What makes a news source legit?

[revelarts]

Both Gab and Jim in the same thread questioned my soucres, what do people consider
"legitimate" sources and why?
Me i'll look at any just about any source and depending on what they bring to bear evidence wise and my own info to date judge the story on that basis. not so much the mouth piece it came from. even Pravada tells the truth from time to time. You just have to understand or search for what might be left out in some cases and remove the spin in most cases.

But Left, right, libertarians, commie, conspiracy, Russian, Chinese, Iranian, CIA, the local kid on youtube with video of an event, or interview with a witness, former mafia, prostitute, or janitor, blog, facts are facts just depends if you can sift um out.

We all know that Fox has lied,
we all know that MSNBC has lied
we all know that the New York times has Lied
and they've lied without being punished for it.

but we all have used them as legitimate sources from time to time.

Some time we get it wrong but the Idea only using a "ligit" source to me makes no sense when all the legitimate MSM has been caught in lies and half truths. I don't see why they would somehow negate or disqualify all other sources.


I'm off my soapbox now

what do you think

[jimnyc]

Both Gab and Jim in the same thread questioned my soucres, what do people consider
"legitimate" sources and why?

I didn't question your source. I said that if you posted a youtube video next week of an unknown person I would laugh. Youtube isn't a "news source" at all, it's a video sharing site. I bet for every 100 people you poll, and ask them what site they go to for their "legitimate news" - none of them will claim it's youtube!

[jimnyc]

Both Gab and Jim in the same thread questioned my soucres,

Rev, which source of yours that you posted today did I question?

[pegwinn]

In the micro, Legitimacy is a function of trust. If you trust the site then it is legitimate to you.

In the macro, legitimacy is the aggregate of how many people trust the site and to what degree.

Example: Back in the day (note my member number) Wikipedia was reviled as an untrustworthy site because any ol goober could up and edit the thang. Today, it appears that wiki has attempted to address those issues in a way that means more people trust it than ever before.

If you are talking about journalism then you can forget it. The site may purport to be "fair and balanced" but don't you believe it. Every site is biased either by the editorial board in general or by the writers in specific. The only thing you can do is lay stories from multiple sources side-by-side and try to divine the truth. That's a lot tougher than trying to defend 'original intent' ala the Constitution.

Two key things about journalism:

It is a for profit enterprise. Thus ratings matter and advertisers have as much say as the truth.
If it bleeds, it leads.

[jimnyc]

Well said, pegwinn. The reality of it is that any news source can be "biased" as that's something made up by the viewers. If it's an all conservative writer site, no news they post can possibly be valid. The same for an all democrat writer site, it's all made up! Everyone has a list of right leaning sites and left sites - and there will be no media left when you add them up. I just get my news from a bunch of sources and you can get a better picture that way. I almost always look for a secondary source on anything I post here, to try an ensure I don't get snagged in posting something that is on snopes!

Ever search something that only brings back returns on nothing but right/left blogs but no mention on CNN/Fox/NBC? Probably a crap story. Not always, but that's a decent gauge. I'll even read versions from the UK to see what they're saying, and have even been known to poke around *gulp* Al Jazeera. Hey, gotta know what all sides think and are stating. But if you read quite a few sources you can 'usually' see the truth a little better on the facts given out between the rhetoric.

[gabosaurus]

I really don't understand criticism of the "mainstream media." To many folk on the right side of the aisle, everything left of the New York Post is suspect. The closest thing I can come is those who take the GW attitude of "If you aren't for us, you're against us." Meaning any criticism of the conservative point of view is deemed unacceptable.

I know propaganda when I read it. Go read any state controlled news service. It is the same way on right wing blogs -- all anti-liberal attacks all the time.
No go to the center, the large daily papers like the L.A. Times and the Washington Post. You will find criticism of both sides. You can cherry pick examples that might show liberal "bias," but you can't do it all the time.

If you have a view point that is firmly rooted on the right side (you want Obama criticism 100 percent of the time), you aren't going to think the media is unbiased.

There are some who only want to read one side of the story. Those are the people who watch Fox News and listen to talk radio. They want their news filtered to fit their viewpoints.

I want to read both sides. That's why I read the NY Post and listen occasionally to Rush (yes, I actually do). I also read Al Jazeera and other Arab media. I want to know what they are saying.

[jimnyc]

I also read Al Jazeera and other Arab media. I want to know what they are saying.

Holy crap, we wrote that at the same time!! Stop stealing my trade secrets!

[gabosaurus]

Holy crap, we wrote that at the same time!! Stop stealing my trade secrets!

It's called "know your enemy." You have to know what the other side is thinking.

[jimnyc]

I'll assume a lack of a reply from Rev shows that I did no such thing, and once again he is just making shit up. He makes up stories about me shooting down sources that he posted and makes up stories about Ron Paul conspiracies in events that haven't even happened yet, and fails to answer questions there either. Rev, why do you bother starting threads, and making false statements, that you fail to address when called on?

[Gunny]

Both Gab and Jim in the same thread questioned my soucres, what do people consider
"legitimate" sources and why?
Me i'll look at any just about any source and depending on what they bring to bear evidence wise and my own info to date judge the story on that basis. not so much the mouth piece it came from. even Pravada tells the truth from time to time. You just have to understand or search for what might be left out in some cases and remove the spin in most cases.

