Should Posters be Responsible for the Truthfulness of their Subject Lines, Even if they are Cut and Pasted from a "News" Headline?

[Seymour Flops]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

 

[Lumpy 1]

mmm ..over time you learn who to trust and who is consistently full of swamp gas for both members and mods...

I prefer it left up to me to decide although the mods serve a crucial roll in weeding out the hopeless nut cases.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Would we have any MAGA posting here?

Should Posters be Responsible for the Truthfulness of their Subject Lines, Even if they are Cut and Pasted from a "News" Headline?​

 

[BackAgain]

Would we have any MAGA posting here?

Should Posters be Responsible for the Truthfulness of their Subject Lines, Even if they are Cut and Pasted from a "News" Headline?​

You sure would be silenced

 

[Vastator]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

If your depending on a polarized message board to get the real "scoop"; you're doing it wrong...

 

[Seymour Flops]

If your depending on a polarized message board to get the real "scoop"; you're doing it wrong...

I'm not, but other people are.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

 

[hjmick]

Yes.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Stopping Israel from eliminating Hamas IS enabling Hamas

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There are dozens and dozens of low IQ posters raving away that Isreal is murdering the So-called Palestinians. According to them, every life lost is that of a child and Jews are committing some sort of imaginary genocide.Despite this idiocy, I do not believe in censoring these retarded freaks.

I believe in mocking them.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There are dozens and dozens of low IQ posters raving away that Isreal is murdering the So-called Palestinians. According to them, every life lost is that of a child and Jews are committing some sort of imaginary genocide.Despite this idiocy, I do not believe in censoring these retarded freaks.

I believe in mocking them.

I agree. You get mocked here a lot, so do I and plenty of others. It's the way it is,

 

[Captain Caveman]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

Too many variables at play -

1. The internet will give EVERYONE a link to a story that matches their belief/opinion

2. Intent? Did the poster set out to deceive, or merely thought the article was correct

3. We're all adults and have the capacity to research before jumping in with both feet, some don't though

4. What's truth, what's a lie, does the current political scene/agenda protect lies?

5. Who decides on the validity of the story in an op? What happens if the story is 100% correct and everyone runs with it, then later down the road, the bombshell happens and it was wrong because of new evidence etc..(and vice versa)?

I know what you mean, but it's not straightforward.

 

[Concerned American]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

You may as well just quit reading headlines. That is why they exist--to get your attention. The very nature of journalism is to influence the public to believe the way the publisher believes. It has always been that way. Research Hearst/Pulitzer, the Yellow Kid and muckrakers. How the Yellow Kid Fueled the Pulitzer/Hearst Rivalry
For every objective journalist in the world there are thousands more that just spread falsehoods for political agendas. I think USMB does alright as long as the title has a source, it is up to the consumer to read the article for themselves to determine its validity.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Too many variables at play -

1. The internet will give EVERYONE a link to a story that matches their belief/opinion

Fair point.

2. Intent? Did the poster set out to deceive, or merely thought the article was correct

If they thought it was correct, they did not read the article they linked, which should be enough to have the thread eliminated, much less moved.

3. We're all adults and have the capacity to research before jumping in with both feet, some don't though

I just wonder if they are aware of the boy who cried wolf story. Certain politicians often really do say outrageous things. Reports of those will be drowned out in a sea of "William Williamson said that he wants women to die in back alley abortions," when Williamson actually said, "common sense restrictions are appropriate," or some such.

4. What's truth, what's a lie, does the current political scene/agenda protect lies?

Saying that a politician said something he did not say, is a lie, no matter how you look at it.

Of course the current political scene/agenda protects lies, if you mean people get away with it.

5. Who decides on the validity of the story in an op? What happens if the story is 100% correct and everyone runs with it, then later down the road, the bombshell happens and it was wrong because of new evidence etc..(and vice versa)?

Again if a politician of any stripe is accused of saying "I want every baby killed right before the moment of birth," when what they actually said was, "some supposed 'common sense' restrictions go too far," an intelligent person can see the lie.

My question is do those who run this forum want it to be a forum for lies, even in the supposed strickly monitored sections.

I know what you mean, but it's not straightforward.

Agreed in part.

 

[justoffal]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

Nobody is held at gun point to believe anything at all. A post is a post. Babylon Bee is a posting association. It's always wise to vet what you're reading and you should never shrink back from doubting something that sounds ridiculous. Providing a communication medium is just that...providing the medium.
It is not possible to filter out every sentence of every post and every reply. Not is it necessary.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I agree. You get mocked here a lot, so do I and plenty of others. It's the way it is,

I get mocked?

I haven't noticed.


I have noticed lots of special needs posters responding to me in a general sort of "I know what you are, but what am I" way, however.

I feel sorry for them being so embarrassingly limited as they are.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody is held at gun point to believe anything at all. A post is a post. Babylon Bee is a posting association. It's always wise to vet what you're reading and you should never shrink back from doubting something that sounds ridiculous. Providing a communication medium is just that...providing the medium.
It is not possible to filter out every sentence of every post and every reply. Not is it necessary.

Well, to be fair to the retard, he's just talking about the OP from what I can tell. The Mods have laid their marker down on the OP's as far as clean start policies go, if there is a source for a claim, and in some cases the commentary from the OP matching the claim in the title and source.

So it wouldn't be every post and every reply.

I'd love to see some content moderation myself. I'd also like to see a limit on new threads started by the same poster in a 24 hour period. Nobody should be starting more than 6 threads in a 24 hour period IMHO.

 

[Anomalism]

Somehow truth is subjective in 2024. You'd simply destroy the conversation entirely with your method.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

Depends on whether they reporting what someone said, or whether they're passing it off as their own opinion.

 

[justoffal]

Well, to be fair to the retard, he's just talking about the OP from what I can tell. The Mods have laid their marker down on the OP's as far as clean start policies go, if there is a source for a claim, and in some cases the commentary from the OP matching the claim in the title and source.

So it wouldn't be every post and every reply.

I'd love to see some content moderation myself. I'd also like to see a limit on new threads started by the same poster in a 24 hour period. Nobody should be starting more than 6 threads in a 24 hour period IMHO.

Yeah....I get it....they don't want the place to become an internet toilet. The message being " please put at least some effort into sanity".....makes sense.