Should Huffington Post be seriously reconsidered as your source? (apologies), page 2

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:09 AM

link

reply to post by beezzer

Pretty much all media has an agenda. I guess we should look more at the ethics of the media organisation rather than it's opinion. I also imagine there is a grey area when it comes to ethics and journalism. A lot of investigative journalism will have to bend the rules in order to get a story out that is in the public interest.

xuenchen

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:50 AM

link

and how can we ever forget this CNN classic........

more like a Saturday Night Live skit !

blupblup

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:53 AM

link

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I'm not being funny.... but ATS allows "The Sun" "The Daily Mail" and all manner of ridiculous British tabloid papers as "sources".... so I'm pretty sure that the HP is just fine.

Otherwise you'll have to ban all the aforementioned papers too, plus a whole host of other sources.

How about you just let the reader make their own mind up?

Axebo

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:12 AM

link

My intense dislike of Huff_Post equates with my intense dislike of black widow spiders, poison ivy, vipers, choppy surf (I'm prone to motion sickness), & other things neither beneficial or neutral to my well-being. I share this to make clear from the beginning my disregard for Huff_Post.

As a relatively new participant on ATS, I've noticed that the site's Moderators enforce defined standards; moreover, they do so with tasteful poise. The standards are simple enough to understand, & from what I gather we are all afforded some wiggle room to error, provided such error is not a gross violation of a rule & does not continually occur. So from the standpoint of standards upheld on ATS as juxtaposed to an alternative news source violating a standardized ethic, i.e. over-aggregating, it makes sense to evaluate the ongoings at Huff_Post & question their relevance (on the basis of ethical standards they uphold & not their political and social outlooks) as a source on ATS.

My opinion (implied): A standard, rule, or ethic that is not enforced is as useful as a particle of dust on the planet of Mars.

Benevolent Heretic

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:18 AM

link

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I am absolutely shocked to be reading this on ATS! I mean, I really can't believe you're talking about banning a source because of unethical practices while World Net Daily and The Post and Email (not to mention blogs) continue to be used as sources here ALL the time...

For what it's worth, I agree with Majic.

Originally posted by Majic
Caveat membor, I say.

The Revenant

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:25 AM

link

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I'm not being funny.... but ATS allows "The Sun" "The Daily Mail" and all manner of ridiculous British tabloid papers as "sources".... so I'm pretty sure that the HP is just fine.

Otherwise you'll have to ban all the aforementioned papers too, plus a whole host of other sources.

How about you just let the reader make their own mind up?

I couldn't agree more.

The moment we ban one questionable source, is the moment we need to ban them all - then, we'd have no sources left.

ALL sources on ATS are questionable, that's why we are here - to be sceptical, and question everything, accept nothing at face value, and to see conspiracies where others only see coincidence. We see that which is hidden, or unseen.

To do this we need to take into account every available source, every available piece of questionable information no matter how initially insignificant. HuffPo might be an 'agglomerator' of information, and yes it might bastardise information from other sources - but it's a great way of getting a lead quickly, which we at ATS then investigate properly and write up more accurate reports and information.

If anything, HuffPo complements ATS, and we should support it for its' information aggregation ability, and for the fact that it deals in unusual topics more often than other outlets. It means ATS will raise its' game, and will have better content than a major competitor does (yes, we know ATS and HuffPo are commercial competitors).

Bluntly, ATS benefits from the stupidity of HuffPo, and it provides informational economic discipline to ATS - it keeps us sharp. Kapiche?

The Revenant.

edit on 13-7-2011 by The Revenant because: (no reason given)

blupblup

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:27 AM

link

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am absolutely shocked to be reading this on ATS! I mean, I really can't believe you're talking about banning a source because of unethical practices while World Net Daily and The Post and Email (not to mention blogs) continue to be used as sources here ALL the time...

Exactly.... I really wonder why?

I've never seen this mentioned on ATS before?

ugie1028

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:29 AM

link

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

IF you are going to ban limit or regulate news coming from huffington post, then shouldn't other main stream sources also be filtered and regulated and or limited?

All news sites over amp the story, over exaggerate and what-not. look @ fox news, cnn, msnbc... they all have their own agendas right/left/center and each one twists a story to fit their political views.

just my .02.

DJW001

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:34 AM

link

As has been pointed out, there are much better candidates for banning than the Huffington Post. The Examiner springs instantly to mind. It would be unfair to single one out without also banning the others. As it is, allowing dubious sources is one of ATS's great strengths: it allows people who understand genuine research to demonstrate how to evaluate the source properly through critical thinking.

autowrench

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:35 AM

link

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I have to agree here, Simon. Although I do appreciate Howard Fineman, and Jessie Ventura, who both write for the site I believe, the site itself is becoming a simple propaganda website. I stopped going there quite awhile ago.

anon72

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:45 AM

link

Heck NO. Not with the 2012 Election fast approaching. We'll all need a good knee slapper as they will try to show that the Obama Administration is worth keeping around 4 more years.

They don't usually have many ATS worthy stories.... but they can be funny to read. It's like watching a Robot self-destruct as they attempt to smear Palin, the Tea Party, Republicans and generally anyone who isn't a left wing NUT JOB.

Matter of fact, I say we start a Dedicated Thread to post and keep track of their BS reporting and stories. I think it would be a HOOT!

getreadyalready

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:46 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I can usually spot a Huffington Post story, just like I can always spot a Sorcha Faal story. There is a sensationalism that pervades all the prose and occasional fact. The stories seem a little too unbelievable or convenient.

I believe we should always provide more than one source for any story, especially if the story is somewhat unbelievable. In looking for that second source, we often trace it back to a source like Sorcha Faal as the original writer, or we find that the original story was much more tame and mundane, but later rewrites were exaggerated to grab attention.

I hate to see ATS bouncing viewers to the Huffington Post, and I hate to sensationalist journalism rewarded.

I think it would be a great thing if all HuffPost stories were required to have a second reliable source that is not user-generated.

Ideally, I would love to see the brain power at ATS dig into these stories, write more realistic and factual threads from better sources, and show that a conspiracy website can still be more accurate and trustworthy than a pseudo mainstream outlet like AOL/Huffington. I thought the AOL buyout would make Huffington more reliable, but it appears to have done the opposite.

ATS has the talent to be the pre-eminent alternative news source. We don't need Huffington as a source.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Seiko

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:53 AM

link

The huffington post was not impressive to me when I first found it. It has gone decidedly worse in the last few years. I judge the site on it's merits; and I consider them poor.

With that said I do not agree. I cannot endorse any form of censorship whether for good or bad. Banning any site is antithetical to the idea that we should be educating each other other here.

Ignorance rooting from ignoring is a selective state of unawareness.

Benevolent Heretic

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:58 AM

link

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think it would be a great thing if all HuffPost stories were required to have a second reliable source that is not user-generated.

Why just HuffPo,. though? Why not The Examiner, MoveOn, WND, Free Republic, The Post and Email, The Daly KOS, The Daily Mail, FOX, MSNBC, The Star, The Drudge Report, Michelle Maulkin, FactCheck, The Nation, The National Review and Project Vote Smart?

Why not require 2 sources on ALL stories?

Still can't believe I'm reading this... :shk:

pplrnuts

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:04 AM

link

*SIGH*

I never thought that I would see the day that ATS tries to actually CENSOR, er, no BAN, any media related information on its site!!

Whats next, banning Alex Jones, or Ron Paul next?? Then after that maybe we'll go ahead and ban women members from posting here, right?!!

If there is a questionable media source or link included, we have very bright members here at ATS who will shine light on the topic allowing folks to see what the real deal is.

edit on 13-7-2011 by pplrnuts because: (no reason given)

JohnnyCanuck

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:13 AM

link

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Most intelligent discussion here on ATS operates on a 'cite your sources' level. Those sources are also open for challenge. Blogs are not sources. I read HP every day, and if something interests me, I go to the root article.

I think the worst offender is Rense, (and I was once a fan) who seriously editorializes its headers in an "are you still beating your wife? manner.

Bottom line, the level of ATS discourse is up to the participants. If folks are going to breathlessly suck up the hooey, then it doesn't matter where it comes from. No need to ban sources, and best to let the T&Cs keep things on track.

edit on 13-7-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)

mblahnikluver

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:18 AM

link

I like Huffington Post but it has changed since I started reading it..

Some stories are like The National Enquirer and others aren't. You just have to make that call on your own.

hotbakedtater

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:24 AM

link

No becasue they usually always source their stories from elsewhere. So one only has to follow through, and will have original source.

Why would any source be banned? I don't need anyone else telling me where to get my news from, that is what my brain is for.

briantaylor

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:30 AM

link

The short answer is "no."
The reason is, we use all kinds of news agencies as sources, and I'm sure none of them are free from slant, bias, propoganada, rewrite, cheats, etc.
If you're gonna ban Huffpo, then at least also ban fox, the guardian, RT,
and this is not even considering the yahoo's we use as sources,
such as Alex Jones.

Where do you draw the line?
(Don't answer this question unless you care to have a long philosophical debate about the etymology of the words you use.)

Fractured.Facade

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:39 AM

link

No, slippery slope comes to mind.

Besides, news sources are going to eventually be narrowed by corporate driven political agendas, and eventually people will have to pay for news online... If they have their way.

If you want to make a bold statement, ban any materials that are anyway linked to Rupert Murdoch!

Seriously, in most cases your members do an outstanding job of finding other sources and calling out questionable sources, hoaxes, sensationalism etc... That is why breaking news threads here at ATS draw in so much traffic... It isn't necessarily the news, or source, it is what we do with it in a discussion that matters.

If a Huffington Post news item passes that test, maybe it has some validity here.

If not?

Send it to the appropriate place.