Choosing Reliable Sources 101. - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 05-16-2006, 09:19 PM #1
sutcivnI (Banned)
 
 
sutcivnI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
sutcivnI is a Supporting Member
Choosing Reliable Sources 101.

I've seen way too many stupid posts in STP citing ridiculous sources as of late, so I figured I'd do us all a favor and let the more naive among us know what is and is not an acceptable source for serious debate. Understand that almost all sources suck complete and total *** because humans have a very, very difficult time being truly unbiased; that said, there are much better sources than others, and if you don't learn to use them you'll look like an idiot for the rest of your life. We don't want that to happen, so...first up, some "good sources."

-The Associated Press
-Some major regional newspapers (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.)
-CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX News

Yes, you can get information from the major news networks, but it's only USEFUL if you get it from ALL of the networks. That way you can catch all of the angles to a story...which is about the only thing that bias is useful for.

See, you've got a selection. Please use it.

As you may expect, there are quite a bit more worthless sources than there are credible ones. Some obvious culprits include:

-Personal websites of any kind
-Wikipedia (nothing says trustworthy and unbiased like something that can be freely edited by anyone in the world with internet access)
-The History Channel
-Ultraliberal, Ultraconservative, and/or Ultra****ingstupid extremist websites

Common sense? Yes, but everybody needs a dose of it every now and then.

Last edited by sutcivnI : 05-16-2006 at 09:22 PM.
sutcivnI is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 05-16-2006, 09:27 PM #2
I love Impulses
Keep Calm and Booze On
 
I love Impulses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Happy Hour
I love Impulses is a Supporting Member
__________________
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Why We Drink

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I love Impulses is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 11:10 PM #3
~Killer~
G-G-G-u-NOT!
 
~Killer~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Westcost
This should be stickied
~Killer~ is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:00 AM #4
DatsunKid (Banned)
 
 
DatsunKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orange County, CA
Why should we believe you? What makes you a reliable source to listen to for sources. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH no one ever thought of that one.

BTW all sources are biased in one way or another. Unless you actually see it for yourself or take place in something you will never truly know. Thus, arguing politics is stupid and never-ending because you never know 100%.

Last edited by DatsunKid : 05-17-2006 at 12:02 AM.
DatsunKid is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:51 AM #5
TheSpy11
I see you...
 
TheSpy11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of 10K lakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by sutcivnI
-The Associated Press
-Some major regional newspapers (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.)
-CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX News - Funny, but when searching through the "Pentagon Video" headlines today on these TV networks' websites, they all had the exact same story. Sure a lot of repetition. When I glanced at other sites however, I was showered with info on all angles.

Yes, you can get information from the major news networks, but it's only USEFUL if you get it from ALL of the networks. That way you can catch all of the angles to a story...which is about the only thing that bias is useful for.

See, you've got a selection. Please use it.

As you may expect, there are quite a bit more worthless sources than there are credible ones. Some obvious culprits include:

-Personal websites of any kind
-Wikipedia (nothing says trustworthy and unbiased like something that can be freely edited by anyone in the world with internet access)
-The History Channel
-Ultraliberal, Ultraconservative, and/or Ultra****ingstupid extremist websites

You just mentioned to look at all angles of mainstream news. However if you ignore all these above-mentioned news sources, you aren't looking at "all angles" in the big picture. It's totally contradictory. Most mainstream articles repeat the same story over and over. Looking at alternate sources gives the reader a true collection of all information available.

Common sense? Yes, but everybody needs a dose of it every now and then.
Common sense tells you to look at every source possible. Excluding the alternative media is the surest way to miss information. No one source is a "good source". All of them miss the boat occasionally. Every source must connect with reality in their journalism--either present or past.
TheSpy11 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 03:18 AM #6
$PJ$ (Banned)
Northern Ballers Prez
 
$PJ$'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Earth
$PJ$ is a Supporting Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by KKKpaintball
If the source isn't white owned it's crap anyways
Nice racist remark.

There is a difference between alternative informative web sites and the conspiracy web sites you like to quote thespy.
$PJ$ is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 08:01 AM #7
sutcivnI (Banned)
 
 
sutcivnI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
sutcivnI is a Supporting Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsunKid
Why should we believe you? What makes you a reliable source to listen to for sources. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH no one ever thought of that one.

BTW all sources are biased in one way or another. Unless you actually see it for yourself or take place in something you will never truly know. Thus, arguing politics is stupid and never-ending because you never know 100%.
All sources are biased? Seriously? Whew, glad we got that one out of the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpy11
Common sense tells you to look at every source possible. Excluding the alternative media is the surest way to miss information. No one source is a "good source". All of them miss the boat occasionally. Every source must connect with reality in their journalism--either present or past.
Of all people to talk about "common sense"...

Mainstream news and the fire-and-brimstone conspiracy theory websites that you frequent are held to different standards. The former needs to make absolutely sure that its sources are as credible as possible and its stories reflect available evidence. This is what we call "news." The other sites base their stories around wild speculation and pay little or no attention to hard facts---and they have no reason to, because taking off their tin foil hats and actually looking at reality would shoot their arguments all to hell.

