Do Not be Fooled The Examiner is an Unverifiable Untrusted Source:

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I always see examiner articles linked as a "source" to back up whatever claim the person was trying to make.

Just to be clear, anyone from anywhere can sign up and write an article for them. Examiner currently has 55,000 contributors more than any other news source because they allow anyone to sign up and write for them!!!! This is what the executive editor had to say when one article went too far,


"They're blogs. They don't get edited. We don't give any direction to people on what to write in their blogs. And that's standard operating procedure."


I don't understand why the ATS community who hates corporate media so much, would revert to a unverifiable source of information such as the examiner. Now, please take your, "I don't trust the," w/e media outlet you feel like bashing today speech and take it elsewhere. I don't care what source you do or do not trust. I am just telling you to not put any faith in the examiner, because its basically ATS without the conspiracies. (And some of them even make it onto the examiner.)

Why do you like the examiner? Let's talk about that.
edit on 16-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
most of the uk feels the same way about the daily mail yet it keeps getting referenced here as a reliable source too.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyteeny
most of the uk feels the same way about the daily mail yet it keeps getting referenced here as a reliable source too.


Even the daily mail doesn't allow anybody to write for it. They actually hire scum, but they hire people nonetheless



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I always see examiner articles linked as a "source" to back up whatever claim the person was trying to make.

Just to be clear, anyone from anywhere can sign up and write an article for them. Examiner currently has 55,000 contributors more than any other news source because they allow anyone to sign up and write for them!!!! This is what the executive editor had to say when one article went too far,


"They're blogs. They don't get edited. We don't give any direction to people on what to write in their blogs. And that's standard operating procedure."


I don't understand why the ATS community who hates corporate media so much, would revert to a unverifiable source of information such as the examiner. Now, please take your, "I don't trust the," w/e media outlet you feel like bashing today speech and take it elsewhere. I don't care what source you do or do not trust. I am just telling you to not put any faith in the examiner, because its basically ATS without the conspiracies. (And some of them even make it onto the examiner.)

Why do you like the examiner? Let's talk about that.


Perhaps ATS members tend not to trust MSM articles because their correspondence typically have a biased opinion and promote the agenda of their corporate overlords??

There have been many many many threads pointing out the discrepancies between MSM news and the reality of the situation. Like the numerous staged events in the middle east to garner support.

I agree with you that the validity of some periodicals (The examiner) is questionable as well. That is why I and many others support the idea of verification through multiple sources. To corroborate the story.

People are just lazy to do the leg work.

If I saw a source with the headline “I married a Martian”, I would rather discredit through research then simply ignoring it. Well that headline might be a bit extreme

edit on 16-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs

1. Perhaps ATS members tend not to trust MSM articles because their correspondence typically have a biased opinion and promote the agenda of their corporate overlords??

2. I agree with you that the validity of some periodicals (The examiner) is questionable is well. That is why I and many others support the idea of variation through multiple sources. To corroborate the story.


1. I know, that. That is not what this thread is about though. Even though it is a corporation, the examiner is an open source collaboration of news and anybody can sign up and write for it. Just use caution if you read the examiner, its very misleading.

2. I usually see examiner sources as the only source listed in some political stories.
edit on 16-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


True i do see this happen in some occasions, but are usually meet with criticism on the validity of the source and fade into ATS obscurity as the thread draws little attention.

I would argue that in some cases these kinds of articles from sources the "The Examiner" are useful in that you are able to see all the angles, regardless of how crazy they may seem.

Denying ignorance comes with utilizing all information at hand



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Almost all media outlets and online are not verifiable. ATS is alot like Before It's News where anyone can drop in and post media feeds from around the world. Therefore, that also makes ATS an untrusted source....but like Before It's News there are also interesting articles on science, space etc which is what I usually prefer to read.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I always see examiner articles linked as a "source" to back up whatever claim the person was trying to make.

Just to be clear, anyone from anywhere can sign up and write an article for them. Examiner currently has 55,000 contributors more than any other news source because they allow anyone to sign up and write for them!!!! This is what the executive editor had to say when one article went too far,


"They're blogs. They don't get edited. We don't give any direction to people on what to write in their blogs. And that's standard operating procedure."


I don't understand why the ATS community who hates corporate media so much, would revert to a unverifiable source of information such as the examiner. Now, please take your, "I don't trust the," w/e media outlet you feel like bashing today speech and take it elsewhere. I don't care what source you do or do not trust. I am just telling you to not put any faith in the examiner, because its basically ATS without the conspiracies. (And some of them even make it onto the examiner.)

Why do you like the examiner? Let's talk about that.
edit on 16-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)


Thank you the same goes for Brietbart!! People keep posting this nonsense from these propaganda websites and then I get to waste my time debunking them on here because the posters ( I won't name named) do not fact check, they see a video or an article and it must be true!

This would be the sheep that is our society!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I didn't realize anyone was quoting from the Examiner. Wow.

In related news: Critical thought is at an all-time low.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Like the BBC and Sky then.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djayed



Thank you the same goes for Brietbart!! People keep posting this nonsense from these propaganda websites and then I get to waste my time debunking them


Brietbart is almost always wrong, and this is coming from a republican mind you!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


True i do see this happen in some occasions, but are usually meet with criticism on the validity of the source and fade into ATS obscurity as the thread draws little attention.


Not when the majority agrees with the article. I find it funny really, they tell people not to watch the MSM because its unverifiable and then, when they spout the lies that some random kid wrote in the examiner and someone points it out they go ballistic.

I guess its true we are all sheeple!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I think it's a mistake to focus on the source of any assertion, rather than the substance of an assertion.

I generally do not like any argument that makes the case I shouldn't read something because it comes from a particular place. Let me be the judge of whether something should be believed or not.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Natural News is another one people need to stop citing. I have yet to see an honest article from them. Instead they have articles full of hyperbole, sensationalism, and lies in order to push their agenda. However, because it's an "alternative" news source people treat it as the gospel. Thankfully I haven't seen it used as a source too much recently but it will still pop up every now and then.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Serious question. What is the purpose of natural news? I've never heard of it...

What about PrisonPlanet, Infowars, RT, PressTV, and some website which starts with a D? I can't recall its name, but these sources hardly ever pan out either...PressTV is Iranian Propaganda, so make of that what you will.
edit on 16-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Natural News pretty much operates on the belief that medicine and psychology are evil. They're those people that think anything can be solved with a little ginseng. They use to site to publish "news" showing how their opinions are right. Of course this manifests in them publishing blatant lies like, "Psychologists are going to make being angry a mental disorder."



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Natural News pretty much operates on the belief that medicine and psychology are evil. They're those people that think anything can be solved with a little ginseng. They use to site to publish "news" showing how their opinions are right. Of course this manifests in them publishing blatant lies like, "Psychologists are going to make being angry a mental disorder."


But that sounds like this site...

Wait am I allowed to say that?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






top topics



 
2

log in

join