PDA

View Full Version : Unacceptable News Sources



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Stan In CA
December 26th, 2009, 12:15 AM
There is a valid point here; many news sites can be biased or have an agenda. We should always use discernment when posting any links. That said, some tend to be a lot less reliable than others and some are not news sites at all although they may purport to be.

Then why not put every news agency on the list? OR Why not put nothing on the list? This is what confuses me. Sure, I'm more than willing to follow the rules and have really bit my lip a few times, but if there can be some credibility to these sources and more or less on others than why not we be allowed to post them so us informed posters can find links/evidence to offer up a rebutal of confirmation or discrediting. Some of the sources on the list I personally find credible. Not fully credible by any means but nonetheless sources not listed here can be just as unreliable as those on the list....well anyway...I like it here so I will go by the rules.

:hat

Anddra
December 26th, 2009, 02:18 AM
Then why not put every news agency on the list? OR Why not put nothing on the list? This is what confuses me. Sure, I'm more than willing to follow the rules and have really bit my lip a few times, but if there can be some credibility to these sources and more or less on others than why not we be allowed to post them so us informed posters can find links/evidence to offer up a rebutal of confirmation or discrediting. Some of the sources on the list I personally find credible. Not fully credible by any means but nonetheless sources not listed here can be just as unreliable as those on the list....well anyway...I like it here so I will go by the rules.

:hat

The message we are trying to get across is that some sites are not to be linked to (these are listed) but that does not mean that sites we have not listed will be necessarily be OK. We are asking members to bear in mind the purpose of this message board and use discernment when posting links to articles from other sites. Every member has a responsibility for the testimony provided by this message board.

WarGamer
December 26th, 2009, 01:34 PM
I've always thought that the NYT and all of the so-called "Big Three" news network sites should be no-go's as well. I'd especially steer clear of MSNBC and alot of Reuter's stuff. Reuters has had some problems doctoring photos.

HeIsEnough
December 28th, 2009, 06:49 AM
...I like it here so I will go by the rules.

:hat

It's not really about bias, Stan. More like the propensity of these particular outlets using unsubstantiated rumors and lunacy, and posing it as real news. I guess you'll have to bite your lip again. :hat

ripcoard
December 29th, 2009, 10:34 AM
I dont start many threads at all I just had to comment on this. I read most of the news everyday on RR news of the day a large amount of thier articles are from the sites you tell us not to use or have other sources that backup the articles content which RR doesnt do. I love RR and have told hundreds of my friends and co-workers and my customers about RR so dont think I am trying to be a troublemaker because I am not. There appears to be a double standard and I would like to understand what I am missing by this sticky. To tell you the truth WND to me is entertaining but seems very tabloid to me also. Please when you get a second explain to me why RR can post these articles and we cant.



QUOTE=carolina_guy;1628696]Please do not use the following links as news sources for reporting breaking news or other material:

eutimes
WND (ok if substantiated by other sources)
Newsmax (ok if substantiated by other sources)
DebkaFile (ok if substantiated by other sources)
Prisonplanet
infowars

This list is subject to change and at the discretion of the moderator team.[/QUOTE]

SefT9xnY

carolina_guy
December 29th, 2009, 10:45 AM
I dont start many threads at all I just had to comment on this. I read most of the news everyday on RR news of the day a large amount of thier articles are from the sites you tell us not to use or have other sources that backup the articles content which RR doesnt do. I love RR and have told hundreds of my friends and co-workers and my customers about RR so dont think I am trying to be a troublemaker because I am not. There appears to be a double standard and I would like to understand what I am missing by this sticky. To tell you the truth WND to me is entertaining but seems very tabloid to me also. Please when you get a second explain to me why RR can post these articles and we cant.




Please do not use the following links as news sources for reporting breaking news or other material:

eutimes
WND (ok if substantiated by other sources)
Newsmax (ok if substantiated by other sources)
DebkaFile (ok if substantiated by other sources)
Prisonplanet
infowars

This list is subject to change and at the discretion of the moderator team.

SefT9xnY

Simply put, they are two separate entities. :hat

TeXaCo
December 29th, 2009, 11:44 AM
More like the propensity of these particular outlets using unsubstantiated rumors and lunacy, and posing it as real news.

I'm not arguing with any rule, I just thought it funny because you just described MSNBC and CNN to a T :yeah :pound

Sundial
December 29th, 2009, 11:53 AM
I'd like to quote the National Enquirer since they have a pulse on the state of our culture. :heh

HeIsEnough
December 31st, 2009, 06:29 AM
I'm not arguing with any rule, I just thought it funny because you just described MSNBC and CNN to a T :yeah :pound

I'm happy I gave you a funny.

When they are as bad as the others listed, we'll add them to the list. :thumb

What is more concerning for me, is that I've seen the moderators here ask politely and nicely, over the course of months, and its thrown back in their face, usually with a 'tude. Is this typical behavior of a christian?

Anddra
January 5th, 2010, 04:00 AM
Another to add to the list of unacceptable *news* sources ...

Zero Hedge