Definitive sources

Any way we all could pool our resources and draw up a definitive list of news sources that are considered reliable and what is considered untrustworthy?

For example I have seen many slate the Daily Mail for being racist and bias yet have also seen the same paper used to start another thread to which people then consider a good source? Of course people will say certain sources aren't credible when it doesn't support there argument but a bit of clarity would be nice.

I suppose in a way this is more of a rant (mods please move if you think so) but I'm sure as a generally civil bunch we could come up with some that we all consider (more)reliable than others?

Suggestions?

Note: sorry if this has been discussed before but I think a review on source credibility every so often is a good thing.

Actually, I think this is a healthy discussion which should be revived from time to time.

Some of us have been down this road before, and if any particular threads seem worthy of recollection perhaps they could be linked.

I - on the other hand - like to start with a fresh slate each time. Because newer members and such need an opportunity to engage in the discussion, not read about it like it were doctrine passed down through the ages.

To address the Op head-on, I believe that we must acknowledge the 'hit-or-miss' nature of our media sources; as well as our affinity for using "source" as an opportunity to diminish, detract, inflate, or extoll the content we are collecting.

It is an interesting and occasionally tiresome dynamic. As members of our community scour the information disseminated by mostly media focused on sensational, inflammatory, or otherwise 'entertaining' "news" we often see reports sourced from places which evoke disdain in many other members.

I have repeatedly heard declarations that news from 'WebsiteA' or 'AuthorB' should be forbidden, or automatically placed in the "HOAX" forum. From that stance we even have topics that requested to be automatically considered "hoax" or otherwise suspect. To me it's alike a balloon with a tiny leak in it. Before you know it there's the vessel is either half-empty or half-full - the perspective being entirely dependent on the bias of the commenter towards or against what was excluded or included.

Then there is the implication that if it comes from a particular source it cannot be trusted.. even if the originating article came from a reputable source prior to the OP's thread. The idea that media owners and their operational proxies, editors, have their fingers in every article disseminated is ... approximately incorrect.

Most of our news is bundled by a wire service or other media conglomerate network... the actual sources "investment" in it is not the stereotypical image of some reporters and investigative journalists burning the midnight oil and cleverly navigating their direct sources for news. It is much more likely that the news is packaged as "approved" for release by the very subject or controlling interest of the report information. From there it is massaged according to owner/editorial policy to conform with the most commercial and expedient message they can superimpose or directly interject into the story.

I have seen endless instances of declaring one source or another to be reprehensibly biased, and you know what - there are some that are. But most are just business models for distributing content to an audience. may attempt to coddle their audience by only offering what they determine the audience will respond to best; others attempt to 'play' with the provided content to achieve even less admirable goals. But few, if any are simply engaged in the tradition of the press... simply, objectively, and consistently reporting facts.

I think there is nothing wrong with any source as long as you openly recognize the fingerprint of the reporter/reporting entity. None are beyond reproach. Some often basely misrepresent themselves as "news" when in fact they are nothing more that someone's opinion on the news from another source; a sin we here are innocent of.

In order to aggregate facts, in order to provide for the curation of content, we cannot start by flatly excluding sources because we know they are biased. We must acknowledge the bias and make it a component of our discussion... just because a Bilderberg Reptilian Nazi Elitists Overlord Propagandist claims the sky is blue... it doesn't mean it isn't.

If we know that the source is lying, say so. Prove it. If the source is satire or blogs, it isn't exactly news is it?

Good topic, and one needing airtime - if you ask me.

The rule of thumb in the conspiracy world is that any source is legitimate as long as it backs up what you are saying. One of the most overused memes is that the "Main stream media" is full of crap. Yet we see the MSM reports used over and over for every conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
The rule of thumb in the conspiracy world is that any source is legitimate as long as it backs up what you are saying. One of the most overused memes is that the "Main stream media" is full of crap. Yet we see the MSM reports used over and over for every conspiracy theory.

Actually the "as long as it backs up what you are saying" is the 'rule of thumb' for propaganda and agenda-driven authors, of which there is no lacking.

Since the overwhelming majority of news 'report' "producers" are part of one of five or maybe six corporate entities the term "Mainstream Media" has a lot of validity... what other "sources" are there?... I'll tell you - the one's people want to assume are automatically 'unworthy.'

I wonder if it would be safe to speculate that lacking any of these truly exclusive media empires would account for there being virtually no organization poised to assume the roll of the press? Not that the existing ones are actually doing anything that could be considered 'journalistic' (generally speaking.)

The strength of the exercise we engage in is in aggregating numerous sources, biased or not, and through comparative analysis, synthesizing something much less likely to be untrue. - THAT is the rule of thumb for conspiracy sites.

reply to post by Maxmars


Thank you for you well composed and thought out reply.

Your evaluation has been a great help for me. I think it highlights well the point that often us as seekers of truth, overlook the adequacy of a source when it seems to suit our opinion or argumental point of view.

I think you are right in saying that the bias presented within a source should be integrated into the discussion as I think this will help dissect the disinformation presented in said source. I think this also emphasises the point that authors of these sources should be more scrutinised rather than the company they are representing their material through.

I do believe though that certain sources can be attributed more credibility. This is very rare but what I am referring to is sources that come from an established peer reviewed community. I would be as bold to say that on ATS it only really relates to scientific sources that people present. Non the less though, peer reviewed information does hold a lot of 'weight' in a discussion/argument. I also realise some may say that the evaluation of information on ATS is peer reviewing but I'm feel there is too much (what can only be described as) bickering to make this true.

You have also opened my eyes to the fact that a lot of us within the community get too caught up in the personal rhetoric of those within the discussion that we feel the need to post sharp, quick witted replies with a large proportion of links trying to support our argument.

I for one have fallen foul to this, as have many others I am sure. But what the discussion has made me realise is that how we construct our replies dictates in which direction threads tend to go. I know for sure that in threads where I am trying to prove/disprove or evaluate information I will take a lot more care in the construction of my reply and the information it contains. Not being caught up in peoples personal grievances against specific people/countries/religions will contribute to a much more organised approach to the information presented and a better structure for the evaluation of that material.

I hope with my replies from now on that I can provide a better response to threads and engage in a lot more constructive debating and evaluating of Topics.

Thanks again for you comment

CR4V3N

you should credit journalist since they are the ones to choose who to represent. Their employer may only employ those who share the ideology of the MSM. Even a good paper has bad reporters. So I say put together a list of good journalists not news agencies.

reply to post by BIHOTZ


It seems like what you describe would be a worthy list... I suspect it will be rather short; and those "journalists" who desire a seat in the CFR, have "access" to the political machinery, and remain "marketable" would not want to be on it.... ironic, no?