I agree with you that all available sources should be reviewed. The difference between you and I is that I have the intelligence, common sense, and maturity to pick out the sources that are worth their proverbial salt, whereas you fall prey to any and all half-baked claims they throw at you. That's not a personal attack, that's me letting you know that nobody takes you seriously, and if you intend to get anywhere in a political discussion, you need to get a clue, and get it quick.

Last edited by sutcivnI : 05-17-2006 at 08:04 AM.
sutcivnI is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:34 PM #8
TheSpy11
I see you...
 
TheSpy11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of 10K lakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by $PJ$
Nice racist remark.

There is a difference between alternative informative web sites and the conspiracy web sites you like to quote thespy.
No, there isn't any difference whatsoever. Even if they aren't true, and some are, at least the reader has brought all angles into play. Excluding any source based on "ultra this or extreme that" is a poor excuse for ignoring it. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't mean that you never read them or use them. I read plenty of junk that I don't beleive in. However I still read it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sutcivnI
A
Of all people to talk about "common sense"...

Mainstream news and the fire-and-brimstone conspiracy theory websites that you frequent are held to different standards. The former needs to make absolutely sure that its sources are as credible as possible and its stories reflect available evidence. This is what we call "news." The other sites base their stories around wild speculation and pay little or no attention to hard facts---and they have no reason to, because taking off their tin foil hats and actually looking at reality would shoot their arguments all to hell.

I agree with you that all available sources should be reviewed. The difference between you and I is that I have the intelligence, common sense, and maturity to pick out the sources that are worth their proverbial salt, whereas you fall prey to any and all half-baked claims they throw at you. That's not a personal attack, that's me letting you know that nobody takes you seriously, and if you intend to get anywhere in a political discussion, you need to get a clue, and get it quick.

No matter how you display it, that is a still a personal slam. Will I attack you in some way? No, I'm not going to stoop to that level. I am used to attacks? Yes. Am I going to retract what I know to be true? Heck no.

You know what sources are the most worthless in the world in my experiences? Mainstream news sources. They repeat the same stuff over and over that makes very litle sense. I started learning infinite amounts about world news when I started looking at alternative sites. History has proven some of them to be much more reliable than mainstream sources.

I'm not going to use any news source here at PBN. It's not worth getting atttacked by even posting a mainstream source as these will get slandered in some way. This politics forum is a pit of disrespect to all. All of you should be ashamed at yourselves for demeaning anyone. It's a sure way to belittle your own argument by calling the other person stupid or foolish. I'll let you here tear everyone up while I post somewhere else. I'll still read the junk here, but I not going to let myself get pasted without warrant. Flame away. I'm sure you will without remorse.

Last edited by TheSpy11 : 05-17-2006 at 02:22 PM.
TheSpy11 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:09 PM #9
$PJ$ (Banned)
Northern Ballers Prez
 
$PJ$'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Earth
$PJ$ is a Supporting Member
Some sites are know for putting out nothing but bull. Thus I choose not to read them. You seem to quote some sources that are utterly crazy. Yet you get tiffed when people make fun of you.
$PJ$ is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:14 PM #10
MadPSIence
umad ^_^
 
MadPSIence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by $PJ$
Some sites are know for putting out nothing but bull. Thus I choose not to read them. You seem to quote some sources that are utterly crazy. Yet you get tiffed when people make fun of you.
Seems anything that disagrees with your opinion is magically bull.

Seems you think fox news is a good source.

Maybe for the weather... I hope a clue falls on your head one day.
__________________
ST:A: what are self sensor? how is babby formed? supra is exotic!
hangin' out [] with my wangan out
1994 JZZ30

MadPSIence is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:17 PM #11
$PJ$ (Banned)
Northern Ballers Prez
 
$PJ$'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Earth
$PJ$ is a Supporting Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadPSIence
Seems anything that disagrees with your opinion is magically bull.

Seems you think fox news is a good source.

Maybe for the weather... I hope a clue falls on your head one day.
YOu guys should really decide if you want to call me a liberal or a neocon.

I have never quoted Fox news as a source by the way. thespy has constantly tried to use the loose change videos as his proof on anything 9-11 related. Sorry, but these videos are nothing but bull.
$PJ$ is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 05:15 PM #12
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpy11
No, there isn't any difference whatsoever. Even if they aren't true, and some are, at least the reader has brought all angles into play. Excluding any source based on "ultra this or extreme that" is a poor excuse for ignoring it.
Um, no it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpy11
I'm not going to use any news source here at PBN. It's not worth getting atttacked by even posting a mainstream source as these will get slandered in some way. This politics forum is a pit of disrespect to all. All of you should be ashamed at yourselves for demeaning anyone. It's a sure way to belittle your own argument by calling the other person stupid or foolish. I'll let you here tear everyone up while I post somewhere else. I'll still read the junk here, but I not going to let myself get pasted without warrant. Flame away. I'm sure you will without remorse.
You make me lol. Ever since your stupid conspiracy theory got ripped apart by Dread, you've been as sour as a warhead. Lighten up, just because your beliefs aren't based on fact doesn't make you... well, you know what I mean.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 05:54 PM #13
The Dread Pirate
Warning: Choking Hazard
 