But Left, right, libertarians, commie, conspiracy, Russian, Chinese, Iranian, CIA, the local kid on youtube with video of an event, or interview with a witness, former mafia, prostitute, or janitor, blog, facts are facts just depends if you can sift um out.

We all know that Fox has lied,
we all know that MSNBC has lied
we all know that the New York times has Lied
and they've lied without being punished for it.

but we all have used them as legitimate sources from time to time.

Some time we get it wrong but the Idea only using a "ligit" source to me makes no sense when all the legitimate MSM has been caught in lies and half truths. I don't see why they would somehow negate or disqualify all other sources.


I'm off my soapbox now

what do you think

No one's lied. The purpose of a journalism article is to lead a reader to a conclusion. Usually, the conclusion that supports the views of the owner of the respective media outlet's owner. It's called "yellow journalism" and it's been around since the printing press was invented. Try reading two opposing media sources, take the common denominators, and that's usually as close to the "facts" as you are going to get.

Relying on a single source or POV; which, YOU have WAY perfected, just makes you partisan to a cause.

As far as actual "news" goes ... the media hasn't bothered with THAT in years.

[jimnyc]

Both Gab and Jim in the same thread questioned my soucres,

Rev, I'll assume you made this thread as a joke then, as you just looked at it again and moved on without addressing my questions. You lied once again, were busted, and now you want to hope the thread disappears. Why you want to make up lies to start a thread is beyond me, but use others next time, as I will call you out each and every time you pull this shit.

[jimnyc]

The first part of Revs accusation is true, Gabby questioned his source of "Newsmax". Here's what I replied with - DEFENDING that source:


It's true, and Newsmax isn't as bad as you say (If so, and I've offered this bet before, go there and show me all of their false articles...)

Anyway, here's another link. What Rev posted is true

I wrote that what Rev posted from Newsmax was true, offered a bet to Gabby, then followed up the Newsmax link with an alternate link of Revs story, even outright stating that what Rev posted was true. Then, since I'm not a Ron Paul conspiracy kook, he reads what he wants and starts yet another thread based on lies.

[revelarts]

I didn't question your source. I said that if you posted a youtube video next week of an unknown person I would laugh. Youtube isn't a "news source" at all, it's a video sharing site. I bet for every 100 people you poll, and ask them what site they go to for their "legitimate news" - none of them will claim it's youtube!

That's not questioning? Even before you know what the source is ON youtube you say you would LAUGH at it? It could be a clip from CNN "with an unknown person", Or FOX but you'd laugh at it PREEMPTIVELY. and you say that Youtube is not a News source , your right, it's not, it has News post on it. From CSPAN of Congress to local newspapers and tv stations, documentaries, etc etc but somehow you think Youtube is laughable. i don't get it Jim.

[jimnyc]

That's not questioning? Even before you know what the source is ON youtube you say you would LAUGH at it? It could be a clip from CNN "with an unknown person", Or FOX but you'd laugh at it PREEMPTIVELY. and you say that Youtube is not a News source , your right, it's not, it has News post on it. From CSPAN of Congress to local newspapers and tv stations, documentaries, etc etc but somehow you think Youtube is laughable. i don't get it Jim.

I give up, you're too fucking dense. I simply stated that if you posted a fucking youtube video of an unknown person making accusations, I would laugh at you. If CNN had a story, post the story from their site. If Cspan had a story, post the story from their site. But if it's an unknown quantity from youtube, it's invalid and a fucking joke. Furthermore, if it's someone involved in tallying votes, and they are eventually on CNN, then they aren't an "unknown person" are they? ANYONE from Iowa who is involved in the process, has access to the counting, will NOT be an unknown person. You and your posting of outright crap from youtube over and over are a fucking joke.

Then again, I guess you're too fucking stupid to read a legit news source and need someone else to read it aloud for you on youtube. Grow the fuck up, Rev, and stop with your retarded exaggerations and lies about me when you make your posts. It's transparent, and then you hide like a little girl until you are called on it multiple times until you have no choice but to reply.

[jimnyc]

I suppose if there are differences in voting, or "irregularities", the person making the accusations wouldn't have to identify himself and offer proof. No need to know who the accuser is, just know that it's a conspiracy against Ron Paul. Which is another question I have asked no less than 3x in the same thread, which Rev refuses to address.

[revelarts]

I give up, you're too fucking dense. I simply stated that if you posted a fucking youtube video of an unknown person making accusations, I would laugh at you. If CNN had a story, post the story from their site. If Cspan had a story, post the story from their site. But if it's an unknown quantity from youtube, it's invalid and a fucking joke. Furthermore, if it's someone involved in tallying votes, and they are eventually on CNN, then they aren't an "unknown person" are they? ANYONE from Iowa who is involved in the process, has access to the counting, will NOT be an unknown person. You and your posting of outright crap from youtube over and over are a fucking joke.

Then again, I guess you're too fucking stupid to read a legit news source and need someone else to read it aloud for you on youtube. Grow the fuck up, Rev, and stop with your retarded exaggerations and lies about me when you make your posts. It's transparent, and then you hide like a little girl until you are called on it multiple times until you have no choice but to reply.

