Check the Credibility of Your Sources, Please!

I can't tell how many times I see stuff on this forum that is false and yet gets tons of flags. For example, the Fukushima reactor 3 meltdown post that got over 70 flags was a complete hoax.
fukushima-diary.com...
According to this article from someone who actually lives in Japan and is literally their job to blog about what's going on at Fukushima, there is not a nuclear meltdown. There still is radiation coming from the plant, but there is not 85 tons of plutonium burning. Radiation levels are not going drastically up. The smoke is caused by the water coolant leaking and touching the reactor, and it is visible because TEPCO recently removed debris from the top of the reactor.

Hardly any credible sources actually posted about this, and if they did, they didn't actually say it was happening. They said it might be. But they're still wrong. I'm sure TEPCO is completely confused on what news stations are reporting. Quit endorsing this B.S. by DENYING IGNORANCE like the site once said and actually check the credibility of whatever's being reporting. Maybe the site removed the slogan as a reaction to the amount of misinformation that gets posted here everyday.

Another example of such lack of credibility is a post that was saying some group of people had gathered information that stated all foreclosures were illegal and all bankers would be arrested. This post also got a large amount of flags I recall. However, the information came from a blog, which eventually talked about how entities some person talked to through astral projection said this would happen. Very credible. BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO FAKE AN ASTRAL PROJECTION, WHICH ALSO MAY OR MAY NOT BE REAL. Good job, ATS, good job.

Please, before you waste your time posting a misinformation-filled thread, check the credibility of the source. If it's only a blog that's reporting the content, you should probably at least say that there's a possibility it's false information. Otherwise, you'll just further swindle people's minds. If it's a site very extremist in its beliefs, that's probably not worth sharing either. Those are likely biased. Do you think www.fireandreamitchell.com... is a credible source? You better not, because it has an extreme Republican bias. Luckily, I haven't seen any threads using that site as a source, but I do know people in real life that have used it as a source. Overall, avoid very biased sources, avoid stuff that hasn't received much attention, and make sure you actually read the article carefully along with the comments to get an idea of its credibility. If it might not be credible, say so in the thread. We don't need the fearmongering similar to that of the reactor 3 thread ever again.

Such is the nature of a user-generated content site like this one. It's hard to know what is real and what is fake. It is good to cross-check stories, but often in those cases the same story is repeated on many different sites.

Take what is offered with a grain of salt, and do your own research. If you're angry because somebody got a lot of flags, that's just sour grapes. All you can do is post why you feel the information is erroneous.

I personally like to see all the off-base stuff that comes up. I don't always believe it, but I appreciate the opportunity to read or listen and make up my own mind. I guess I just like the crazy.

reply to post by catswithbigpaws

According to this article from someone who actually lives in Japan and is literally their job to blog about what's going on at Fukushima, there is not a nuclear meltdown. There still is radiation coming from the plant, but there is not 85 tons of plutonium burning. Radiation levels are not going drastically up. The smoke is caused by the water coolant leaking and touching the reactor, and it is visible because TEPCO recently removed debris from the top of the reactor.

But how do we know this person isn't the hoax? We don't.

And TEPCO being confused over all the News articles? I hardly think so. They know exactly what they are doing and are controlling their press/PR with precision.

But then again.

Peace

reply to post by jude11


I'm pretty sure someone that lives in Fukushima and talks to TEPCO knows more about the issue than Turner Radio Network.

reply to post by catswithbigpaws


Isn't this why we are here?....to bounce things off of fellow truth seekers. Am I missing something? Wait....don't answer that....Beezzer will be along to take care of that in "T" minus............

catswithbigpaws
reply to post by jude11

 

I'm pretty sure someone that lives in Fukushima and talks to TEPCO knows more about the issue than Turner Radio Network.

You're right.

I believe that the person talking to TEPCO knows a lot more about them than we do. Now the question remains that if they are far away in Fukushima, how do we know that they don't work for TEPCO? Kinda like something Turner would stoop to.

