What constitutes a "legitimate" source?

[OldLady]

“…then just what is considered a reliable source?”

Better question: what constitutes an unreliable source – can there ever be consensus that a given source is consistently unreliable, be designated as such, and discounted accordingly.

Last week a poster linked an article that was titled "Sicko Dyke......" Can't remember the website. I'm going to consider that type of opinionated language as a "clue" the information is either unreliable or has been twisted so severely it no longer resembles the original facts. It was not written as an opinion piece, but as a 'news' article. I suppose some will say I'm just invoking P.C., though.

Well, if it was referring to hillary....right on target...much information out there that agrees with that...and some of it comes from bill himself. Seen that picture of hillary staring at christian aguilara's boobs, heard yoko ono talk about her affair with hillary? etc.etc. and so on and so forth.

No, it wasn't about Hillary. It was not an opinion piece. And it is not your or my concern who Hillary beds. Stick to the point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.

Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:

And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"

So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?

A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear

Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.

Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.

What a dumb ass

Oh! You're unimpressed...

Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?

While, with reference to this specific poster, you may be totally correct....there is this aspect, found time and time again.

We, on the right, understand both sides of any issue....we are, after all, forced to hear it over and over from their side since they own the media......

...but, as they live in that bubble....they don't hear nor understand, the right's perspective.


We see that over and over again.

Check this out:
1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate
He didn't know about Ayers!!


2. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.

Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."

His excuse?

"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation'




3. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.

Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added



And plenty more examples such as those.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear

Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.

Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.

What a dumb ass

Oh! You're unimpressed...

Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?

While, with reference to this specific poster, you may be totally correct....there is this aspect, found time and time again.

We, on the right, understand both sides of any issue....we are, after all, forced to hear it over and over from their side since they own the media......

...but, as they live in that bubble....they don't hear nor understand, the right's perspective.


We see that over and over again.

Check this out:
1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate
He didn't know about Ayers!!


.

Hannity and Malzberg? Two of the most outrageously biased rightwing propagandists on the planet.

 

[Sundance508]

....at least with the libtards...

See? You had me right up until there. You're as bad as that imbecile kaz. "Libtards", indeed. Like the the CONservatives don't immediately dismiss any source that says something they find uncomfortable, but constantly insist that the likes of the Washington Times Breitbart, or Judicial Watch must be accepted as unimpeachable.

You'll notice, that while I make no secret of the fact that I am a progressive, I was quite clear that this was a problem on both sides of the ideological aisle.

Why do you hacks constantly feel the need to make everything partisan, as if only one side ever does anything wrong?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I can comfortably say that the liberals are the ones who attack the messenger rather than to attempt to deal with the message.

What it all comes down to is some abilty to be able to discern the truth....some are more capable of this than others...usually conservatives who really want the truth and are not so hung up on promoting their agenda that they do not care about the truth....again...the liberals.

What is true and what is not...that is really what you are talking about and most should know that political correctness is the essence of deception...constantly propagating lies. And who is it that is politically correct?....the liberals of course.

We also know the major media is politically correct.

Thus it is easy to deduce if you want the truth....stay away from politically correct sources....not that complicated or difficult.

 

[Sundance508]

Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.

Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.

What a dumb ass

Oh! You're unimpressed...

Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?

While, with reference to this specific poster, you may be totally correct....there is this aspect, found time and time again.

We, on the right, understand both sides of any issue....we are, after all, forced to hear it over and over from their side since they own the media......

...but, as they live in that bubble....they don't hear nor understand, the right's perspective.


We see that over and over again.

Check this out:
1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate
He didn't know about Ayers!!


.

Hannity and Malzberg? Two of the most outrageously biased rightwing propagandists on the planet.

Being biased for the truth is a good thing.

 

[Sundance508]

I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.

Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:

And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"

So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?

1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.


2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.

b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.

c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.

d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.



3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).


To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?



Deal with the message....not the messenger.

Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:

This is a current headline from WND:

Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.

In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.​

In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.

Sooooo.....

...where is the problem with proving the refutation??????....

...as you just did.

Off hand, I can't think of a single time I've refused to confront a post and used the source as though it was dispositive for my point.
One can certainly state what they believe the problem with the source is....but must still show it is incorrect.
Or else.....the source is to be believed.

