Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Newsbusters.org
Author Message
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #1
Newsbusters.org
It's obviously a partisan source:

Quote:The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III.[1] Its stated mission is to "prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values."[2]

Quote:In the summer of 2005, Media Research Center launched the NewsBusters, a website "dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias," in cooperation with Matthew Sheffield, a conservative blogger involved in the CBS Killian documents story. NewsBusters is styled as a rapid-response blog site that contains posts by MRC editors to selected stories in mass media.[22] Although the site is advertised chiefly as a conservative site, it frequently defends Neoconservatives as well.[23] Not only does the site highlight journalists it deems are liberally biased, but also non-journalists (writers, musicians, producers, scientists, etc.) who they perceive have liberal viewpoint.[24][25][26][27] In addition to conventional media outlets, NewsBusters has attacked Wikipedia over perceived liberal bias in its John Edwards discussion pages.[28] At the NewsBusters site, a semi-weekly mock newscast called NewsBusted parodies recent events. The NewsBusted programs are often uploaded to sites such as YouTube.[29]

and then there is this:

Quote:News Busters publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.


http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news...ws-busters

and this:

http://www.snopes.com/did-the-communist-...y-clinton/

On a side note: I find it pathetic that some here are actively pushing this ridiculous notion that you shouldn't question the source of where you get your information. That attitude is incredibly flawed and flies in the face of the most basic level of internet literacy. questioning the source should be the very first thing someone does when they come across an unfamiliar source.

yet the skepticism on my part was warranted because it without a doubt a partisan source.

So that's all I have to say about Newsbusters.org If this thread seems kind of odd and out of place to you ==> yeah it's supposed to because this was written to be a response post to a specific thread not it's own thread.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2017 07:18 PM by Lord Stanley.)
03-07-2017 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #2
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 06:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yet the skepticism on my part was warranted because it without a doubt a partisan source.

So let me ask you this: what happens if a website "dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias," reports on true and honest liberal media bias?
03-07-2017 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_Is_Back Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Newsbusters.org
This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....
03-07-2017 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #4
RE: Newsbusters.org
Questioning a source and making an appeal to authority are not the same thing.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2017 07:48 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
03-07-2017 07:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #5
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 07:19 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 06:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yet the skepticism on my part was warranted because it without a doubt a partisan source.

So let me ask you this: what happens if a website "dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias," reports on true and honest liberal media bias?

difference of opinion. some buy into that crap whereas I believe it is partisan nonsense by those who believe reality has a liberal bias, believe in rewriting history to promote patriotism, and think conserapedia is legit.

my real issue is that these guys brand themselves as scientists using scientific concepts to reach conclusions but openly promote a political agenda. that combination directly contradicts the concept of science.
03-07-2017 11:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #6
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts. what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.
03-07-2017 11:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_Is_Back Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts.

Then you're an illogical fool... This is the definition of an empty attacking the source mindset.

The facts are facts! Now if a source twists those facts into something untrue, please by all means, call them out on it.

Quote:what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.

You're on a spin room BB of a sports site, then you clicked onto a thread which uses the site as a source. So "the point of this" went out the window about two clicks ago.

It's a weak mind that not only wishes to avoid facts but takes pride in it. You have google, all you need do is google one name from the newsbusters article to see if there is an article from the AP, cnn, .......

But it's easier for you to pretend you're too good for us plebs, while posting here.
03-07-2017 11:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #8
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 11:21 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts.

Then you're an illogical fool... This is the definition of an empty attacking the source mindset.

The facts are facts! Now if a source twists those facts into something untrue, please by all means, call them out on it.

Quote:what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.

You're on a spin room BB of a sports site, then you clicked onto a thread which uses the site as a source. So "the point of this" went out the window about two clicks ago.

It's a weak mind that not only wishes to avoid facts but takes pride in it. You have google, all you need do is google one name from the newsbusters article to see if there is an article from the AP, cnn, .......

But it's easier for you to pretend you're too good for us plebs, while posting here.

I just find it intriguing how worked up you get over this. hate to break it to you but questioning the source is the critical first step. you are basically arguing that someone should accept something as fact without knowing if it's a fact.
03-07-2017 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_Is_Back Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 11:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I just find it intriguing how worked up you get over this.

What gives you the idea I'm "worked up"... My standard reply to this tripe has been this..

[Image: 1cx42e.jpg]

Quote:hate to break it to you but questioning the source is the critical first step.

1 - you don't question, you attack -- "lol breitbart" is not a question.
2 - you stop at attack without looking at all at any data. Questioning is fine, but to question something you actually have to *look* at it.

Quote:you are basically arguing that someone should accept something as fact without knowing if it's a fact.

[Image: seh6p.gif]

Was anything from the newsbusters article today incorrect?
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2017 11:41 PM by Bull_Is_Back.)
03-07-2017 11:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JMUDunk Online
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 29,499
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1721
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #10
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts. what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.



03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

Of course you would, we all know this. It's why your sophomoric, disingenuous, poorly reasoned "arguments" are met with such typical ridicule, then dismissal.

Facts ALWAYS prevail, least they should. Maybe in your la-la land they don't, but I can't help you there. Maybe get Mom to come visit your basement(?).
03-08-2017 02:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #11
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-08-2017 02:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts. what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.



03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

Of course you would, we all know this. It's why your sophomoric, disingenuous, poorly reasoned "arguments" are met with such typical ridicule, then dismissal.

Facts ALWAYS prevail, least they should. Maybe in your la-la land they don't, but I can't help you there. Maybe get Mom to come visit your basement(?).

and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit their narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.
03-08-2017 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ummechengr Offline
C'mon....really!?!?!
*

Posts: 4,274
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Memphis, TN
Post: #12
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-08-2017 10:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 02:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts. what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.



03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

Of course you would, we all know this. It's why your sophomoric, disingenuous, poorly reasoned "arguments" are met with such typical ridicule, then dismissal.

Facts ALWAYS prevail, least they should. Maybe in your la-la land they don't, but I can't help you there. Maybe get Mom to come visit your basement(?).

and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit their narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.

Are you sure you know what the word "fact" means?
03-08-2017 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #13
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-08-2017 10:22 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 02:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts. what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.



03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

Of course you would, we all know this. It's why your sophomoric, disingenuous, poorly reasoned "arguments" are met with such typical ridicule, then dismissal.

Facts ALWAYS prevail, least they should. Maybe in your la-la land they don't, but I can't help you there. Maybe get Mom to come visit your basement(?).

and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit their narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.

Are you sure you know what the word "fact" means?

I do. I'm just smart enough to have the minimal level of news literacy which you obviously don't.
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2017 10:31 AM by john01992.)
03-08-2017 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ummechengr Offline
C'mon....really!?!?!
*

Posts: 4,274
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Memphis, TN
Post: #14
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-08-2017 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:22 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 02:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I would argue the source > the facts. what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.



03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

Of course you would, we all know this. It's why your sophomoric, disingenuous, poorly reasoned "arguments" are met with such typical ridicule, then dismissal.

Facts ALWAYS prevail, least they should. Maybe in your la-la land they don't, but I can't help you there. Maybe get Mom to come visit your basement(?).

and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit their narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.

Are you sure you know what the word "fact" means?

I do. I'm just smart enough to have the minimal level of news literacy which you obviously don't.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. If Newsbusters.org was to publish a story and provide reference sources that prove out the particulars (full context quotes, local news stories, etc)....would you accept it? Or, as seems to be your stance, would you disregard the sources referenced by Newsbusters.org because of your perception of the website as a source?
03-08-2017 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #15
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-08-2017 10:48 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:22 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 02:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

Of course you would, we all know this. It's why your sophomoric, disingenuous, poorly reasoned "arguments" are met with such typical ridicule, then dismissal.

Facts ALWAYS prevail, least they should. Maybe in your la-la land they don't, but I can't help you there. Maybe get Mom to come visit your basement(?).

and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit their narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.

Are you sure you know what the word "fact" means?

I do. I'm just smart enough to have the minimal level of news literacy which you obviously don't.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. If Newsbusters.org was to publish a story and provide reference sources that prove out the particulars (full context quotes, local news stories, etc)....would you accept it? Or, as seems to be your stance, would you disregard the sources referenced by Newsbusters.org because of your perception of the website as a source?

I would say why not just post the actual source they used rather than going through Newsbusters?

this whole thread started over a poster crapping on me for saying "I've never heard of this website before" as if it was somehow unfair for me to call out that website for what it is.

You should be highly skeptical of media sources like newsbusters.org

when you see a website that isn't a major organization such as ACLU use a .org it's very clear they are trying to pretend they are legitimate when they are not. and this source was founded by an interest group with a political agenda.

I would take much less issue with DailyCaller and Red State as bad as those sources are in regards to newsworthiness. but at least one knows who those websites are and doesn't have to do a fakenews google search just to get to the bottom of what this website even is before they can start to examine the content of the article.
03-08-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ummechengr Offline
C'mon....really!?!?!
*

Posts: 4,274
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Memphis, TN
Post: #16
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-08-2017 10:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:48 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:22 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit that site's narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.

Are you sure you know what the word "fact" means?

I do. I'm just smart enough to have the minimal level of news literacy which you obviously don't.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. If Newsbusters.org was to publish a story and provide reference sources that prove out the particulars (full context quotes, local news stories, etc)....would you accept it? Or, as seems to be your stance, would you disregard the sources referenced by Newsbusters.org because of your perception of the website as a source?

I would say why not just post the actual source they used rather than going through Newsbusters?

this whole thread started over a poster crapping on me for saying "I've never heard of this website before" as if it was somehow unfair for me to call out that website for what it is.

You should be highly skeptical of media sources like newsbusters.org

when you see a website that isn't a major organization such as ACLU use a .org it's very clear they are trying to pretend they are legitimate when they are not. and this source was founded by an interest group with a political agenda.

I would take much less issue with DailyCaller and Red State as bad as those sources are in regards to newsworthiness. but at least one knows who those websites are and doesn't have to do a fakenews google search just to get to the bottom of what this website even is before they can start to examine the content of the article.

But does it make sense when discussing a topic to have to bring in relevant excerpts of several different sources, from different locations, when someone has already done that legwork, despite how you may feel about the reason for their founding?

One should be highly skeptical of any news source in my opinion:
- CBS News: Story on racial attack against teen (Mentioned the attackers "referenced Trump"....but left out the fact they were chanting "F*** Trump")
- NBC News: Clever editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call (“He looks like he’s up to no good, he looks black.”)
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2017 11:08 AM by ummechengr.)
03-08-2017 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_Is_Back Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-08-2017 10:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:48 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:22 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 10:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit their narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.

Are you sure you know what the word "fact" means?

I do. I'm just smart enough to have the minimal level of news literacy which you obviously don't.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. If Newsbusters.org was to publish a story and provide reference sources that prove out the particulars (full context quotes, local news stories, etc)....would you accept it? Or, as seems to be your stance, would you disregard the sources referenced by Newsbusters.org because of your perception of the website as a source?

I would say why not just post the actual source they used rather than going through Newsbusters?

this whole thread started over a poster crapping on me for saying "I've never heard of this website before" as if it was somehow unfair for me to call out that website for what it is.

Actually it was just because a few people here are perpetual "attack the source" type people. If they see an article from a site they dislike they yell "LOL Breitbart" or "LOL Huffpo" and then they just think that is a meaningful response.

IOW

[Image: 7cd5964bf78dadb1015e8682158d87326f8ea582...fa3ea4.jpg]

Quote:You should be highly skeptical of media sources like newsbusters.org

You should be highly skeptical of *ALL* news sources. But naked Skepticism is not an argument, it's a cop out. A skeptic is not afraid to read information from sources they dont like/trust, as you are.

Being skeptical of all news is how memogate got exposed. But in your view there was no need to be skeptical of the Bush memos.

Quote:when you see a website that isn't a major organization such as ACLU use a .org it's very clear they are trying to pretend they are legitimate when they are not.

And this is a no true scottsman spin on your attack the source... No legit news can come from an organization that I consider to be illegitimate.

Quote:and this source was founded by an interest group with a political agenda.

So is planned parenthood. Do you never trust anything they say?
03-08-2017 11:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #18
RE: Newsbusters.org
(03-07-2017 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 07:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  This is so silly.... If you are too lazy / mentally challenged to look at the facts in a source, even a biased one, and chase them down then there is no point in discussion.

You'll not see me go... "Well that's mother jones" or "moveon" or "media matters"...

Look at the verifiable facts in a story....

I would argue the source > the facts. what's the point of reading something if you have no idea if it is fabricated or not? then there is the whole concept of news worthiness.

In essence, that is the difference between skepticism and denial. You will not convince anyone by rejecting their argument out of hand. A skeptical view involves trying to distinguish what portions of a post or article should be viewed seriously and which need to be substantiated independently. You do always need to look at the credibility of a source, as all articles contain some information that is not substantiated with other sources or information. When a source is not generally credible, you really need to look at it deeper, or request more information. By doing that, you can construct an argument that may convince someone, or at least shame them into not responding to you...
03-08-2017 07:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.