My point being that nothing is as it seems anymore and a reliable source has turned out to be a plant on many occasions. Both sides of the World. Both sides of the story.

Now, can people check sources more closely? Absolutely. But just a few years ago CNN was a reliable source for many and look how that turned out.

Peace

catswithbigpaws
...Overall, avoid very biased sources, avoid stuff that hasn't received much attention, and make sure you actually read the article carefully along with the comments to get an idea of its credibility.

Rant status noted. Fact checking is always good. However, the above statement seems somewhat lacking in investigative technique. Biased sources are generally motivated sources and often dig out hard to find nuggets. Note the bias, but don't dismiss potentially important information.

"...(A)void stuff that hasn't received much attention..." ? You probably didn't mean that as it sounds, but that is almost certainly not the way to truth seek, eh?

catswithbigpaws
reply to post by jude11

 

I'm pretty sure someone that lives in Fukushima and talks to TEPCO knows more about the issue than Turner Radio Network.

Perhaps, but does that mean hes telling us truthful information?
I sense irony in this thread.

catswithbigpaws
I'm pretty sure someone that lives in Fukushima and talks to TEPCO knows more about the issue than Turner Radio Network.

Have you sourced that? "Pretty sure," sounds like cognitive dissonance when considering your topic.

I suppose if I know by direct knowledge or the word of someone I do directly trust that a person is in the Fukushima region of Japan, then I'll perk up and take more notice of what they have to say. Where they live still gives no one credibility by itself, in my book.

Many many events happen in New York City. Many members live in New York City. I don't take them as authority to events any more than someone in Jersey or Japan for the same story ..unless they were in the middle of it and I know with certainty that was really their perspective.

It's one of those things...People can claim every position for credibility on a forum that has been imagined ..and it only goes so far if the facts presented don't wash. After all, it's still text on a screen typed by someone else on their screen, in the end.

To each their own Judgement, is my motto.

reply to post by catswithbigpaws


Scrutinize the message not the messenger. Value the message not the messenger...Credibility is a horrible way to validate information...because of this thing called..."Disinformation". 50% truth (credibility) 50% lies (disinfo) = 100% deception.

The problem with the concept of "Credibility" is that it implies that at some point the scientific method of fact checking no longer needs to be applied 100% and information from the "credible" source can be lazily taken at face value...

The source of info should have no bearing on the validity of a message...the message, data, info contained there in should be the only thing investigated, otherwise you risk face value ignorance because the source "told the truth" 1 or 2 times...

I'm pretty sure that if someone posted on GLP that the sky was blue their would be people here ridiculing that information strictly because of the source...Same goes for the opposite...Fox news reporting the world was about to end would get quite a few people to believe it simply because they value the messenger over the message.

Its a contribution to ignorance to value the messenger over the message.

reply to post by Tucket

Tucket

catswithbigpaws
reply to post by jude11

 

I'm pretty sure someone that lives in Fukushima and talks to TEPCO knows more about the issue than Turner Radio Network.

Perhaps, but does that mean hes telling us truthful information?

No, it does not. As a matter of fact, we dont know if that person lives near Fukishima, is even in Japan or if "he's" a real person! (worst case scenario).

The validity of any source, mainstream or not, requires an evaluation to determine its bias, validity and (as far as we can tell), truthfulness.

So "checking a source" isnt an exact science, not even close.

reply to post by gladtobehere

So "checking a source" isnt an exact science, not even close.

Those are some of the wisest words I've seen in a long time. If only it were a science. We could learn or teach it and all would be great across the net.

I liken it more to an art and a perishable skill at that. Like shooting. If it isn't maintained, it'll rust.

reply to post by catswithbigpaws

But they're still wrong. I'm sure TEPCO is completely confused on what news stations are reporting.

Can you post credible sources on this statement?