Actually, I think this is a healthy discussion which should be revived from time to time.
Some of us have been down this road before, and if any particular threads seem worthy of recollection perhaps they could be linked.
I - on the other hand - like to start with a fresh slate each time. Because newer members and such need an opportunity to engage in the discussion,
not read about it like it were doctrine passed down through the ages.
To address the Op head-on, I believe that we must acknowledge the 'hit-or-miss' nature of our media sources; as well as our affinity for using
"source" as an opportunity to diminish, detract, inflate, or extoll the content we are collecting.
It is an interesting and occasionally tiresome dynamic. As members of our community scour the information disseminated by mostly media focused on
sensational, inflammatory, or otherwise 'entertaining' "news" we often see reports sourced from places which evoke disdain in many other members.
I have repeatedly heard declarations that news from 'WebsiteA' or 'AuthorB' should be forbidden, or automatically placed in the "HOAX" forum. From
that stance we even have topics that requested to be automatically considered "hoax" or otherwise suspect. To me it's alike a balloon with a tiny
leak in it. Before you know it there's the vessel is either half-empty or half-full - the perspective being entirely dependent on the bias of the
commenter towards or against what was excluded or included.
Then there is the implication that if it comes from a particular source it cannot be trusted.. even if the originating article came from a reputable
source prior to the OP's thread. The idea that media owners and their operational proxies, editors, have their fingers in every article disseminated
is ... approximately incorrect.
Most of our news is bundled by a wire service or other media conglomerate network... the actual sources "investment" in it is not the stereotypical
image of some reporters and investigative journalists burning the midnight oil and cleverly navigating their direct sources for news. It is much more
likely that the news is packaged as "approved" for release by the very subject or controlling interest of the report information. From there it is
massaged according to owner/editorial policy to conform with the most commercial and expedient message they can superimpose or directly interject into
I have seen endless instances of declaring one source or another to be reprehensibly biased, and you know what - there are some that are. But most
are just business models for distributing content to an audience. may attempt to coddle their audience by only offering what they determine the
audience will respond to best; others attempt to 'play' with the provided content to achieve even less admirable goals. But few, if any are simply
engaged in the tradition of the press... simply, objectively, and consistently reporting facts.
I think there is nothing wrong with any source as long as you openly recognize the fingerprint of the reporter/reporting entity. None are beyond
reproach. Some often basely misrepresent themselves as "news" when in fact they are nothing more that someone's opinion on the news from another
source; a sin we here are innocent of.
In order to aggregate facts, in order to provide for the curation of content, we cannot start by flatly excluding sources because we know they are
biased. We must acknowledge the bias and make it a component of our discussion... just because a Bilderberg Reptilian Nazi Elitists Overlord
Propagandist claims the sky is blue... it doesn't mean it isn't.
If we know that the source is lying, say so. Prove it. If the source is satire or blogs, it isn't exactly news is it?
Good topic, and one needing airtime - if you ask me.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)