In other words, one would be remiss to wait for the NYTimes to provide the proof that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and an inveterate racist.


He is.

Both.

You miss the point. After having done so with a particular source over...and over....and over...and over again, it is simply accepted that the source is generally dishonest, disingenuous, and untrustworthy. Thus, when it is seen used as a source for some opinion, observation, or refutation of a point, it is simply dismissed, as the source has a track record of being unreliable because of its agenda.

I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.

Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:

And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"

So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?

1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.


2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.

b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.

c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.

d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.



3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).


To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?



Deal with the message....not the messenger.

Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:

This is a current headline from WND:

Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.

In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.​

In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.

Sooooo.....

...where is the problem with proving the refutation??????....

...as you just did.

Off hand, I can't think of a single time I've refused to confront a post and used the source as though it was dispositive for my point.
One can certainly state what they believe the problem with the source is....but must still show it is incorrect.
Or else.....the source is to be believed.

In other words, one would be remiss to wait for the NYTimes to provide the proof that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and an inveterate racist.


He is.

Both.

You miss the point. After having done so with a particular source over...and over....and over...and over again, it is simply accepted that the source is generally dishonest, disingenuous, and untrustworthy. Thus, when it is seen used as a source for some opinion, observation, or refutation of a point, it is simply dismissed, as the source has a track record of being unreliable because of its agenda.

I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.

Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:

And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"

So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?

1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.


2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.

b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.

c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.

d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.



3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).


To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?



Deal with the message....not the messenger.

Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:

This is a current headline from WND:

Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.

In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.​

In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.

Sooooo.....

...where is the problem with proving the refutation??????....

...as you just did.

Off hand, I can't think of a single time I've refused to confront a post and used the source as though it was dispositive for my point.
One can certainly state what they believe the problem with the source is....but must still show it is incorrect.
Or else.....the source is to be believed.

In other words, one would be remiss to wait for the NYTimes to provide the proof that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and an inveterate racist.


He is.

Both.

You miss the point. After having done so with a particular source over...and over....and over...and over again, it is simply accepted that the source is generally dishonest, disingenuous, and untrustworthy. Thus, when it is seen used as a source for some opinion, observation, or refutation of a point, it is simply dismissed, as the source has a track record of being unreliable because of its agenda.

A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear

Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.

Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.

What a dumb ass

Oh! You're unimpressed...

Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?

I think that you stupidly missed the point. You think that "right wing" was the most important part of what I had to say to you. It wasn't. It was hack. I don't care if you are Right, Left, or center. Once you have been revealed as a hack, your views, opinions, observations, and comments are irrelevant, and meaningless because you're...well...a hack. "Liberals" are guilty of every offence, while "conservatives" never do anything that isn't praiseworthy. Rather like your asinine comment about liberal dismissals of "perfectly valid" sources. Like you have never just dismissed a source outright. Pfft. You, sir, are a buffoon. That is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.

What a dumb ass

Oh! You're unimpressed...

Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?

While, with reference to this specific poster, you may be totally correct....there is this aspect, found time and time again.

We, on the right, understand both sides of any issue....we are, after all, forced to hear it over and over from their side since they own the media......

...but, as they live in that bubble....they don't hear nor understand, the right's perspective.


We see that over and over again.

Check this out:
1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate
He didn't know about Ayers!!


.

Hannity and Malzberg? Two of the most outrageously biased rightwing propagandists on the planet.

Being biased for the truth is a good thing.

What truth is that?

 

[SwimExpert]

The major three tv networks used to do real investigative journalism, as did the major newspapers. Now they pull stuff off the AP wire and add their spin and a few
human interest stories to keep everyone amused and call it a day.

Bingo. The reasons for this shift are compound, but the one that is most likely to be overlooked is the one that is most important. And it's quite a sad indictment on our modern society that we don't recognize it, much less do/would people seem to be bothered by it. Two words: Valerie Plame.

 

[Sundance508]

“…then just what is considered a reliable source?”

Better question: what constitutes an unreliable source – can there ever be consensus that a given source is consistently unreliable, be designated as such, and discounted accordingly.

The truth is oblivious to its source.

