news websites credibility, just a thought,

alot of news sites are crap and some so so it would be nice if thare was a link of sites and if thay are lagit or not or a poll for people to give thare two cents, just a thought it would help me two know if a story was lagit or not before i post it, thank you for your time!! ?

a reply to: slayerfan

I don't know about that, but a good idea to use if you have questions about a story is to try and corroborate it on other sites or outlets, perhaps one's you have learnt you can trust?

Just be careful about outlets carrying the exact same story that has been fed to them by a third party, like Reuters - Reuters is fine, but using multiple sources who've all used a single source themselves is a bad idea - you can usually tell when they have the same source as the writing will be identical or similar.

a reply to: stumason

Stumason for the win, once again, and again, and again...

a reply to: Springer

Woooo!

Well poop, you've been on ATS since 03 you'd think you got a handle on the rhetoric by now.

I can get a handle on things sometimes just hearing or reading it. It's always the same old same old propaganda or pandering over and over. It's so transparent.

a reply to: slayerfan

If you ever come across a story that seems intersting but the source is at risk of being spurious the best approach is to use search engines to see if you can find substantiation from other sources.

Sometimes this approach proves fruitful. Other times you find yourself realizing that backsourcing leads you in a circle right back to where you were - which is always a good sign that it is pure bunk.

Also it pays to hold off an hour or two if you suspect the source. Sometimes even

Edited because I am one rusty typer....

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: slayerfan

If you ever come across a story that seems intersting but the source is at risk of being spurious the best approach is to use search engines to see if you can find substantiation from other sources.

Sometimes this approach proves fruitful. Other times you find youself realizing that backsourcing leads you in a circle right back to where you were - which is always a good sign that it is pure bunk.

Also it pays to hold off an hour or two if you suspect the source. Sometimes even the worst of sources manage to get the jump on a story and a more reliable secondary source will pop up a short while later.

Wow Heff, you actually post! Wait is the sky falling? Let me go outside and check!

....

Nope still good.

a reply to: stumason

Reuters is horribly biased.

Only really good thing to do is getting knowledgeable, the more facts you know, the better you will be at judging what`s wrong and what`s right.

And it`s good to keep your focus not on things which sound logical and sound plausible, but at the abnormalities in matters, those are the things which tell the story.

originally posted by: onequestion
Well poop, you've been on ATS since 03 you'd think you got a handle on the rhetoric by now.

Does it ever get easier?

And if it does, should that be even more troubling?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It was just an example - I could have easily picked one of the many other news agencies out there and someone would chirp "biased" or what have you - can't please everyone, all the time!

a reply to: stumason

Reuters leaves out really critical information, marginalizes, is one sided and twists just like all Western MSM, just FYI.

You almost can`t find any news source which isn`t biased. All news needs to be examined with the same skepticism.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: stumason

Reuters leaves out really critical information, marginalizes, is one sided and twists just like all Western MSM, just FYI.

Got to love the irony in that statement..

As I said, I simply picked one of many news agencies and if it hadn't been Reuters (which was simply the first to pop into my head as an example) it would have been someone else. Had it been AFP, or Interfax, or Fars or whomever, someone would have piped up with an "FYI" petty point about it. I was just suggesting to the OP he should check multiple sources.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
You almost can`t find any news source which isn`t biased. All news needs to be examined with the same skepticism.

Exactly, some more so than others yet picking out "western media" for special criticism betrays your own bias. I bet your an RT fan, hey?

a reply to: slayerfan

No.1 Above Top Secret.com I leave that to the reader.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: stumason

Reuters leaves out really critical information, marginalizes, is one sided and twists just like all Western MSM, just FYI.

Got to love the irony in that statement..

As I said, I simply picked one of many news agencies and if it hadn't been Reuters (which was simply the first to pop into my head as an example) it would have been someone else. Had it been AFP, or Interfax, or Fars or whomever, someone would have piped up with an "FYI" petty point about it. I was just suggesting to the OP he should check multiple sources.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
You almost can`t find any news source which isn`t biased. All news needs to be examined with the same skepticism.

Exactly, some more so than others yet picking out "western media" for special criticism betrays your own bias. I bet your an RT fan, hey?

I`m actually not reading that much RT, but with Western media not doing its job you have no other choice to check such sites also if you want to know what is going on.

You`re the one saying "Reuters is fine" while it`s just as bad as other Western mainstream sources. That doesn`t however stop me from reading them, but with the same critical stance as other news sources. You were misleading thread readers by suggesting Reuters is fine while it`s just as a big of a tool as other MSM for The West.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

>sigh<

Clearly, you're just spoiling for an argument...

Read my first post again - I suggested going to multiple sources to verify a story.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

>sigh<

Clearly, you're just spoiling for an argument...

Read my first post again - I suggested going to multiple sources to verify a story.

I know what you meant, because Reuters is the one which gives the initial report from which lots of pieces come from, "it`s fine" as you suggest, but by implying that readers think it`s trustworthy while it actually isn`t.

So if a thread is being about "credibility" you can`t suggest a source is credible while it isn`t all the time.