PDA

View Full Version : Unacceptable News Sources



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

HeIsEnough
September 6th, 2010, 05:30 PM
icebear mentioned Pravda, let's add The Daily Worker and Radio Moscow not being on the list. (Is TASS still active?) Does this mean they are acceptable sources?

If you would like former USSR propaganda sites listed, we can. Otherwise, its just kind of a known thing. Castro's and Chavez's government sources would qualify as trash as well.

Daniel1210
September 6th, 2010, 06:59 PM
If you would like former USSR propaganda sites listed, we can. Otherwise, its just kind of a known thing. Castro's and Chavez's government sources would qualify as trash as well.
I said it jokingly, just trying to convey a point. I'm no fan of Radio Marti, either.
The point was I don't want to see an internet site a la China.
The next time you're stuck in traffic and the news is on radio, go through the stations. There is only one news cast where there used to be many. Stations used to have their own views and personalities. Now, outside of FOX, they are all parrots coming off of a common news feed, tovarich. Many people on this board would agree we're only getting the "real deal" from Canada and Israel.

HeIsEnough
September 6th, 2010, 07:17 PM
The point was I don't want to see an internet site a la China.


I don't think Chinese style censorship is a problem or a possibility here, so the analogy is lost on me.


Many people on this board would agree we're only getting the "real deal" from Canada and Israel.

The ultimate source is scripture, we are merely looking at what is happening in light of what is to come, that is the purpose of this board.

Steve53
September 28th, 2010, 06:11 PM
Just a reminder folks - Please pay attention the sites you wish to link to when considering a new thread topic or when posting to an existing thread - - - -


[02] No graphic posts, pictures, news articles, or links to violence, nudity, nor semi-nude photos or videos. No posting sexual stories, gruesome crimes, horror stories, nor any other sin sick related stories, this type of information is not the objective of this board, we recognize we are living in the last 'Days of Noah' and sin abounds. If you are struggling with sexual sin and want help from members here, there is no need to be explicit - remember, this is a family board - if you want to ask for prayer, then you can do so without going into detail. If you feel the need to talk through your sexual problems, then there are other places designed to deal with this. RR is not the place to do it. Some things are best dealt with in private.
Matthew 24:37-38 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Matthew%2024.37-38) It's too late in the battle to entertain rubbish. Keep it clean.
Philippians 4:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Philippians%204.8) Finally, my brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are right, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue and if there is any praise, think on these things.

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

Christian Science Monitor
sify
eutimes
WND
Newsmax
DebkaFile
Prisonplanet
infowars
Zero Hedge
The Sun (UK)
The Golden Report
The Huffington Post
Wikileaks

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

[13]No liberal left wing political agendas, pacifism, socialism, libertarianism, fascism, scientism, Tax Dodging, Anti-American Conspiracies, Anti-War Propaganda, or that the United States is Israel or Mystery Babylon. No "Financial Fear and panic, store ammo and cans" threads stressing America is going down the tubes and Jesus is leaving us stranded. No plotting to overthrow the American government. No Conspiracy theories such as FEMA camps....Practice your faith through prayer trusting God always providing our needs and never forsaking us. Hebrews 13:5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Hebrews%2013.5) Psalms 37:25 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalms%2037.25)

[14] No posts or links from other message boards, forums, or political and religious blogs (including tweets, facebook, myspace, Youtube, etc.) on this site or posting messages here on other message boards, forums, or political and religious blogs.
The mod team alone reserves the right to post links to responsible blogs when important to the discussion of particular topics. Due to the dynamic and uncensored nature of blogs, the mod team does not have the time to monitor, validate, and approve all blogs on the net. Please note that this rule also applies to signatures.
No blogs are to be posted unless they are posted or approved by the mod team. Personal blogs should be confined to your homepage.

DCarley
October 10th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Please do not use the following links as news sources for reporting breaking news or other material:

Christian Science Monitor
sify
eutimes
WND
Newsmax
DebkaFile
Prisonplanet
infowars
Zero Hedge
The Sun (UK)
The Golden Report
Huffington Post
People's Daily (China)


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

Note. If you can find the same story from a legitimate source, then please post that instead.

Regarding WND - This is from Wikipedia:

WND provides news, editorials, commentaries, letters to the editor, forums and conducts a daily poll. Its editorial content has a diverse range of viewpoints, though predominantly from a right wing or conservative perspective.[1][11][12] Besides providing articles authored by its own staff, the site links to news from other publications. Notable staff includes Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein, White House Correspondent Lester Kinsolving, and Staff Writer Jerome Corsi. Its commentary pages feature editorials from the site's founder, Joseph Farah and other social conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Chuck Norris. It also features weekly columns by libertarians Walter Williams, Vox Day, and Ilana Mercer, as well as liberal Bill Press and pro-life moderate Nat Hentoff.[13]

Yes, they are a commentary site. But they also link to news organizations that are available such as Reuter, AP, and other MSM orgs. It sounds like you want to keep certain articles from being circulated among your readers. Yes, WND is conservative. Yes, they have conservative, Christian commentaries. But to say they are not legitimate makes you less legitimate.

The same can be said for Newsmax. Here is the Wikipedia on them:

Forbes magazine says regular readers include Newt Gingrich and John Templeton Jr. [8]
In addition to Newsmax.com, the company publishes Newsmax magazine, which the company describes as the nationís "largest independent monthly with a conservative perspective." During 2006 the magazineís ABC-audited circulation totaled approximately 90,125 paid subscribers.[10]

Although, I will say, Newsmax has had their share of mistakes. But as a news organization, I do not think anyone can call them an "unacceptable" news source as you do. They too post links to other news organizations.

Yeah...let's rely on the MSM to tell us the truth. If you read only the MSM news sites and only use those as your sources...you should be labled unacceptable.

Now...let me be clear. No one...no one...should rely on any one or two news organizations to get their perspective on news and world events. First and foremost, we should look to the Bible for our God and world view. Everything should be filtered through the Bible. And then we should look at all news from that perspective whether it be Newsmax, WND, or MSM.

Your labveling any site "unacceptable" is unacceptable. Maybe that's why I may need to look at your information a lot closer than I have in the past..

Steve53
October 10th, 2010, 08:50 PM
Your labveling any site "unacceptable" is unacceptable. Maybe that's why I may need to look at your information a lot closer than I have in the past..

We have explained up-thread why certain sites are listed as unacceptable, WND among them.
Please review the above posts if you have any lingering questions.
Feel free to look at our information at your leisure. :hat
You also question us "labeling" sites. There is a good reason for that - We can't control what is linked to or through other sites and we have a responsibility to our members to keep this family friendly Christian site family friendly and a safe haven from the filth that pervades our world.

Christina
October 10th, 2010, 08:54 PM
Wikipedia itself is questionnable at times because information posted can be changed.

It's not censorship but instead it's trying to keep the information that gets posted as accurate as possible and that is done by avoiding the tabloid-like news sources. Besides that, this board is a privately funded board and has the right to accept or ban whichever news sources it feels it needs to in order to keep the integrity of the board up.

You can be sure that the mods and admin team are first and foremost interested in keeping the board a good resource, not plagued with garbage from unreliable news sources. :hat

iSong6:3
October 10th, 2010, 09:07 PM
It sounds like you want to keep certain articles from being circulated among your readers.

People are free to read anything they want.


If you read only the MSM news sites and only use those as your sources...you should be labled unacceptable.

:scratch


Your labveling any site "unacceptable" is unacceptable. Maybe that's why I may need to look at your information a lot closer than I have in the past..

Private board, these are the rules.

There are other boards you may like better than this one, then. :nod

DCarley
October 10th, 2010, 09:16 PM
I understand you think there is sensationalism in some of the stories posated by these orgs. My only question is "Do you think there's no sensationalism in the acceptable sites you OK?" You are misguided at best.

Any true believer in Jesus Christ...who "abides" in Him...who relies on the Bible and the Spirit of God for discernment...can make their own choices and decide for themselves what is true and what is false. I don't want you to do that for me. I access RR becuase I can gather information....from wherever it derives. I can read it and use my God-given discernment afterwards to go forward.

Monitoring and limiting commentaries I can understand. Disallowing quotes from websites that say Elvis is living on the moon I can understand. Restricting news orgs that report and promote violence and criminal behavior I can understand. And limiting sites that are routinely and purposefully untruthful and decpetive I can understand.

But to demand (because you own the site and want it that way) that people not post what are mostly legitmate news items because those stories come from what you consider to be unacceptable websites is not right. I would not imagine too much of what is posted in actually sensationalism and unfactual...although I'm sure some is. (Prove to me the acceptable sites don't do the same)

I wonder what those news orgs would do if they learned that RR had deemed them to be unacceptable? I wonder how much credibility RR would lose if that were reported on their unacceptable website that millions of people read each week? Of course, if it were reported, I guess that would be a true story, huh? Or would that be sensationalism?

Nightelf
October 10th, 2010, 09:18 PM
Your labveling any site "unacceptable" is unacceptable. Maybe that's why I may need to look at your information a lot closer than I have in the past..

Oh hello... you're new here! :hat

We'd love to get to know you better, why don't you go over to the Welcome forum and introduce yourself.... tell us how you met Jesus?

ETA: You *have* met Jesus....... ????