Look Jim the point of the thread wasn't to debate you over this one point.

but if you want to do that
here is your exact quote from the other tread

The voting tallying will be monitored. A report from an official monitoring the voting that reports fraud next week might get a stir, but if there is no story other than a "youtube video", you will get laughed at. Youtube isn't exactly a first stop for legitimate news.



You made a completely UNQUALIFIED statement about Youtube and it's lack of legitimacy.
I haven't made anything up or tried to put you in bad light. just remarking on what you said. and made me think it'd be a good topic sense it comes up from time to time (especially against me/my points it seems). But there it is. Your exact quote from the other thread. you later qualified it, here in this thread and it may have been what you meant to say but i'm not putting words in your mouth Jim. Chill out man.

[jimnyc]

Look Jim the point of the thread wasn't to debate you over this one point.

but if you want to do that
here is your exact quote from the other tread




You made a completely UNQUALIFIED statement about Youtube and it's lack of legitimacy.
I haven't made anything up or tried to put you in bad light. just remarking on what you said. and made me think it'd be a good topic sense it come up from time to time (especially against me it seems). But there it is. Your exact quote from the other thread. you later qualified it, here in this thread and it may have been what you meant to say but i'm not putting words in your mouth Jim. Chill out man.

Yes, Rev, NO OTHER STORY other than a youtube video. Do you understand that? NO OTHER STORY, in other words, it ONLY exists on youtube. Do you not understand what that means? That SCREAMS a lack of legitimacy to me. Maybe if you want to start a new thread, where readers might not be privy to the other thread, you might want to add my quotes so that the readers in this thread see that you are clueless. A video on youtube, of an unknown person, and no other story elsewhere - I stand by my original words, it will simply get you and the video laughed at.

[Gunny]

Look Jim the point of the thread wasn't to debate you over this one point.

but if you want to do that
here is your exact quote from the other tread




You made a completely UNQUALIFIED statement about Youtube and it's lack of legitimacy.
I haven't made anything up or tried to put you in bad light. just remarking on what you said. and made me think it'd be a good topic sense it comes up from time to time (especially against me/my points it seems). But there it is. Your exact quote from the other thread. you later qualified it, here in this thread and it may have been what you meant to say but i'm not putting words in your mouth Jim. Chill out man.

His point is simple: consider your news source. Different sources have varying legitimacy. Youtube has none, IMO, unless it's backed by documentation from a reliable source. Youtube itself is NOT the source of the info. It's a place where people make videos and post them.

[revelarts]

His point is simple: consider your news source. Different sources have varying legitimacy. Youtube has none, IMO, unless it's backed by documentation from a reliable source. Youtube itself is NOT the source of the info. It's a place where people make videos and post them.

the point makes no sense becuase, "people" who make video could be CSPAN with Congress, CNN FOX news or any other "legit" news source. To assume that the the Content I'll post from Youtube will not be ligit and LAUGHABLE is just a bias on Jim's part toward the content of my post that he doesn't like. His ASSUMTION is that you tube is illegite it like saying the TV is illigit becuase it has shows that people make up on it. or newspapers are illigit because the national inquirer is a newspaper. It's like saying the internet is laughably illigit becuase there so much bs there BEFORE you even look at the reference.
it's an over broad statement that's just not true.

i should let this go but ive been accused of running from post so Jim please point the post out i've supposed run from and I'll reply.

you ask for it my friend.

[jimnyc]

the point makes no sense becuase, "people" who make video could be CSPAN with Congress, CNN FOX news or any other "legit" news source. To assume that the the Content I'll post from Youtube will not be ligit and LAUGHABLE is just a bias on Jim's part toward the content of my post that he doesn't like. His ASSUMTION is that you tube is illegite it like saying the TV is illigit becuase it has shows that people make up on it. or newspapers are illigit because the national inquirer is a newspaper. It's like saying the internet is laughably illigit becuase there so much bs there BEFORE you even look at the reference.
it's an over broad statement that's just not true.

i should let this go but ive been accused of running from post so Jim please point the post out i've supposed run from and I'll reply.

you ask for it my friend.

Emmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the clip is from a major news site, and posted on youtube - wouldn't it be elsewhere on the news organizations website as well - hence it exists elsewhere other than youtube. Do you not even read? Re-read what even YOU posted that I wrote again:


The voting tallying will be monitored. A report from an official monitoring the voting that reports fraud next week might get a stir, but if there is no story other than a "youtube video", you will get laughed at. Youtube isn't exactly a first stop for legitimate news.

But now you write:


the point makes no sense becuase, "people" who make video could be CSPAN with Congress, CNN FOX news or any other "legit" news source. To assume that the the Content I'll post from Youtube will not be ligit and LAUGHABLE is just a bias on Jim's part toward the content of my post that he doesn't like.

Note the part in bold, and larger - now IF the story is from one of those organizations you point out, and someone posted the video on youtube - there WOULD be a story outside of youtube lala land, wouldn't there?

I rest my case.

[jimnyc]

i should let this go but ive been accused of running from post so Jim please point the post out i've supposed run from and I'll reply.

Do you mean like the Ron Paul conspiracy at the Iowa polls that you've now read my request about 5-6 times that I saw, and refuse to reply to?

[revelarts]

I said earlier in the thread that news orgs lie from time to time.
some folks didn't like thet well I stand by it -
if some don't like it becuase it imply they make up such out of whole cloth or do it with intention rathaer than a by mistake I can understand and agree that that is probably rare. but what they they leave out by intention or by oversite makes some stories lies as presented.

case in point
Ap story says Ron Paul uses gov't funds to fly 1st class wasting gov't money as apposed to his anti gov't spending stance.
well the this guy at MSNBC acualty called the Ron Paul staff for details and found that no Ron Paul doesn't by 1st class tickets at gov't expense he buys coach tickets just as all other congress folks are suppose to then he upgrades for free using frequent flyer miles from time to time.

Just an interesting titbit of news i thought

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Vcn15iZSjQo?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[Gunny]

I said earlier in the thread that news orgs lie from time to time.
some folks didn't like thet well I stand by it -
if some don't like it becuase it imply they make up such out of whole cloth or do it with intention rathaer than a by mistake I can understand and agree that that is probably rare. but what they they leave out by intention or by oversite makes some stories lies as presented.

case in point
Ap story says Ron Paul uses gov't funds to fly 1st class wasting gov't money as apposed to his anti gov't spending stance.
well the this guy at MSNBC acualty called the Ron Paul staff for details and found that no Ron Paul doesn't by 1st class tickets at gov't expense he buys coach tickets just as all other congress folks are suppose to then he upgrades for free using frequent flyer miles from time to time.

Just an interesting titbit of news i thought

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Vcn15iZSjQo?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Dude, get over yourself. Someone pour ice-cold water over your head for you to come to this monumentious, yet decades old conclusion? There's a simple fact here you refuse to address and keep overlooking. Ron Paul has a deal-breaker, 200 lb anchor around his ankle.

To be fair, I'll give you that you're consistent. Your foreign policy and conduct of war opinions are as ludicrous and unrealistic as his.

You two need to drag each other into the real world. That isolationist shit works if you're a country from Africa and have no natural resources to be exploited. THAT is reality. Deal with it.

[jimnyc]

Rev, I don't think you'll find any quotes from me stating ANY portion of the media doesn't stretch the truth. They all do, at different times, and in different manners. That's why I don't commit to one channel, or one paper, or one website. The Associated Press appears at first glance to have screwed this one. Do you have links of other news sites covering this story and showing the information to be incorrect?

[Gunny]

Rev, I don't think you'll find any quotes from me stating ANY portion of the media doesn't stretch the truth. They all do, at different times, and in different manners. That's why I don't commit to one channel, or one paper, or one website. The Associated Press appears at first glance to have screwed this one. Do you have links of other news sites covering this story and showing the information to be incorrect?

Agreed. Now, let's see how sharp YOU are ..... HOW MANY TIMES has he been told this very same thing?

I never could understand his opinions on war -- basically we're the bad guys and have to follow WAY more rules than the enemy -- until I found out he was Ron Paul supporter.

FTR: I don't support Ron paul's BS and never will. But I WILL vote for him against Obama if it comes down to it. Paul will never get anything past Congress. I prefer do-nothing to the destruction of freedom. liberty, the US COnstitution and the ideals behind it we've been witnessing the last 3 years.

[jimnyc]

I think the Washington Post story, with full records in hand, better explain things than a Youtube video.


WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending.

Paul flew first class on at least 31 round-trip flights and 12 one-way flights since May 2009 when he was traveling between Washington and his district in Texas, according to a review by The Associated Press of his congressional office expenses. Four other round-trip tickets and two other one-way tickets purchased during the period were eligible for upgrades to first-class after they were bought, but those upgrades would not be documented in the expense records.

Paul, whose distrust of big government is the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, trusts the more expensive government rate for Continental Airlines when buying his tickets. Paul chose not to buy the cheaper economy tickets at a fraction of the price because they aren’t refundable or as flexible for scheduling, his congressional staff said.

“We always get him full refundable tickets since the congressional schedule sometimes changes quickly,” said Jeff Deist, Paul’s chief of staff. Paul might have to pay out of his own pocket for canceled flights in some cases if he didn’t buy refundable tickets, Deist said.

But records show that most of the flights for Paul were purchased well in advance and few schedule changes were necessary. Nearly two-thirds of the 49 tickets were purchased at least two weeks in advance, and 42 percent were bought at least three weeks in advance, the AP’s review found.

Paul charged taxpayers nearly $52,000 on the more expensive tickets, or $27,621 more than the average Continental airfare for the flights between Washington and Houston, according to the AP’s review of his congressional expenses and average airfares compiled by the Department of Transportation.

The more expensive tickets have other benefits as well, including allowing Paul to upgrade to first class when his staff reserves a flight because his frequent government travel gives him membership in an elite class of Continental customers who earn travel perks. Upgrades to first-class with cheaper fares are possible, at times limited to available seats days before the flight. But those upgrades are not guaranteed and some require ticket changes at the airport, according to the airline’s frequent flyer rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/ron-paul-wants-big-spending-cuts-as-president-spends-big-on-first-class-travel-in-congress/2012/01/16/gIQA1cxY2P_story.html

[Gunny]

I think the Washington Post story, with full records in hand, better explain things than a Youtube video.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/ron-paul-wants-big-spending-cuts-as-president-spends-big-on-first-class-travel-in-congress/2012/01/16/gIQA1cxY2P_story.html

Paul's got some good ideals. He's also a typical Washington bureaucrat, no matter what he nor any of his disciples say. And should it come to fruitiion along with the expanding universe and Darwin's theory of evolution that he become elected President, he'll be a lame duck. He won't have the support of EITHER party of Washington bureaucrats in Congress anymore than he has now.

[revelarts]

I think the Washington Post story, with full records in hand, better explain things than a Youtube video.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/ron-paul-wants-big-spending-cuts-as-president-spends-big-on-first-class-travel-in-congress/2012/01/16/gIQA1cxY2P_story.html

I like the youtube guy's rendition better but the Post does seem better than AP by a far stretch here.

[jimnyc]

I like the youtube guy's rendition better but the Post does seem better than AP by a far stretch here.

Of course, because in your eyes the AP lied, and you fail to see that your cherry picked youtube video didn't tell the entire truth either. I think the WP article is better than both the others, as it appears to hold the complete truth of the matter.

[ConHog]

This is an odd thread.

Rev, do you REALLY believe that youtube is the source of ANYTHING? Let alone news? It's not, calling it such is akin to calling Hulu.com a television network. All they really are is an online warehouse where people can store shit so others can view it.

[bullypulpit]

News sources are validated the same way any other source of data is validated. Is the information independently verifiable? Do multiple, independent sources corroborate the information? Are the sources of information cited? It's the same process one uses to validate data use in research.

[revelarts]

This is an odd thread.

Rev, do you REALLY believe that youtube is the source of ANYTHING? Let alone news? It's not, calling it such is akin to calling Hulu.com a television network. All they really are is an online warehouse where people can store shit so others can view it.

Like I said it Seemed like some folks wanted to dismiss youtube videos out of hand BECUASE they were youtube videos, I never looked at them myself, as "Youtbe is the source" but it seemed to me that others were characterizing it that way. -no offense meant to others here-. But sure, it could be Cspan, or Fox news, or someone local tv channel or some unknowns personal rant. saying Youtube is a bad source is like saying your TV is a bad Source. It's seems to have become kind of a shorthand. Youtube is not valid why don't your post something written. Implies, even if it's not meant to not convey the idea that Youtube ITSELF is not valid. Others on the left REFUSED to Read NEWMAX article or accept it a vailid EVER out of hand BECUASE it's Newsmax. That's just as bad in my IMO. Newsmax maynot be the place where you want to get ALL of your news or you Final source but They post Real Items as well as SALON does or BrittBatt Of the Socilist Times or any other hard left right, other POV news/commentary source.

I began the thread out of curiosity as to what others consider Legit news sources. Frankly this being a right leaning forum i tend to try to source stuff from news sites that are more right or neutral. Sometime that doesn't work becuase often right news sources don't carry some stories, or at least don't flesh the stories out. the same is true for left news sources, they often don't carry news that you'll find at some right news sites. but i'm we know this. I just wonder if many people completly write off some sources as totally unreliable and if there are other sources they consider nearly always reliable?




News sources are validated the same way any other source of data is validated. Is the information independently verifiable? Do multiple, independent sources corroborate the information? Are the sources of information cited? It's the same process one uses to validate data use in research.
I'm with you here, I tend to like to get a feel of the bent of a news org then just try to take each story on it's merits based on the things you mention. See like whistle blower stories, often there's only one vocal witness but often they come with documents that back up their stories, or info that's corroborated with outside evidence or events. so left right whatever each stories got it's own legs or not. sadly there not enough time to check everyone and we all end up taking alot on trust.

[ConHog]

youtube simply isnt a news source, so it logically follows that it can be neither reliable nor unreliable.

Now i you post a Youtube that clearly says FoxNews or some such on it, then that is a clip from a news source, and we can judge the reliability of THAT source, but since any jerk with a camera can post something on Youtube and call it news, I'm pretty sure that even Youtube themselves make it clear that they don't claim to be the source of anything.

[jimnyc]

Like I said it Seemed like some folks wanted to dismiss youtube videos out of hand BECUASE they were youtube videos, I never looked at them myself, as "Youtbe is the source" but it seemed to me that others were characterizing it that way. -no offense meant to others here-. But sure, it could be Cspan, or Fox news, or someone local tv channel or some unknowns personal rant. saying Youtube is a bad source is like saying your TV is a bad Source. It's seems to have become kind of a shorthand. Youtube is not valid why don't your post something written. Implies, even if it's not meant to not convey the idea that Youtube ITSELF is not valid. Others on the left REFUSED to Read NEWMAX article or accept it a vailid EVER out of hand BECUASE it's Newsmax. That's just as bad in my IMO. Newsmax maynot be the place where you want to get ALL of your news or you Final source but They post Real Items as well as SALON does or BrittBatt Of the Socilist Times or any other hard left right, other POV news/commentary source.

Seriously, do you not read what others write? NO ONE ever said youtube videos of pieces from cspan, fox, or TV channels were an issue, so long as it's not snippets. I said all along that Youtube is a bad source if it's some anonymous user just ranting on there, and the story they are ranting about isn't even covered elsewhere. Like both you and -Cp posting videos of a few black guys saying they love ron paul and he's not a racist. Hell, YOU can do the same thing and post it on youtube, but that hardly makes it "legit news".

If you want to place an entire interview with a politician who was interviewed on MSNBC, place it on youtube, and then stream it here - yes, I would consider that a legit source. But it's "msnbc" that is legit and youtube is simply carrying the video that aired elsewhere. The fact is, you can also give a link to the news story in writing, because youtube is NOT the source. And quite frankly, very rarely are the youtube videos that you live off of even watched. Why would I want to watch a 10 minute video when I can read an article in a minute and a half, and not have to deal with the cute little dramatic music and crap that these idiot play over the top of the videos, and accompanying text written over the top.

Fact is - youtube is NOT a legit news source - it STILL boils down to the original source that you are streaming on the VIDEO SHARING SITE.

[ConHog]

Seriously, do you not read what others write? NO ONE ever said youtube videos of pieces from cspan, fox, or TV channels were an issue, so long as it's not snippets. I said all along that Youtube is a bad source if it's some anonymous user just ranting on there, and the story they are ranting about isn't even covered elsewhere. Like both you and -Cp posting videos of a few black guys saying they love ron paul and he's not a racist. Hell, YOU can do the same thing and post it on youtube, but that hardly makes it "legit news".

If you want to place an entire interview with a politician who was interviewed on MSNBC, place it on youtube, and then stream it here - yes, I would consider that a legit source. But it's "msnbc" that is legit and youtube is simply carrying the video that aired elsewhere. The fact is, you can also give a link to the news story in writing, because youtube is NOT the source. And quite frankly, very rarely are the youtube videos that you live off of even watched. Why would I want to watch a 10 minute video when I can read an article in a minute and a half, and not have to deal with the cute little dramatic music and crap that these idiot play over the top of the videos, and accompanying text written over the top.

Fact is - youtube is NOT a legit news source - it STILL boils down to the original source that you are streaming on the VIDEO SHARING SITE.

I don't think he gets it.

Rev, it really is no different than i someone else linked to a thread on THIS site that contained a story by let's say FoxNews and claimed that THIS site is the news source, no it's not. FoxNews is the news source. So whether the story is true or not, THIS site isn't responsible for the accuracy of the story.

[revelarts]

Seriously, do you not read what others write? NO ONE ever said youtube videos of pieces from cspan, fox, or TV channels were an issue, so long as it's not snippets. I said all along that Youtube is a bad source if it's some anonymous user just ranting on there, and the story they are ranting about isn't even covered elsewhere.

You've always said that Ok Jim

Like both you and -Cp posting videos of a few black guys saying they love ron paul and he's not a racist. Hell, YOU can do the same thing and post it on youtube, but that hardly makes it "legit news".
I never that said it was ligit news, I post items like that, but it's just as ligit as your opinon posted here it seems to me, it's not news it's just opinion.
However If its from a respected well known person then that's a different story, to me at least. Like Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell, they are not just some random guys, If they post a youtube from there kicthen table. THAT"S LEGIT, at least to me. As Legit as if they wrote it on a personal blog.

If you want to place an entire interview with a politician who was interviewed on MSNBC, place it on youtube, and then stream it here - yes, I would consider that a legit source. But it's "msnbc" that is legit and youtube is simply carrying the video that aired elsewhere.
Agreed, that all I've been saying.

The fact is, you can also give a link to the news story in writing, because youtube is NOT the source.
I never said it was, It just seems like i get beat over the head when i post a "youtube"

And quite frankly, very rarely are the youtube videos that you live off of even watched. Why would I want to watch a 10 minute video when I can read an article in a minute and a half, and not have to deal with the cute little dramatic music and crap that these idiot play over the top of the videos, and accompanying text written over the top.
I can understand that, that's a personal preference cool.
For me It's just that i'm at work and it's easier for me to play a 10 minute 30 minute 1 hour youtube clip in the background and listen to the audio. while i work than sit and read articles though out the day. I read more at home.

Fact is - youtube is NOT a legit news source - it STILL boils down to the original source that you are streaming on the VIDEO SHARING SITE.

Yes, Youtube carries Legit news Sources, peoples opinion and pure BS.


I guess I just confused when i post a youtubed story/commentary and someone says things LIKE -not quoting- "Those dum youtube vids are not credible" but they DON"T site the source in the youtube they seem to be only dismissing "youtube". that's all.

[ConHog]

I guess I just confused when i post something and someone says things LIKE -not quoting- "Those dum youtube vids are not credible" but they DON"T site the source in the youtube they seem to be only dismissing "youtube".

because usually the Youtube videos you post only show a small snippet of something designed to take comments completely out of context.


IF your Youtube video is a a snippet from FoxNews, why not just go to the source? They have a website you know.

[revelarts]

because usually the Youtube videos you post only show a small snippet of something designed to take comments completely out of context.


IF your Youtube video is a a snippet from FoxNews, why not just go to the source? They have a website you know.

So now I'm taking stuff out of context too ..sheesh.

[ConHog]

So now I'm taking stuff out of context too ..sheesh.

On purpose? I don't believe so. But I DO believe you see little snippets on youtube that have been taken out of context and instead of looking at other sources you run over here and post your "gotcha" youtube video. Which is then quickly debunked.

[Gunny]

So now I'm taking stuff out of context too ..sheesh.

