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 Real Source of Disinformation IS the Source

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I don’t know if anyone has brought this up before, but I think it’s important. Also sorry for the strange title but i hope it makes sense once you have read this, let me know what you think.

It seems to me that on ATS source’s seem to be held in very high regard. We seem to have this attitude that says if you can back it up with a source then it must be true. Yet the value of the source is not debated and sometimes not even the content is challenged.

Some of these sources are very average however if they were used as the source in academic paper or even in the mainstream media they would be laughed at. For example why is that so often Wikipedia is used as a source, despite the fact that if I wanted to I can log on and fill it with all the disinformation that I want? Wikipedia is an incredibly inconsistent and inaccurate source of information, it may provide a good overview of a topic but to use it as a source that backs up or proves a point is futile. Quite often the information sourced in Wikipedia comes from bias sources and sometimes the information is simply the result of information someone has wrote in a blog or online forum.

Then we have the other sources that are even worse than Wikipedia, I am talking about the ones that are bias to the extreme such as sourcing the 9/11 truth movement or tabloid news outlets who are known to be bias towards one political party. Worse than this we have those who show us other conspiracy sites as a source however the source its self has no reliable sources. The really bad sources I always think are the people who source online forums and blogs were they use the opinion of another online user to give justification to their claims. It’s also worth noting that no ATSter is ever going to use a source that may contain information that contradicts their claims, even if they know that it is true, however this is to be expected.

YouTube sometimes I think can be used as a reliable source but only for hearing exactly what a official has said or footage or UFO’s (not the fakes). Some random guy rambling claiming that he has been abducted by UFO’s or been subject to MK-ULTRA experiments is not a reliable source. He can say whatever he likes, tell all the lies under the sun but it never means what he is saying is correct unless it can be independently verified. I must confess I do enjoy watching the conspiracy theory videos put up but they themselves almost never quote sources although I have found on a number of occasions that he information provided does check out, lose change comes to mind.

The sources that I think are reliable come respectable news outlets, books by respected authors (no David icke please) and even some websites on the internet that give balanced information and specialise in a particular topic. Also on the internet there a number of peers tested academic papers that are a perfect source.

The “mainstream” is only used by people on ATS when it suits such as the BP oil spill, the rest of the time it is ridiculed for being driven by profit and under the influence of the “NWO” or the government. Don’t get me wrong I do think that every now and then there may be disinformation spread in news papers for propaganda reasons. I know that in the UK every time a “gagging order” is put on a news story, the “gagging order” itself becomes big news and inevitably challenged by the courts. We also have what are called DA-Notices which are effectively gagging orders put on the press for reasons of national security and there are 5 standing D-Notices. However they are still much more reliable than the other sources I have outlined above.

I therefore believe that the real source of disinformation on ATS is not the users but the sources themselves.




posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I have noticed the exact same thing, often times we get sources like Before It's news!
I agree 100%




S&F for you



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Agreed 100%. It's weird, too, becauseyou can't even express an opinion without someone coming and telling you to quote a source, and by source they usually mean wiki - and I'm like, wiki? Are you for real?



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
It seems to me that on ATS source’s seem to be held in very high regard. We seem to have this attitude that says if you can back it up with a source then it must be true. Yet the value of the source is not debated and sometimes not even the content is challenged.


Rather like 'peer reviewed' science papers eh?


For example why is that so often Wikipedia is used as a source, despite the fact that if I wanted to I can log on and fill it with all the disinformation that I want?


If you really think that then you should go and try it. You will find yourself shot down immediately by any 'editor gangs' that disagree with you.


Wikipedia is an incredibly inconsistent and inaccurate source of information, it may provide a good overview of a topic but to use it as a source that backs up or proves a point is futile. Quite often the information sourced in Wikipedia comes from bias sources and sometimes the information is simply the result of information someone has wrote in a blog or online forum.


I believe they are just a tad fussier than that, however you are not wrong when you say it is biased. As I said it depends which clique gets at the editing.


The sources that I think are reliable come respectable news outlets, books by respected authors (no David icke please) and even some websites on the internet that give balanced information and specialise in a particular topic.


Wrong my friend. These are just as biased as Wikipedia or anything else for the most part. Times & Telegraph - Vehemently 'warmist' - not unbiased in the least. Guardian - lefty paper, etc etc. ALL media has a bias irrespective of whether it is a book, film, video, website, newspaper or Institute.


peers tested academic papers that are a perfect source


Have you ever followed a peer reviewed paper to it's conclusion? For the most part they appear to be re-writes of the many pages in the bibliography rehashed in a new format and not actually telling us anything new. Also be aware that papers are submitted by the authors for the most part to reviewers who will agree with them and this is how some of the nonsense around climate change has been propagated. No, 'peer review' is NO guarantee of authenticity or lack of bias.


However they are still much more reliable than the other sources I have outlined above.


No, British or any other newspapers for that matter are not 'reliable' You have been drinking the Kool Aid.


I therefore believe that the real source of disinformation on ATS is not the users but the sources themselves.


In that you are not wrong.

If you did not see it with your own eyes or hear it with your own ears them it is probably biased and even then it is probably biased.


[edit on 3/7/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Just another thought i had looking over another thread I was involved with, there seems to be allot of “Google doctors” on ATS. Who don’t quote medical website or journals rather Wikipedia and some random website that’s pro-cannabis or one of these “alternative therapy” websites.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I agree with you. I don't know what to beleive anymore. I do know what not to beleive and that is anything that is controlled by large corporate interests. Credence is part of our nature, we want to beleive especially if its what we lean toward anyway. As far as conspiracies go I don't think there would be many sources the OP would accept due to the nature of conspiracies. They are purposefully concealed and any information that gets out has a campain against it in order to discredit either the info or informer.

Peace.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Titan Uranus
 


I did say what sources i would accept in the OP, granted they are quite limited but at least they are accurate.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I wish that people would use their common sense more instead of reading articles and quoting them as source. It seems that too many people give credence to something just because it is 'written' somewhere by someone.

I started a thead some time ago entitled "Some conspiracy theories need a rethink"

I do not get too much upset by ATS. I joined with the full knowledge that it would be a cross-section of the people at large.

In the world at large, imo 95% are sheep and 5% know what is what. I would have hoped that ATS would be weighted in favour of the latter. Sadly the same proportion seem to apply to the 12,000 or so live members.





[edit on 4-7-2010 by crowdedskies]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by crowdedskies]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Well, you have certainly hit on one of my pet peeves!

As far as accuracy even in sources which appear to be reputable---take into consideration that a lot of professionals are members of "professional societies" that dictate what they can reveal and what they cannot. And, should someone overstep their bounds, they will be discredited by their peers, regardless of whether they speak truth that has been kept from the public.

Not only should we scrutinize the publications of our information, but we should put the authors under a magnifying glass as well. Are they p*wned or being compromised in some way? Do they have a vested interest in the outcome? Who are their associations? Do they have stock in corporations they defend? Many, many questions we should ask of those in the limelight who are trying to feed us "news" to promote an agenda. And a hell of a lot of deep digging to get those kinds of answers.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join