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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The ATS community is not equally interested in refining the products of shoddy journalism.

I'd be relieved if mainstream media improved to the point where it could be called "shoddy journalism." I'll take poorly-researched and poorly-written over agenda-driven and lies any day.

Every media source that employs an "editor," whether the tag of "mainstream" or "local" or "small" applies, is now creating a version of current events fine-tuned to pander to their primary target audience. Sometimes that version is slanted in one direction beyond any recognizable relevance to what actually happens. And more and more, the customized version of current events is revised through lies, deception, and glaring omission into an account that is mostly a fiction sold to the target audience.

Make no mistake, with the rising importance of the Internet as a go-to means to get news, what HuffPo is doing really does piss me off, a lot. It's a new deceptive tactic with an additional and unapologetic layer of outright theft. Sure others have done it, others will do it, but at the scale of HuffPo? Dunno.

A very few are, in my estimation. In fact, in the past coupe of years, I have seen the membership become more and more dependent on shoddy journalism and blatantly biased sources to form their own extreme viewpoint and to propagate those skewed opinions.

Because even the most hardened "truth seeking" individual is still human, and easily can fall prey to the tactics of "versions of current events" that pander to their beliefs. Any given story can be spun, re-spun, and positioned to mean anything. Just look at the absurd silliness surrounding the various versions of coverage of something as meaningless to current events as the first lady's campaign against childhood obesity... the stupid, it burns.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


So let me get this straight. You read an article, make a judgement (you already judged them this just cinched the deal on posting about it) and want us all to follow that judgement even after you, admittedly, used their tactic to get our attention?

Interesting to say the very least. Can't beat em...join em eh?
Not a philosophy I believe in, but to each their own.

Fact is, if we we're to post on any other web site and quoted an ATS thread, then that would be considered a real joke as opposed to HuffPo articles. That's the TRUTH.

Whether it's a good or bad truth is all in the eyes of the beholder.

I suggest if you want to be better then another web site, don't stoop to their level.

I image this post gets me banned or warned as per usual, not that I really care. I just can't stand it when tactics which are hated are used as a means to make a point.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I'd be relieved if mainstream media improved to the point where it could be called "shoddy journalism."

Yes, I would, too. As I said, the concept of "news" (as some of us 'more mature' members remember) is no longer. The days of giving information to the public and letting them form their own opinion are over. These days, people are told what to think. And they gladly comply. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in bizarro world.

Any given story can be spun, re-spun, and positioned to mean anything. Just look at the absurd silliness surrounding the various versions of coverage of something as meaningless to current events as the first lady's campaign against childhood obesity... the stupid, it burns.

Yes, it burns. I know exactly what you mean. That's why I am always playing devils advocate here. It seems like people's minds are closing up tight to any alternative viewpoint, regardless of the subject. It's crazy-making!

I would love for ATS to be a place where we can sort out the crap out there, not regurgitate and pump it up as the new truth.

Got any ideas?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Got any ideas?

Lots, but I'll need about $50,000,000.00 to have any hope of having an impact.

Maybe $20,000,000.00 could get us started.

Assume The Position

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Apologies to all who assumed my purposefully sensational title was a non-rhetorical question regarding the banning of a source... I had apparently wrong surmised that my prior position in similar matters, and ATS's policies, would be taken such that most would realize the intent.

I know you like to use irony to make a point (as do I), and I've seen the way you handle consensus building and decision making behind the scenes enough to know you're not prone to rash actions, but I must admit:

You had me going.

Censorship is such a major, hot-button issue among ATSers that it wasn't until after I'd made my post that I realized I hadn't even commented on the "aggregation" element and had to go back and add that.

Even though I know you're not the type to take unilateral action based on snap decisions, even floating the idea of singling out a source like the Huffington Post for exclusion in such a way had me worried.

Behind the traditional facade of multitudinous polysyllables and overwrought metaphors in my post, I was thinking to myself "are you freakin' kidding me?!?"

Anyway, while I think the aggregation issue got lost in the censorship controversy, I will say that I'm very encouraged to see that so many ATSers share my conviction that our greatest strength is the value we place on respecting the rights of our members to decide for themselves what to believe.

Even the hint of that changing, however improbable, had me a bit panicked, and I'm glad I'm not alone.

Now, what were we talking about?

I forget.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


www.therewillbeno2013.com...