You don't even have reality, nor even the reality of this situation in context.

[revelarts]

On purpose? I don't believe so. But I DO believe you see little snippets on youtube that have been taken out of context and instead of looking at other sources you run over here and post your "gotcha" youtube video. Which is then quickly debunked.

It's not a true or fair assessment con,
I can think of only one time where PART of a vid i posted was "debunked". As much as i post youtubes and articles here i think i'm extremly accurate, your comment makes it appear it's a regular practice rather than a extremely rare event.

looks like your just trying to make me "wrong" "revelarts your just wrong" "youtube is just wrong, the same thing written down is better but it still might be wrong"
just seems that way at this point

[revelarts]

You don't even have reality, nor even the reality of this situation in context.

Sheesh
Wha?

"youtube is just wrong.... Revelarts your just wrong....not even in the real reality with the real people... just plain wrooong"

[Gunny]

Sheesh
Wha?

"youtube is just wrong.... Revelarts your just wrong....not even in the real reality with the real people... just plain wrooong"

Nice comeback. Want to try again, or what?

[jimnyc]

I guess I just confused when i post a youtubed story/commentary and someone says things LIKE -not quoting- "Those dum youtube vids are not credible" but they DON"T site the source in the youtube they seem to be only dismissing "youtube". that's all.

That's because so many of your videos are snippets, pieces that are cherry picked to your point of view, and carrying dramatic music and lettering with them. Some guy I never heard of before speaking into a webcam about what he heard on the news, IMO is not legit, it's just another turd speaking his opinion. The only thing I would consider "legit" about news coming from Youtube would be actual news stories. with all the facts, and in it's entirety. VERY rarely is that the case. A 2-5 minute news clip, broken up so that we can only hear certain segments, is not legit in my mind, as I've seen WAY too many videos edited to say what one wants.

Watch the video in the OP of the following thread, then the thread itself. An accusation was made about the news station lying, based on a 40 second news clip. But watched in its entirety, there was no lie. That's what happens when videos are edited and/or cherry picked.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30863-Fox-News-Lies-About-quot-Violent-Wisconsin-Protests-quot

[jimnyc]

It's not a true or fair assessment con,
I can think of only one time where PART of a vid i posted was "debunked". As much as i post youtubes and articles here i think i'm extremly accurate, your comment makes it appear it's a regular practice rather than a extremely rare event.

looks like your just trying to make me "wrong" "revelarts your just wrong" "youtube is just wrong, the same thing written down is better but it still might be wrong"
just seems that way at this point

SO many of your videos posted have been pure one sided crap, with dramatic music and lettering added, and much of the original "source" edited out. And no, I'm not going to go back and scour through the tons of videos you have posted. But if YOU truly believe what your posting, of course you're going to deny ever being "debunked". But you debunk yourself when you post that crap and truly believe that those types of videos are legit news to begin with.

[ConHog]

It's not a true or fair assessment con,
I can think of only one time where PART of a vid i posted was "debunked". As much as i post youtubes and articles here i think i'm extremly accurate, your comment makes it appear it's a regular practice rather than a extremely rare event.

looks like your just trying to make me "wrong" "revelarts your just wrong" "youtube is just wrong, the same thing written down is better but it still might be wrong"
just seems that way at this point

Rev, I honestly don't usually look at links when posted b/c most of the time when I do they are slanted, no matter the source, or who posted them. Not just you. I'm just saying that the ones of yours I have watched are mostly opinion pieces that cherry pick data to lead the viewer to a predetermined conclusion. Even when are snippets from FoxNews or what have you.

I don't think you do it on purpose or even realize you are doing it, but facts is facts.

Oh, and I'm not on the "rev lives in an unreal world" bandwagon either. Truth is, nearly everyone who posts links chooses to post link that do nothing but bolster their own opinion, and if a person knows how to search the internet, as most of us who post here clearly do, one can find a website where someone is defending nearly any position.

Which is why I rarely post links.

[revelarts]

SO many of your videos posted have been pure one sided crap, with dramatic music and lettering added, and much of the original "source" edited out. And no, I'm not going to go back and scour through the tons of videos you have posted. But if YOU truly believe what your posting, of course you're going to deny ever being "debunked". But you debunk yourself when you post that crap and truly believe that those types of videos are legit news to begin with.



Rev, I honestly don't usually look at links when posted b/c most of the time when I do they are slanted, no matter the source, or who posted them. Not just you. I'm just saying that the ones of yours I have watched are mostly opinion pieces that cherry pick data to lead the viewer to a predetermined conclusion. Even when are snippets from FoxNews or what have you.

I don't think you do it on purpose or even realize you are doing it, but facts is facts.

Oh, and I'm not on the "rev lives in an unreal world" bandwagon either. Truth is, nearly everyone who posts links chooses to post link that do nothing but bolster their own opinion, and if a person knows how to search the internet, as most of us who post here clearly do, one can find a website where someone is defending nearly any position.

Which is why I rarely post links.