The Dread Pirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The High Seas
The Dread Pirate is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpy11
No, there isn't any difference whatsoever. Even if they aren't true, and some are, at least the reader has brought all angles into play. Excluding any source based on "ultra this or extreme that" is a poor excuse for ignoring it. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't mean that you never read them or use them. I read plenty of junk that I don't beleive in.
There is a big difference between taking mass media news sources with a grain of salt and believing illogical crazy conspiracy "news" websites like Abovetopsecret.com that talk about the government's new weather-controlling devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpy11
However I still read it!
Which is why nobody respects you or takes you seriously.
__________________
I am going to become rich and famous when I invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
The Dread Pirate is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 06:20 PM #14
yay4jojo16
Quasi-Socialist
 
yay4jojo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The World
 has been a member for 10 years
Also, when citing scientific studies, make sure they are credible. A credible scientific study is one that:
-Has been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal
-Can be supported by findings published in other studies
-Has not been rejected by the scientific community at large

For example, in the gay marriage debate, some people like to cite inflammatory statistics from NARTH. NARTH's studies on homosexuality are not credible because:
NARTH is comprised of radical doctors who defy modern medicine by classifying homosexuality as a disorder, and they're alone in promoting reparative therapy. Funding comes from referrals from Christian extremists. No NARTH study has ever been accepted to be published in any peer-reviewed medical journal, despite their own claims. All major health and mental health professions have rejected their beliefs, including The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers. Essentially, you can find more credible sources in a bathroom stall.
__________________
PBN's #1 Reggae aficionado
Marriage for All
"Originally posted by Blank Disc
i use herbal essences because i like the orgasming women in their commericals. "
"Originally posted by DreadLock Doc
Without public education, the country would be about as competent as Small Talk. "
yay4jojo16 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 08:12 PM #15
XOne (Banned)
Un soldado de Dios
 
XOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: [-Frisco 415-]
How dare you insult my history channel.
XOne is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:28 PM #16
4rtshark (Banned)
Fat Jewish Streetshark
 
4rtshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: five-one-six, NY
Invic- you get props from me, this is a genuine attempt at a great idea, and I don't disagree with the initiative, but let's nOT be source-nazis and instead debate the presented issue. I didn't discredit Loose Change and similar copycats because they were most likely made by yuppie Cal-State grads, I attacked their arguments merits and deduced they're insane. even if a fact is fibbed or a stat blown up, continue debate. Learning comes not from knowing 100% that an article is bias-free (universally unachievable) but from hearing the other side.
edit: in science this is alittle different, but the same attitude applies.
4rtshark is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:55 PM #17
StellarKnight
Mind Erasure
 
StellarKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lost...In a Lost World
StellarKnight is a Supporting Member
StellarKnight is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
StellarKnight has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate
Which is why nobody respects you or takes you seriously.
ZING!
__________________
Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and some forethought. A moron doesn't stop to think or reason. He acts on instinct, like a stable animal, convinced he's doing good, that he's always right, and sanctimoniously proud to go around ****ing up . . .What the world needs is more thoroughly evil people and fewer idiot ****heads.
StellarKnight is online now  
Old 05-18-2006, 12:52 AM #18
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Radical sources aren't to be excluded. There's a difference between conspiracy theory and legitimate radical journals (scholarly journals are better even than your average news, and some of them contain VERY radical theory). There's a very large academic left out there that is entirely cut out of popular discourse. Not just folks like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, but folks like Judith Butler and Slavoj Zizek. It really pisses me off when people write off radical leftist criticism as "obviously biased". Do you want to know what bias all major news networks have? THE GLOBAL, CAPITALIST DEMOCRATIC ORDER. If you want to get any views on things that aren't generated by a very narrow view of politics, then you have to go far beyond the major news networks.
zack is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:11 AM #19
MadPSIence
umad ^_^
 
MadPSIence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by $PJ$
YOu guys should really decide if you want to call me a liberal or a neocon.
I'm not calling you either. I'm just plain calling you ignorant - be it innocent.
__________________
ST:A: what are self sensor? how is babby formed? supra is exotic!
hangin' out [] with my wangan out
1994 JZZ30

MadPSIence is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:34 AM #20
$PJ$ (Banned)
Northern Ballers Prez
 
$PJ$'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Earth
$PJ$ is a Supporting Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadPSIence
I'm not calling you either. I'm just plain calling you ignorant - be it innocent.
If ignorant means basing my beliefs in fact then so be it.
$PJ$ is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:26 AM #21
XOne (Banned)
Un soldado de Dios
 
XOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: [-Frisco 415-]
Everyone, calm the **** down. Although we have our differences, I think it is safe to say we all believe one thing...... That the history channel is the best channel.
XOne is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump