Dismissing Sources (at times, too hastily)

I'll make this brief.... For the second time in somewhat recent history The National Enquirer, of all places, has been the organization that has "broken" a story before anyone else. Yes, it was about a Hollywierd star having HIV (not necessarily Earth shattering news, but they did their investigation and all that).

Prior to that, a few years back, they also broke the John Edwards affair deal. (If I recall correctly they either won or were in the running to win a Pulitzer for that one).

Personally, the only time I ever even see the cover of the National Enquirer is when I'm waiting on line at the supermarket. More often than not, I can't even recognize the person featured on the cover (I guess I'm not that hip with current reality show celebrities).

That being said, I have thought for a while now that too many people automatically dismiss some stories/articles/reports simply because it comes from fill-in-the-blank. Now, I'm not saying people should believe everything they read. I'm also not saying that there aren't extremely extreme false "news outlets" out there. I am saying that I encourage people to at least perform a cursory review of an article being presented before dismissing it immediately.

After all, I suspect it is more or less the consensus on this site that the big major media outlets lie (either outright or by omission) and twist and tilt the "facts" to further their agendas. By doing so it forces many of us to look towards other, less mainstream sources.

That's all.

It's hard to take a paper seriously when their headlines are a bit crazy.
"My wife ran off with bigfoot!"
But even a blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then.
Some of these sources have lost credibility and definitely their stories need to be verified before believed.

a reply to: eluryh22

This is good advice...even ATS has 'blacklisted' certain news source for one reason or another.

I think the onus should fall on the reader to look at the information constructively and go from there--both knee-jerk dismissal or acceptance based on the source is a fine example of stupidity.

a reply to: Bluntone22

How dare you spread anti-Bigfoot hate! Not ALL Bigfoots are into married women.

I know what you mean. Yes, some sources need to be scrutinized more than others, but I don't think it is to anyone's benefit to automatically dismiss things without just taking a peak to see if it is at least plausible... then take it from there.

I take every source with a grain of salt and verify on my own. I always see people say "faux" news as if that is supposed to immediately disprove the information presented. If someone presents information to me I see if he information can be deconstructed instead of taking it at face value, even if the source is likely to be bias towards my position on the subject matter. This helps in debates as you then know how your opponent might come at you and thus you can be prepared to respond.

I've found journalism to be a dying profession. A lot of stories now are broken by non-traditional media. Remember, Drudge Report started because he broke the Clinton / Lewinsky scandal.

a reply to: Bluntone22

But what if his wife DID run off with Bigfoot.

Just saying.

a reply to: eluryh22

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it. For example, I'm old enough to remember reading NQ articles in the 1960's about the NAZI UFO program, complete with the same photos you'll find today but with the difference being that NQ tracked the story back to the originator of the story which was some Italian scientist who wrote a book on the subject back in the 1950's.

Unfortunately, because of the "politicization" of everything in the US and the abandonment of meaningful adherence to honesty and integrity by most all American news outlets, I don't believe much of anything any of them "report" because most of the so-called reports are massaged to present "selected facts" to support "wished for outcomes" in the pursuit of some political agenda. A lot of that which is presented as news is so massaged and selective that it really represents nothing more than opinion dressed up with statistics and thus reeks of propaganda.

What's the difference between CNN & MSNBC on the one hand and RT on the other? Time Zones and "slant". Back in the day of the USSR, the two news outlets were Izvestia (The News) and Pravda (the Truth) (or vica versa, I don't speak Russian); the popular Russian joke of the day was that "There's no "Truth" in the "News" and no "News" in the "Truth", referring to the two news outlets.