that you made with 100% proof, where would you place the video? Youtube is the most convenient that comes to mind right? Also this being a conspiracy forum lets say no media is willing to take your story.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Well personally with what I see in modern day journalism, Youtube is just as legitimate a source as any cable news or newspaper. Just what I think though.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
youtube = a bookstore...some fiction, some fact, some coffee.

people whom dismiss a video simply because its posted on youtube is rather silly...like anything, you need to find out the source of the video, not the hosting service.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
well i guess what im tring to get with out raising to much of a fuss is that alot of users just use one source to cite their information without doing anyfurther research and call it fact.youtube yes does have many conveintly posted videos but in the same fact me and a freind were talking about how easy it would be to fake a iraq video call it real just by using some deseert in the middle of nowhere and me being former military of course i still have my acu's so how hard would the video be to fake and howw many people would think its real and cite it here as fact?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by killer4281
my big question here is how is youtube credible as a reference these videos are made and posted by who knows and anything can and probably will be said i think that ats should get rid of the links that cite youtube as their source agree or diagree and what are your thoughts as youtube as a source?i think that if you cite a sorce it should be aanything but yourseld and youtube at the very least i think a wiki would not be that hard to find the information you need. and if this is in the wrong place moderators please take it down and send me a mwssage to post this where it belongs


During the surprising Tet offensive of the Viet Cong all those years ago, even though this surprise attack failed miserably and the U.S. military handily defeated that surprise attack, "the most trusted man in news" Walter Conkrite declared a victory for the Viet Cong and almost single handedly changed the face of that conflict. Despite the fact that the U.S. military had squelched this imprudent attack of which came as a complete surprise to that military, the MSM has a different agenda, and with that so went that conflict. History tells a far different story than Cronkite told then, and yet, Conkrite still gets respect today that is dubious at best.

More recently, CNN practically refused to run the Wikileaks video until it was undeniably a news story, only CNN reported this news way too late! CNN bills themselves as the "most respected news" source available. Even further, the whole notion of "fair and balanced" news reporting is a relatively new concept in journalism, and before the 1900's and even after, terms such as "yellow journalism" plagued the MSM. Where CNN failed to do their jobs regarding that Wikileaks video, Youtube picked up the slack, albeit reluctantly and have done damage to their own credibility since, they still broke a story that was made available to the MSM long before Youtube had the chance to break the story.

The MSM is no more deserving of the respect you are demanding of Youtube, and yet your agenda seems to forgive the MSM, while taking to task a website not at all billed as a journalist site. Consider that.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


i agree with you all im saying is instead of just a youtube link you should post a site that helps make the video beleivable. im just saying in opionon that youtube alone isn't enough to convince me what anyone says is right with out further research how can youtube alone be your only source of information and what if youtube is wrong and another site has bette more documented information or other sources that say that their right and youtube video is wrong?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by killer4281
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


i agree with you all im saying is instead of just a youtube link you should post a site that helps make the video beleivable. im just saying in opionon that youtube alone isn't enough to convince me what anyone says is right with out further research how can youtube alone be your only source of information and what if youtube is wrong and another site has bette more documented information or other sources that say that their right and youtube video is wrong?


Youtube is relatively new to this so called "journalism" routine and while I do agree that Youtube is hardly a reliable source, I just don't know what is these days, and it is ridiculous in a day and age when news sources bill themselves alternatively as "the most trusted news source" and "fair and balanced", that what we get instead is untrustworthy news and not at all fair and balanced news. Just who the hell do we trust and what makes CNN or FOX any better in terms of a "source" than Youtube?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaleshchand
Youtube is neither credible nor uncredible (is that a word?) It is the question of the youtube poster, that needs to be identified. Both credible and non-credible people can post there. So it is a case by case basis. One video from there may be entirely credible while another may be entirely haoxed.


You're right that it's not the credibility of YouTube itself. But it's not the poster either. It's the material presented.

It should be easy once you have the information to research most things yourself.

And it's rare one video is entirely credibile or not. Usually I find most material on there has a mixture of truth and fiction.

[edit on 8/4/10 by NuclearPaul]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Youtube is not a credible source on its own, imo.

If you use youtube as a source, I like to see a couple of other references to the subject matter as well.

Otherwise I usually dont bother with the thread.

If an OP doesnt care about a subject enough to provide adequate sourcing (and one youtube video is not that) then why should I?

Excellent topic.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
what is an OP? i have seen this in alot of posts but neway i just get tired of seeing just a youtube video and no other information to back the video yes youtube has credible videos but as a poster on this site and a member you should take it upon yourselves to post more than just a video



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Well actually I'd say that youtube in itself is irrelevant. Video by video basis you should look for listing of sources for the information presented. If such info is not in the video description or in the video itself then I'd say don't cite it as a source.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


Youtube is not a credible source on its own, imo.

If you use youtube as a source, I like to see a couple of other references to the subject matter as well.

Otherwise I usually dont bother with the thread.

If an OP doesnt care about a subject enough to provide adequate sourcing (and one youtube video is not that) then why should I?

Excellent topic.


So if I posted a youtube re-broadcast of Sean Hannity on Fox admitting how he is a neo-con hypocritical piece of #e who is only interested in the elitists masters he serves.......would I then need to post a secondary source?

Of course not, that would be ludicrous.

Youtube is nothing more than an open stream of sharing information. Determining whether the information is credible is the sole responsibility of the viewer and the viewer only.

It's one thing for Dan Rather to give you correct information with a verifiable source. It's his damn job and he's getting paid handsomely for it.

But rather you should just consider yourself lucky that you even get an opportunity to come on places like this and perhaps stumble upon crucial information.

It is our job to verify the facts!

Imagine your world without places like youtube, you would be turning out the lights.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
yes it is our job to verify the facts but if the other readers have already read your information and your cited sources then wouldn't your information be a little more reliable than lets just say someone who just slaps up a post and calls it fact just because he or she said so? i find it offending that some people just troll these site and post a youtube link alone and nothing nore yes why it may be beleivable with out doing the research behind the youtube video how would anyone else know wether it is credible or not and for that matter sometime nbc and fox and cnn edit their vidoes to their veiws. so then are those videos credible with out another source? i don't beleive any video i seee without first finding some background information on it and i cite my sources on the video and the other information found to help make my video credible



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by killer4281
 


I believe it is agains the T & C to post a video with no commentary. So long as the poster is providing their opinion on the video, it is fine. It is up to us to determine if we accept what the video shows.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
yes it is im just saying when you post a youtube video post more facts and cites than just the video to back up your part of the evidence i have seen many members reply be nothing more than a youtube link and it makes me irrataed with those members that do that im just saying i need more than just a youtube link to satisfy my mind




top topics



 
1

log in

join