Unacceptable News Sources

[Buzzardhut]

This policy seriously adds to this forum's credibility, when read by unbelievers... something that other rapture forums tend to lack.

Thanks for your diligence in moderating...

We take credibility seriously and should require 2 responsible sources for every incident.

Maybe that should be in the rules

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?

Your take on it is sensationalism, we would not lose credibility.

[Tarvan]

Before joining RR I used to run my own little end times group on another site. I reported 'news' from a variety of sites many of which aren't allowed here. Many of those sites I no longer even look at as the are about as accurate as the tabloids at grocery stores.

I still like WND but I can survive without posting their links here. I credit RR for helping me to bring more credible and reliable news to the people who read what I post here and on other sites.

[texastig]

I don't understand how WorldNetDaily isn't a news source when they are in the White House Press Corp.

I would like to also add that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc... sensationalize their stories for democrats.

[RRRobert]

I think what has some people concerned is that actual news reporting sites like WND and Newsmax are listed together with unarguably sensationalist nonsense like Alex Jones' sites (infowars and prisonplanet). It also concerns them because those sites (WND and Newsmax) often cover issues close at heart to Christians that mainstream media will try to suppress or ignore when the news item is positive for Christians (for example on the subject of abortion issues, gay rights issues, etc).

DebkaFile does have a pro-Israeli slant and does analyze rumors, but if the reader is aware of that, they're still very much worth reading because you will get a lot of otherwise-unreported news regarding Israeli intelligence and politics before anyone else covers it, if anyone else covers the issue at all. It's sort of like having behind-the-scenes access to parts of the inner workings of Israeli intel and leadership, but just like if you were working a source like that in real life, you know to run whatever they say through a filter to strain out the propaganda and not take every bit verbatim. Understandably for a forum where many folks might not have that level of savvy it could be wise to list them.

[Buzzardhut]

Before joining RR I used to run my own little end times group on another site. I reported 'news' from a variety of sites many of which aren't allowed here. Many of those sites I no longer even look at as the are about as accurate as the tabloids at grocery stores.

I still like WND but I can survive without posting their links here. I credit RR for helping me to bring more credible and reliable news to the people who read what I post here and on other sites.

Agreed

I think what has some people concerned is that actual news reporting sites like WND and Newsmax are listed together with unarguably sensationalist nonsense like Alex Jones' sites (infowars and prisonplanet). It also concerns them because those sites (WND and Newsmax) often cover issues close at heart to Christians that mainstream media will try to suppress or ignore when the news item is positive for Christians (for example on the subject of abortion issues, gay rights issues, etc).

DebkaFile does have a pro-Israeli slant and does analyze rumors, but if the reader is aware of that, they're still very much worth reading because you will get a lot of otherwise-unreported news regarding Israeli intelligence and politics before anyone else covers it, if anyone else covers the issue at all. It's sort of like having behind-the-scenes access to parts of the inner workings of Israeli intel and leadership, but just like if you were working a source like that in real life, you know to run whatever they say through a filter to strain out the propaganda and not take every bit verbatim. Understandably for a forum where many folks might not have that level of savvy it could be wise to list them.

Multiple sources is the best strategy

[RobertB]

We take credibility seriously and should require 2 responsible sources for every incident.

Maybe that should be in the rules

Having two sources of news stories, called attribution, is exactly what is taught in journalism classes, at least that is what I was taught.

[RobertB]

DebkaFile does have a pro-Israeli slant and does analyze rumors, but if the reader is aware of that, they're still very much worth reading because you will get a lot of otherwise-unreported news regarding Israeli intelligence and politics before anyone else covers it, if anyone else covers the issue at all. It's sort of like having behind-the-scenes access to parts of the inner workings of Israeli intel and leadership, but just like if you were working a source like that in real life, you know to run whatever they say through a filter to strain out the propaganda and not take every bit verbatim. Understandably for a forum where many folks might not have that level of savvy it could be wise to list them.

That my friend is definitely debatable. Debka is sensationalist, inaccurate and plagiaristic, in the eyes of many, perhaps most, who are familiar with it or have followed some of their stories for a few years. Debka is a subscription service, not a genuine news source.

[Robert]

I think what has some people concerned is that actual news reporting sites like WND and Newsmax are listed together with unarguably sensationalist nonsense like Alex Jones' sites (infowars and prisonplanet). It also concerns them because those sites (WND and Newsmax) often cover issues close at heart to Christians that mainstream media will try to suppress or ignore when the news item is positive for Christians (for example on the subject of abortion issues, gay rights issues, etc).

DebkaFile does have a pro-Israeli slant and does analyze rumors, but if the reader is aware of that, they're still very much worth reading because you will get a lot of otherwise-unreported news regarding Israeli intelligence and politics before anyone else covers it, if anyone else covers the issue at all. It's sort of like having behind-the-scenes access to parts of the inner workings of Israeli intel and leadership, but just like if you were working a source like that in real life, you know to run whatever they say through a filter to strain out the propaganda and not take every bit verbatim. Understandably for a forum where many folks might not have that level of savvy it could be wise to list them.