True....instead of worrying about a legimate source.....one should try and discern the truth...some have an innate ability for that most do not....if you try and break it down to legitimate and illegimate sources....you will be misled constantly as most are by the major media.

Again...the first thing you need to do is to be able to spot political correctness. If you can do that and it really is not hard then you have made one big step in the right direction...next step avoid political correctness.

 

[mudwhistle]

I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.

Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:

And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"

So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?

1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.


2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.

b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.

c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.

d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.



3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).


To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?



Deal with the message....not the messenger.

Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:

This is a current headline from WND:

Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.

In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.​

In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.

I just finished reading regulations that state a Senior State Department official doesn't have the right to decide what to keep and what not to keep. All copies of notes, memorandum, etc., must be turned in to the RSC (Records Service Center) at the end of the Secretary's tenure or sooner.

https://foia.state.gov/_docs/RecordsDisposition/A-23.pdf

https://foia.state.gov/_docs/RecordsDisposition/A-01.pdf

 

[Wry Catcher]

The question in the OP is an important one, and why any source which presents editorial comment as news is suspect, and those sources which present primary sources uncut and unedited are trustworthy. However, a picture or video was once considered better than a thousand words, not so today as technology is used to mislead the public everyday with edited comments out of context.

Thus one needs to peruse many sources, including historical ones such as magazines, books, letters and quotations; information is power and issues posted on the Internet, broadcasted on the radio or TV, or written on today's issues can be nothing more than echoes of unverified matter presented as if true, opinions posted as facts and/or propaganda.

If it is posted on the Internet, written on the crawl, spoken by a talking head it is not necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is the duty of us all - to ourselves and others - to be diligent in our research and truthful; the willfully ignorant and partisan hacks eschew both and are either mendacious or easily fooled and biddable.

 

[Sundance508]

Sundance lies: "Now the real truth is that you can find truth in many different places but you will rarely find it in the mainstream media." That is not real truth."

And "Seen that picture of hillary staring at christian aguilara's boobs, heard yoko ono talk about her affair with hillary? etc.etc. and so on and so forth." as if this is real truth.

The fact is this: the far right and far left propagandism is littered with folks like Sundance.

What to do? Read them, laugh, and move on. They are not legitimate sources.

again....concentrating on legitimate and illegimate sources will lead you astray as so called legitmate sources have been caught time and again lying and spinning....use a little logic....that will take you much further than blind trust in a so called 'legitimate source' ...one man's legitmate source is another man's toilet paper.

CELEBUZZ on Twitter

 

[kaz]

A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear

Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.

Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.

What a dumb ass

Oh! You're unimpressed...

Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?

I think that you stupidly missed the point. You think that "right wing" was the most important part of what I had to say to you. It wasn't. It was hack. I don't care if you are Right, Left, or center. Once you have been revealed as a hack, your views, opinions, observations, and comments are irrelevant, and meaningless because you're...well...a hack. "Liberals" are guilty of every offence, while "conservatives" never do anything that isn't praiseworthy. Rather like your asinine comment about liberal dismissals of "perfectly valid" sources. Like you have never just dismissed a source outright. Pfft. You, sir, are a buffoon. That is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact.

Actually, you call me right wing because you are stupid as shit. I love pointing out to you what morons liberals are:

1) You claim to be "smarter" than Republicans, yet you think someone who is to the left of you on both social and military issues is "right wing." Must be some use of the word "smarter" I hadn't previously heard before

2) You claim it's the right who are "black and white." Yet you can't process beyond Republican and Democrat and anyone not a Democrat is Republican. Um ... how are you not black and white?

3) You also claim to oppose labels. What's particularly funny on this one is how you label me "right wing" saying my arguments are right wing, then you change my positions on issues I'm not right wing on to right wing because, well, you've labeled me right wing.

You're an idiot, it's not complicated. But you're an idiot who doesn't know you're an idiot, that's what's funny. And Republicans, most of them aren't geniuses, but almost all of them are smarter than you are

 

[kaz]

Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.

What a dumb ass

Oh! You're unimpressed...

Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?

I think that you stupidly missed the point. You think that "right wing" was the most important part of what I had to say to you. It wasn't. It was hack. I don't care if you are Right, Left, or center. Once you have been revealed as a hack, your views, opinions, observations, and comments are irrelevant, and meaningless because you're...well...a hack. "Liberals" are guilty of every offence, while "conservatives" never do anything that isn't praiseworthy. Rather like your asinine comment about liberal dismissals of "perfectly valid" sources. Like you have never just dismissed a source outright. Pfft. You, sir, are a buffoon. That is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact.

Here is another simple,statement of fact: you're a hack.....

Funny how you can't even get over your Obamas newly lowered bar on ignorance...

Oh look. It's the Peewee Herman response:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Why don't you just toddle on off to the corner, and play with yourself. Grown ups are trying to talk here.

That's classic, the "grown up" who's like, you're not liberal, that makes you right wing.

Republican is the worst word you know, isn't it? I knew it was coming when last time you called me a poopy pants. Republican was the only word you know that's worse than poopy pants, it had to come next. You were cleverly saving it for last, weren't you?

 

[OldLady]

The major three tv networks used to do real investigative journalism, as did the major newspapers. Now they pull stuff off the AP wire and add their spin and a few
human interest stories to keep everyone amused and call it a day.

Bingo. The reasons for this shift are compound, but the one that is most likely to be overlooked is the one that is most important. And it's quite a sad indictment on our modern society that we don't recognize it, much less do/would people seem to be bothered by it. Two words: Valerie Plame.

Who on earth is Valerie Plame?

 

[kaz]

The major three tv networks used to do real investigative journalism, as did the major newspapers. Now they pull stuff off the AP wire and add their spin and a few
human interest stories to keep everyone amused and call it a day.

Bingo. The reasons for this shift are compound, but the one that is most likely to be overlooked is the one that is most important. And it's quite a sad indictment on our modern society that we don't recognize it, much less do/would people seem to be bothered by it. Two words: Valerie Plame.

Who on earth is Valerie Plame?

Valerie Plame was a James Bond like superspy who had penetrated Putin's inner circle. She was killing his top henchmen one by one and was on the verge of toppling his regime and replacing it with a democratic, peaceful government. The only people who knew about her mission and that she was actually on our side were the President and the DC news media she discussed her mission with at coctail parties knowing they would die before betrying any information about her mission. Even her husband didn't know.

Then W said the famous 16 words and his administration decided to send a partisan Democrat to conduct a witch hunt to prove he couldn't prove the British claim since he had no idea what their evidence was based on. Unfortunately by the most bizzare fate of luck, they selected her husband as just the partisan Democrat hatchetman for the job. He had no knowledge at all of what she was doing, only that she made dinner every night and drove the kids loyally to soccer practice four times a week and went with him to coctail parties with the DC media.

Wilson did in fact succeed in finding no information about the British evidence he wasn't told. The Republicans were so upset he went when they sent him they decided to out her in retaliation. Sadly her team was killed and she was revealed to be the spy that up to then was known only by the President and the DC media. On the bright side, she does still make dinner every night and drive the kids to soccer practice

 

[Contumacious]

I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.

Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:

And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"

So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?

Trust no one.

Confirm the particular news item with different sources.

If the particular issue is CONFIRMED, ie, VALID then the source(s) are legitimate with respect to that issue only.


.

 

[owebo]

The major three tv networks used to do real investigative journalism, as did the major newspapers. Now they pull stuff off the AP wire and add their spin and a few
human interest stories to keep everyone amused and call it a day.

Bingo. The reasons for this shift are compound, but the one that is most likely to be overlooked is the one that is most important. And it's quite a sad indictment on our modern society that we don't recognize it, much less do/would people seem to be bothered by it. Two words: Valerie Plame.

Who on earth is Valerie Plame?

Some worthless .gov employee secretary.....

 

[Czernobog]

I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.

Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:

And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"

So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?

Trust no one.

Confirm the particular news item with different sources.

If the particular issue is CONFIRMED, ie, VALID then the source(s) are legitimate with respect to that issue only.


.

Confirm with what sources? Those ones you guys insist are unreliable because they are "corporate shills"?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[longknife]

Why am I not surprised that this thread that should have provided an intelligent discussion has turned into a childish name-calling pile of crap?