Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"i'm not clicking your link because I don't agree with its ideology."

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Most of us have seen or been in these situations on ATS before:

******

Me: Yesterday was Tuesday. That means today must be Wednesday, right?
Poster X: Prove it. Link or it didn't happen.
Me: [sigh] OK, here's a link to a news site. They always have today's date on the top:
www.foxnews.com...
Poster X: No way, Fox News is unreliable. They lie. I'm not clicking that. Fail.
Me: [exasperated]: It's just the freaking day of the week. I'm not asking you to march in lockstep with their editorial page. Even if they lie about some things, this is a basic and easily verifiable fact that can be confirmed using any number of sources.
Poster X: Fine, then give me another source. If Fox says today is Wednesday, that means it probably isn't.
Me (rolling my eyes): OK, here's a link to today's Huffington Post, a liberal source. Note the date. Same as on the Fox source:
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Happy now?
Poster X: kthanksbai.
Poster Y (entering the conversation): Waitaminute, now I don't believe you because you posted a liberal source.
Me: nnnnnnggaaaaaaaahhh! (smashes face against keyboard).



*****

Too often do people on ATS use the ideology of a source or a link as an excuse to avoid thinking or engaging with a topic. Yes, Fox lies sometimes and has a conservative slant in general. Yes, Huffington Post is a "liberal rag" with a largely liberal slant. But this doesn't mean *everything* posted at these sources is a lie. I've seen people refuse to believe something like a disaster or a big fire actually happened, just because the link posted is to a news source that jars with their ideology. I'm talking about the basic fact it occurred, not the spin or interpretation. This is just plain pigheaded stupidity, folks!

Don't be lazy and stupid. The evil link is not going to poison you. You are a big boy or a big girl, surely you have the ability to separate what is basic, objective fact from what is spin and opinion at a questionable source, at least in most cases, right? Or are you so brain-dead and insecure in your own views that you can't even trust yourself to read critically?

Not everything at Fox is a lie. Not everything at Huffpo is a lie. Not everything at a site ending in ".gov" is government propaganda. Don't use the source as an excuse for not thinking. If you truly mistrust a basic fact from Source A, use Source B that you trust to verify it...rather than demanding the person who posted the first link do so. Grow up.

Rant over.




edit on 12/5/2012 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
There's no reason to completely discount biased sources, as long as you acknowledge the bias. Although the account you posted in the OP, if it is real (word for word) is just a clear sign of trolling.




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Pics or it didn't happen!




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
There's no reason to completely discount biased sources, as long as you acknowledge the bias. Although the account you posted in the OP, if it is real (word for word) is just a clear sign of trolling.



No, I made it up, it's exaggerated for effect.

But the fact that such a bizzare exchange is at least theoretically believable as a possible ATS post sequence speaks volumes about how bad the problem is...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


I don't know. I kinda see the point being made sometimes. Although outright dismissing it without an alternate source isn't really fair.

Take for example something from Natural News, like "Vaccine make millions die."

Then you find the actual article cited by the NN article and it's "Death rather assessed in vaccine recipients."

If you post the second un biased source of the article, or even the same story from another news source to question it... I don't see anything wrong with that, and it's probably how the debate should be handled.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


S&F OP. Like my momma always told me, "There is always two sides to the story, and the truth usually lies somewhere in between.".

My mother never really said that, but I wish she would have........



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Attacking source is a disinfo tactic and a fallacy - but one that sometimes has merit. The one source I will always attack - and try like Hell never to source myself is blog sites masquerading as news outlets. Brietbart comes to mind here. It's not that op-ed isn't a valid thing, in and of itself - but it is hard to glean facts from opinion.

To me the real fascination is that media outlets tend to be driving this phenomenon on purpose! When you look at the history of TV news and ponder it, the fact that they are alienating any potential viewers is just staggering. I mean it was not so long ago that news divisions as networks had to fight just to stay on the air because they didn't draw the advertising revenue that other programming did.

My personal approach is simple. Regardless of source - even if it's a blog - I try to trace it back to the original source and then utilize that as the basis for my rebuttal post. If no other source exists and the OP is not based upon a highly reliable source (an AP story for example) I'll happily point that out as well - especially if the OP is based upon an op-ed or blog site.

Having said all of that - your premise is correct. We are being trained to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to news. Everyone is editorializing to the extreme - thus watering down the value of the information. Rather than throw out the sources? It's preferable to point out which parts are editorialized and which seem to be rooted in fact. This is the path to a meaningful discussion of the issues.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I do not understand why people cannot just click on the link and read what is offered before making up their mind.

I'm with you on this, OP. The posters who say things like, "Well, it's Alex Jones, you can't take him seriously", or "David Wilcock is a kook, he's been wrong so many times, anything he says or writes is just nonsense" really irritate me. Killing the messenger without even checking out the message? What are they afraid of, eye poisoning? A brain aneurysm?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Alex Jones threads do tend to end up with me just stating my opinion of Alex Jones.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Even THIS site has its quota of BS!!

BS is everywhere, its our job to see through it.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Like you said in your OP, If you don't like the source linked, is it really that hard for someone to do a search and try to find another?
I try to, sometimes just to see if there might be more information.

And, I actually only know sources to be bad or good, from what everyone hollers on here.

(As far as AJ, Socha, ect)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


That's like saying... "I know this guy is a serial killer, but I'm still going to go on a hike with him. Just because he killed the last 10 people that went on a hike with him doesn't mean that he will kill me."

Once a liar... always a liar... Fox, MSNBC, etc... they all lie or embelish or spin information. Your example of the date is too simplistic for this topic, because a subject like "the date" is very easy to use to get your point across. When you remove the date and insert a relevant economic or political topic it is very easy to not click on the link of a known liar or the link of a site that you know spins news in the opposite way that you think. Reading news from a site that is known to be contrary to your ideology is a waste of time, because the reader will be cynical from the start, and that is OK.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

I have to agree. I will not trust anything even slightly political I read on HuffPo. They just cannot be trusted at all imo. I will trust "People's News Daily" and "Al-Jazera" before I trust HuffPo. If I read them at all, it is just to try and understand their slant so That I can rail against it.

ETA: Not that Fox is all that much better, they are only slightly more believable on political topics.
edit on 6-12-2012 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Personally I think you owe it yourself to click on any link posted in a thread you're partaking in regardless of whether you agree with the site or not.
How can you make any informed decisions if you don't?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?
Personally I think you owe it yourself to click on any link posted in a thread you're partaking in regardless of whether you agree with the site or not.
How can you make any informed decisions if you don't?
If I see a glass of curdled milk, I don't have to drink it to know it is bad.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Did this really happen..



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Huffington Post and Fox News are both terrible sources of information.

I don't have the patience to sit here and explain, I just thought I'd point out that people avoid sources that provide news with a blatant agenda no matter what their stance on the political spectrum is.

Get unbiased news or GTFO, because biased news is worthless.






top topics



 
10

log in

join