I just went back over the past week or so
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34064-Forced-abortion-for-a-mentally-ill-woman-No-way-says-Mass-appeals-court&p=519855#post519855

I posted a CNN news clip about the facts of US eugenics, the whole story.
Facts are facts

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33731-Ron-Paul-info-Coverting-conservatives-on-Foriegn-Policy/page5

an amdittely short clip of O'riely saying the same thing Ron Paul says EVENTHOUGH we all know he hates Ron paul on forien policy

From Glen Beck a long unedited clip of him saying that Ron Paul is better for freedom than Newt who is for UN style oneworld type gov.

From Fox News Business Full Interview with Ly Anthony Schaffer on Forign policy

Fee.org a video on the cost of Drug war

In that thread I also post vids of Vetrans for Ron Paul and some transcipts of there comments.


there's ZERO out of contxt or misleading about this. as you say con we are looking for items that support our position.

People will make a comment like " Ron Paul's forign policy is Crazy and only crazy people agree with it" So I find CIA, Vetrans, Mosad and others on camera saying otherwise. and I post it in wrting as well. NONE of it out of context. none of it irrelevant to the Harsh accusations tossed around that i'm attempting to rebut.

sorry if you don't like the music, or the whatever. but i'm not cherry picking in the sense that you imply. it seems many just don't want to acknowledge that there are VALID FACTS and opinions sometime presented in the form of Video OR print that contradict their opinions. Look sometimes you just don't like my opinions. or those of the former CIA, Vets, Mosad Chiefs, Glenn Beck CNN that's fine but lets be real, there's no need to dismiss their points just because they are on a video. Is video editing any better than text news editing? it's not. period.

[ConHog]

I just went back over the past week or so
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34064-Forced-abortion-for-a-mentally-ill-woman-No-way-says-Mass-appeals-court&p=519855#post519855

I posted a CNN news clip about the facts of US eugenics, the whole story.
Facts are facts

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33731-Ron-Paul-info-Coverting-conservatives-on-Foriegn-Policy/page5

an amdittely short clip of O'riely saying the same thing Ron Paul says EVENTHOUGH we all know he hates Ron paul on forien policy

From Glen Beck a long unedited clip of him saying that Ron Paul is better for freedom than Newt who is for UN style oneworld type gov.

From Fox News Business Full Interview with Ly Anthony Schaffer on Forign policy

Fee.org a video on the cost of Drug war

In that thread I also post vids of Vetrans for Ron Paul and some transcipts of there comments.


there's ZERO out of contxt or misleading about this. as you say con we are looking for items that support our position.

People will make a comment like " Ron Paul's forign policy is Crazy and only crazy people agree with it" So I find CIA, Vetrans, Mosad and others on camera saying otherwise. and I post it in wrting as well. NONE of it out of context. none of it irrelevant to the Harsh accusations tossed around that i'm attempting to rebut.

sorry if you don't like the music, or the whatever. but i'm not cherry picking in the sense that you imply. it seems many just don't want to acknowledge that there are VALID opionons sometime presented in the form of Video OR print that contradict their opinions. Look sometimes you just don't like my opinions. or those of the former CIA, Vets, Mosad Chiefs, Glenn Beck CNN that's fine but lets be real, there's no need to dismiss their points just because they are on a video. Is video editing any better than text news editing? it's not. period.

Which is why I didn't single you out. Most everyone does it. I mean for instance, I haven't seen Gunny post any threads about the TSA doing something good. It is what it is. I'm just giving you my OPINION on why your videos are scoffed at. Take them to a board where the many agree with you and likely they would be praised as proof of whatever your opinion is.

It is what it is, it happens on all boards, and I happen to think that even though it DOES happen on this board, most here are fairer about it then on some other boards.

It's human nature.

[jimnyc]

Is video editing any better than text news editing? it's not. period.

So you admit you're not as much interested in ALL of the facts as you are the presentation of them.

Edited videos using out of context material is lame, and sucks, period. We don't need a narrator in the background. We don't need fancy letters spelling things. We don't need certain facts cut out of the video to save time. I have a novel idea - how about just posting the original video or article from the authors site instead? But don't expect me to take an edited version of something to be legit.

[Gunny]

So you admit you're not as much interested in ALL of the facts as you are the presentation of them.

Edited videos using out of context material is lame, and sucks, period. We don't need a narrator in the background. We don't need fancy letters spelling things. We don't need certain facts cut out of the video to save time. I have a novel idea - how about just posting the original video or article from the authors site instead? But don't expect me to take an edited version of something to be legit.

Don't we already HAVE that President?

[revelarts]

"wrong" "revelarts your just wrong"
"youtube is just wrong, the same thing written down is better but if you post it it still probably just wrong"
"youtube is just wrong.....not even in the real reality with the real people... just plain wrooong"

[ConHog]

"wrong" "revelarts your just wrong"
"youtube is just wrong, the same thing written down is better but if you post it it still probably just wrong"
"youtube is just wrong.....not even in the real reality with the real people... just plain wrooong"

Eh, looks like Rev finally took the red pill.

Welcome to reality. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

"wrong" "revelarts your just wrong"
"youtube is just wrong, the same thing written down is better but if you post it it still probably just wrong"
"youtube is just wrong.....not even in the real reality with the real people... just plain wrooong"

Is this what you turn into when thoroughly proven wrong? Keep having the news spoon fed to you instead of seeking out the truth, I don't give a flying fuck either way. But when you post edited videos, you WILL be called on it, even if you'll end up talking like a mental patient by the end of the thread.