What constitutes a "legitimate" source?

[JakeStarkey]

We are an increasing diverse people. Neither far right nor far left will control the center any more. Those days are over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

That's what most of the far left and almost all of the far right do. This election is allowing the great center to realize that the assholes on the extremes need to be left out of decision making after this election.

 

[Dot Com]

unacceptable sources? Basically any rw site that PoliticalChic uses: The Sun, CNS *cough* "News",Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Anything from Lifeson (AMURICAN Spectator), Stuff linked from Drudge (closeted gay BTW ), etc...

 

[Dot Com]

PoliticalChic's CNS, Breitbart walls of text

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

I wish you were. You are nothing but a biased hack for the far crazy right.

 

[OldLady]

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?

USMB page 3 of any given thread

 

[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.

Who on earth is Valerie Plame?

You don't remember the Valerie Plame fiasco? The undercover CIA operative who was publicly outed by reporter Robert Novak after Dick Cheney's office leaked her name in response to her husband's scathing Op-Ed criticizing George W. Bush?

 

[Czernobog]

unacceptable sources? Basically any rw site that PoliticalChic uses: The Sun, CNS *cough* "News",Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Anything from Lifeson (AMURICAN Spectator), Stuff linked from Drudge (closeted gay BTW ), etc...

Alright, but the right could level the same accusation about TPM, PoliticusUS, and Addicting Info. So, that observation is a wash. That's why I covered that in my OP.

 

[Dot Com]

unacceptable sources? Basically any rw site that PoliticalChic uses: The Sun, CNS *cough* "News",Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Anything from Lifeson (AMURICAN Spectator), Stuff linked from Drudge (closeted gay BTW ), etc...

Alright, but the right could level the same accusation about TPM, PoliticusUS, and Addicting Info. So, that observation is a wash. That's why I covered that in my OP.

I have only used one of those sources you have listed so....

 

[Dot Com]

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.

WorldNetDaily & Frontpage?

 

[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?

You don't remember the Valerie Plame fiasco? The undercover CIA operative who was publicly outed by reporter Robert Novak after Dick Cheney's office leaked her name in response to her husband's scathing Op-Ed criticizing George W. Bush?

Never heard about it. I didn't used to follow the news much.

 

[Czernobog]

unacceptable sources? Basically any rw site that PoliticalChic uses: The Sun, CNS *cough* "News",Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Anything from Lifeson (AMURICAN Spectator), Stuff linked from Drudge (closeted gay BTW ), etc...

Alright, but the right could level the same accusation about TPM, PoliticusUS, and Addicting Info. So, that observation is a wash. That's why I covered that in my OP.

I have only used one of those sources you have listed so....

The point is, I wasn't referring to meet, or eight leaning sources with possible agenda bias. I was referring to independent alternative news sites that will post about stories, and incidents that traditional news sources may wither not wish to be seen, or not prioritize as worthy of reporting.

I'm trying to understand why those are dismissed unless their stories have been confirmed by the very traditional sources that everyone talks about being corrupt.

If one has no respect for those traditional sources, it seems contradictory to dismiss alternative sources without the confirmation of those disrespected traditional sources.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[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.

Who on earth is Valerie Plame?

You don't remember the Valerie Plame fiasco? The undercover CIA operative who was publicly outed by reporter Robert Novak after Dick Cheney's office leaked her name in response to her husband's scathing Op-Ed criticizing George W. Bush?

Never heard about it. I didn't used to follow the news much.

Wow. That was yuge. YUGE!

Relevant part here is that after Plame's outing there was public outrage at the release of a covert CIA agent's identity. It was alleged that leaking Plame's name to the press was retaliation for her husband, then US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson's critical Op-Ed, which just been published. The public disclosure of her identity put Plame's wife in danger for her life, forced her immediate recall to the United States, and the end of her career as an undercover operative. Congress demanded an investigation, which turned to demands upon members of the press to reveal their confidential informants. The dragnet eventually led to sufficient evidence for an indictment, and later conviction of a member of Dick Cheney's staff, namely Lewis "Scooter" Libby for obstruction and perjury charges.

The lasting damage is that the investigation put serious strains on freedom of the press, with some individuals being held in contempt when they refused to answer questions that would have revealed their confidential informants. In the long run, it was a game of chicken, and the government won.