We have to be careful what sources we use when posting, and be able to back it up. Christians already have the deck stacked against them in this world. Once a site gets a bad rep, it takes a LONG time before people will give it any credit whatsoever; sometimes, they never do.

The problem with DEBKAFile is that you don't know what is accurate and what isn't. If you're spending huge amounts of time sifting garbage just to get a fact that the MSM or another site reported plainly, you may wish to consider another site.

The big problem is this: a lot of the stories we post here we forget about after so long and it passes our memory. But the posts are still there and will remain so for some time to come. People are going to look at those, and if we get all flustered about something that happened without so much as a fizzle, visitors are going to look at us like we are either remarkably paranoid, intellectually dishonest, our just plain stupid. Any of those three are a detriment to our witness, and I would rather pass on a story and let someone else post it if I feel it's just hype rather than report it and then have it fizzle out because it was all hype and no solid matter. Yeah, we can go with the argument "the one time we'll get a real story and we'll regret not reporting it!", but you also face the "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

We owe it to the lord as well as to those we report for to be as accurate and as dependable as we wish all news services were, and this includes investigating our leads and sources we come across. We yell that the MSM is sensational and isn't reporting everything and that they play around with stories; should we combat that with stories we cannot verify, and that come from questionable sources?

Keep in mind: we are christians 24-7. For us, our "workday" doesn't end when we close up the office. Our lives are tied to our faith, and all it takes is one smear to foul our witness to this fallen world.

[Alex]

We have to be careful what sources we use when posting, and be able to back it up. Christians already have the deck stacked against them in this world. Once a site gets a bad rep, it takes a LONG time before people will give it any credit whatsoever; sometimes, they never do.

The problem with DEBKAFile is that you don't know what is accurate and what isn't. If you're spending huge amounts of time sifting garbage just to get a fact that the MSM or another site reported plainly, you may wish to consider another site.

The big problem is this: a lot of the stories we post here we forget about after so long and it passes our memory. But the posts are still there and will remain so for some time to come. People are going to look at those, and if we get all flustered about something that happened without so much as a fizzle, visitors are going to look at us like we are either remarkably paranoid, intellectually dishonest, our just plain stupid. Any of those three are a detriment to our witness, and I would rather pass on a story and let someone else post it if I feel it's just hype rather than report it and then have it fizzle out because it was all hype and no solid matter. Yeah, we can go with the argument "the one time we'll get a real story and we'll regret not reporting it!", but you also face the "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

We owe it to the lord as well as to those we report for to be as accurate and as dependable as we wish all news services were, and this includes investigating our leads and sources we come across. We yell that the MSM is sensational and isn't reporting everything and that they play around with stories; should we combat that with stories we cannot verify, and that come from questionable sources?

Keep in mind: we are christians 24-7. For us, our "workday" doesn't end when we close up the office. Our lives are tied to our faith, and all it takes is one smear to foul our witness to this fallen world.

[Anddra]

[willbeeler]

Prisonplanet
infowars

Thank you for including these sources as unacceptable. I've been to their websites before and read some of their material and I've even had the misfortune of listening to their host. Although, I agree with him about some things, he has said some seriously inaccurate things about the Rapture. He has poorly attempted to discredit the Rapture without going into detail about his argument. Many of his listeners (even some folks that sit in the pews on Sunday) have agreed with him, that there is no such thing as the Rapture, and quite frankly, it's heresy. All in all, thank you for purifying the source material for this website.

[lovePsalm40]

I didn't realize WND wasn't so hot anymore, if it ever was IYO, so just took it off my personal blog, thank you!

[Buzzardhut]

The sites listed are unacceptable for posting here, as for personal reading on your own, use your own discretion.

[The Sower]

hi!!

Can you moderators list the credible sites for news

[TimothyK]

hi!!

Can you moderators list the credible sites for news

There is no 'credible' list as far as I know.

Only avoid those already on the do not use list and use some discernment in what you post here on the forum. Try to keep it PG. If it's not alright, you'll find out.

[Buzzardhut]

If it's not alright, you'll find out.

[will0w]

I totally agree with The Sun (UK) not being credible, especially in light of what's been going on in the past year.Though to be honest, it stopped being credible many years before that.
It's certainly not a paper I miss reading.

[Raphael]

Well, I am going to have to use more discretion. I was well into the headline story "OBAMA SECRET MEETING WITH NEPTUNIAN BAT CREATURE AT UNITED NATIONS" from Globe International News and Upholstery Repair before seeing this thread.

[Live!]

How about beforeitsnews.com?

[Steve53]

How about beforeitsnews.com?

Glorified blogger site comprised of largely conspiracy minded authors requiring constant tin foil hat refits. Don't waste your time.