Should Huffington Post be seriously reconsidered as your source? (apologies)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think it would be a great thing if all HuffPost stories were required to have a second reliable source that is not user-generated.

Why just HuffPo,. though? Why not The Examiner, MoveOn, WND, Free Republic, The Post and Email, The Daly KOS, The Daily Mail, FOX, MSNBC, The Star, The Drudge Report, Michelle Maulkin, FactCheck, The Nation, The National Review and Project Vote Smart?

Why not require 2 sources on ALL stories?

Still can't believe I'm reading this... :shk:

I can't believe I am reading this either. In fact, I had to splash some cold water on my face, drink a second cup of coffee and then re-read the OP again. I am highly interested in finding out why the OPs rant singles out this one source when all the above sources that BH mentioned are just as faulty.

Why not require 2 sources...nah, scratch that...let's make it 3. Better yet, how about we only allow stories that are firsthand ATS member experiences that are 100% supported with undeniable, rock solid empirical evidence that is backed up with physical, visual, auditory or documentary proof.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Because HuffPo is a direct competitor to the AboveNetwork?

The Rev.

reply to post by The Revenant




I'm not sure it's that but I do think there is something more to this, this really isn't just "hey, we want fair and unbiased news sources on ATS" Absolutely no way is it.... People use blogs as sources and much worse sensationalistic crap than the HP... and nobody has had an issue.

This wasn't even a "hey lets start using proper sources and multiple sources please guys" this was a direct rant/attack on one specific paper.

Very odd.

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this but I'll be interested to see what is said about it, officially I mean.

Scratching my head here as well. News international (owner of Fox News) just got caught hacking in to phones illegally, all the way up and down the chain, and the target is Huffington news?

I never share links to that website, but to single out them over the endless other links to crap is silly.

Do we really need 10 Ron Paul videos and threads posted each day as well...usually stating the same exact thing we've all seen one million times?

reply to post by The Revenant

Because HuffPo is a direct competitor to the AboveNetwork?

It's a competitor to all of them Rev...not just Huffington Post.

The most recent posters aren't paying attention to the topic at hand.

You may not like Fox News or MSNBC but they are hiring reporters that are doing their own work. HuffPo is hiring people to read an article, re-write it a little, and post it as their news.

reply to post by jjkenobi


News International are hiring journalists who hire criminals to blagg personal details of former British PM Gordon Brown. Getting the medical details of his son and then publishing them as news.

The opening post, and the sensationalist subject line, are primarily rhetorical and intentionally over-the-top so as to make a good point.

Originally posted by blupblup
I'm not being funny.... but ATS allows "The Sun" "The Daily Mail" and all manner of ridiculous British tabloid papers as "sources"

While sometimes sensationalist and agenda-focused, at least those are usually the originators of "news."

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Still can't believe I'm reading this.

Did you look into the "over-aggregation" issues with HuffPo. Most of the other media outlets discussed as "better candidates" for banning as a source don't employ pools of interns and "junior editors" specifically to rewrite stories from elsewhere such that readers need not click-through to the more in-depth source article.

reply to post by jjkenobi



And? Big whoop....


As others have said, News Corporation journalists have hacked into phones of politicians, dead soldiers families and murder victims mobile phones.... They have also paid police for news stories and have targeted politicians and threatened them that if they go up against NewsCorp, they would be ruined by the press.


Huffington Post are like Mother Theresa compared to NewsCorp (News International) so this whole thread/OP is kinda odd.


The NewsCorp scandal is literally the biggest story in the world right right now, and the consequences of their actions may change the Media and the way it is run in a drastic way.....


But no, Lets ban (or even propose banning, or just have a discussion about banning) The Huffington Post.


Just ridiculous.

You are crazy to think Huffington Post is the only media outlet that plays these types of games. If we ban Huffington Post or at least crack down on it then I demand that ATS also crack down on other aggregators such as Drudge Report, NewsNow, and breitbart.com.

That is if the ATS staff believes in fairness.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
While sometimes sensationalist and agenda-focused, at least those are usually the originators of "news."

And...?

What about blogs... what about extremist, racist, homophobic websites and news sources who just make stuff up?

You allow those.

Did you look into the "over-aggregation" issues with HuffPo. Most of the other media outlets discussed as "better candidates" for banning as a source don't employ pools of interns and "junior editors" specifically to rewrite stories from elsewhere such that readers need not click-through to the more in-depth source article.

Did you realise that the biggest news scandal & conspiracy in decades (living memory?) is happening right now?

And we still allow NewsCorp/News International articles on this site?

If it's journalistic Integrity you're shooting for, perhaps take a look at that.

But even then, I still wouldn't want those sources banned..... let the reader make their own mind up, if people want to believe stuff or want to believe that the source they're reading actually wrote the article.... then what's the big deal?

Originally posted by blupblup
If it's journalistic Integrity you're shooting for, perhaps take a look at that.

Does it still exist, anywhere?

Rest assured, we're not considering a ban any specific source. The opening post and title were purposefully over-the-top to make a point and spark discussion... discussion which has so far been excellent and very productive.

The point evolving now to... is any source reliable?

Originally posted by jjkenobi
The most recent posters aren't paying attention to the topic at hand.

You may not like Fox News or MSNBC but they are hiring reporters that are doing their own work. HuffPo is hiring people to read an article, re-write it a little, and post it as their news.

I hate to say this, but to a degree ALL major news outlets do this... Most take news from the "wire services" and make it their own.

Ethics in journalism died for the most part, decades ago.

News has become perspective based, more than investigated for facts... Sensationalized for maximum impact, politically spun for a political perspective, and throw is some glitter for pure entertainment.

The consumers of mainstream news for the most part want to be entertained, providing real unbiased news and information is secondary to doing whatever it takes to keep viewers, readers and listeners at the highest possible numbers at all times.

It's a business first, making money is the top priority, nothing is going to change that.

The thing is, what these Huffington Post ''journalists'' are apparently doing is, in all intents and purposes, plagiarising other people's material.

If someone posts some cock-and-bull story which originates from some crazy blog, then the material from that blog ( no matter how absurd ) is still original.

ATS has strict T&Cs surrounding members acknowledging sources and not passing off other people's work as their own. So, if ATS members are held to these standards, why should it be permissible to link to a site which has been shown to fall foul of these same standards ?

reply to post by Misoir


We also get a lot of Infowars sources on here, Alex Jones admits that he takes headlines and puts a spin on them to get more attention. I've never really visited the Huffpo, but gone to many links on ATS to some pretty dodgy sources

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think it would be a great thing if all HuffPost stories were required to have a second reliable source that is not user-generated.

Why just HuffPo,. though? Why not The Examiner, MoveOn, WND, Free Republic, The Post and Email, The Daly KOS, The Daily Mail, FOX, MSNBC, The Star, The Drudge Report, Michelle Maulkin, FactCheck, The Nation, The National Review and Project Vote Smart?

Why not require 2 sources on ALL stories?

Still can't believe I'm reading this... :shk:

didn't read anything,

ya, huffington is not very good.

like wiki, eh? let me expound,

wiki has some good basic info.

the huff post is way slanted.

don't trust them as far as i can throw em'.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Does it still exist, anywhere?

Good point, I believe there are a few good journo's left.
Jon Snow, here in the UK, springs to mind.

en.wikipedia.org...

He always refuses to wear a poppy or to voice any personal feelings or opinions when doing the news here because he wants to remain impartial and just focus on the facts, not his interpretation of them.

He draws a lot of flak for this but good on him I say.

Channel 4 actually did a documentary on the Sri Lankan massacre and he presented the footage, basically because the world had stopped asking questions and looking at the issue.

There are a few good guys left, they're just bogged down and drowned out by the mainstream unfortunately.

Rest assured, we're not considering a ban any specific source. The opening post and title were purposefully over-the-top to make a point and spark discussion... discussion which has so far been excellent and very productive.

I understand (although don't agree with) the need for a sensationalistic headline/thread title and I also read in your OP that you wouldn't be banning them..... then my question is why?

Why bother?

Why not just make a thread about their tactics/scams and see what people think?

Why not just make a thread about sources and their credibility and see what people think?

I'm not sure I get your reasoning for making this thread in the way you did.

The point evolving now to... is any source reliable?

And that really is the question and it will be fascinating to see what people think.


ETA: Link to Jon Snow

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The point evolving now to... is any source reliable?

In archaeology, it is said that 'one date is no date'. I channel my news and views in the same manner. If it is an issue that I feel affects me, then I go through a variety of sources to sort out the bias, then I make up my mind.

Would that everyone else did. Thing about HP? On the whole, it is neither vicious nor mean-spirited in its leftie bias.

I really don't like the idea of banning any source. I'd rather the membership make the judgement to disregard sources on their own.

Slippery slope Bill. JMHO

Peace