Source/citation shaming

[Allybeboba]

A source that doesn't report on facts, but their own interpretation of it. A source that attacks people that go against their own bias. A source that uses strawmen to represent their opponents arguments.

This recently posted article is an example of a shitty source:

http://patriotreporting.com/2017/04/...-than-the-nra/

"Lord save us from brain dead faux intellectuals."

Starts off with an insult.

"Liberals have ranted on forever that the NRA is evil and anyone belonging to it is basically a demon."

Strawmanning opponents point of view against the NRA.


"He contends that ISIS is less evil than the NRA. "

Not what he said, but their own spin/interpretation of it.

Now find us a left leaning "bad source" as an example.

[Deleted]

That's why this wave of conservative fascists are so dangerous, because they are trying to continuously discredit the free press for getting facts inaccurate or just sometimes wrong as a means to justify their news outlets that don't even bother reporting facts.

It's the new age rise of children not learning from their parents mistakes.

Edit: Also, remember kids, it was conservatives and catholics that brought the rise of the third reich. Hitler was simply their mouth piece.

To be fair, we also have plenty of lefties and liberals, that really don't like certain sources or certain topics from certain sources.

[purebalance]

That's why this wave of conservative fascists are so dangerous, because they are trying to continuously discredit the free press for getting facts inaccurate or just sometimes wrong as a means to justify their news outlets that don't even bother reporting facts.

It's the new age rise of children not learning from their parents mistakes.

Edit: Also, remember kids, it was conservatives and catholics that brought the rise of the third reich. Hitler was simply their mouth piece.

The fascists in the US right now are the ones who claim they're left and are far more dangerous.

[Deleted]

Fake news is fake news.

Let's be fair here. "Fake news" is every single piece of information you personally don't like, and anything you do like is 100% true. That's how it goes, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying, both to everyone else, and to themselves.

[Kiri]

Is source/citation shaming against the 'rules'?
I often see people link a source for their information when people ask for such and then people hand wave such sources off. They say they are not "credible" sources.
This is partly why I rarely, if ever, link sources to my information. People will just say they "don't believe" the source or simply discredit the source. It is easier just to have the person have them look it up for themselves.

Well, let's be real here. Source shaming has become the norm ever since the person coining the phrase 'fake news' has been elected POTUS. Thus, everyone on the right feels enable to source shame all those outlets you will see listed below. At the same time, everyone on the left feels enabled to discredit right-wing sources. There are some that are considered neutral and respected by many, but even they get labelled fakes for running stories a person does not like.

Fake News has become an absolutely meaningless term, a shorthand to end discussions. That, in turn, allows certain media outlets that before mostly ran conspiracies to suddenly appear at least on the same level as everyone else.

[bladeXcrasher]

Is source/citation shaming against the 'rules'?
I often see people link a source for their information when people ask for such and then people hand wave such sources off. They say they are not "credible" sources.
This is partly why I rarely, if ever, link sources to my information. People will just say they "don't believe" the source or simply discredit the source. It is easier just to have the person have them look it up for themselves.

People care more about their bias than credibility. When I criticize the use of Wikipedia as a primary source, since it isn't a primary source like any university student or alumni would know, it is hand waved as 'good enough'.

[Tyrianth]

Now find us a left leaning "bad source" as an example.

Why? I didn't claim it was limited to right wing news sources. I don't know of any left leaning sites that are as extreme as that piece of shit site. And I only knew about that site because it was posted here.

Any "news" site that falls under those criteria are shitty sources no matter the political leaning.

[Allybeboba]

Until CNN starts reporting on white deaths by police as much as if not more than(more white people die by cops annually) black deaths, CNN isn't a reputable source in my book. They're providing a false rhetoric in not reporting them.

Media makes money on reporting negatives not positives. They make money on stirring people up. A certain demographic is easier to stir up than others. The media knows this and they target them.

[Deleted]

Is source/citation shaming against the 'rules'?
I often see people link a source for their information when people ask for such and then people hand wave such sources off. They say they are not "credible" sources.
This is partly why I rarely, if ever, link sources to my information. People will just say they "don't believe" the source or simply discredit the source. It is easier just to have the person have them look it up for themselves.

What exactly are we talking about here? It is fully reasonable to dismiss an argument due to the fact that it is based on wrongful and/or fabricated information. Some sources are known for delivering such a picture of the situation, and could be dismissed by definition - they are very extreme though, and they are often having the editors writing the "articles", but they are also rare. Major news outlets like Fox News, CNN, BBC and so on, while they sure are biased, should not be dismissed by definition, but instead be used with a critical approach - their problem is not as often fabricated information but instead the angulation of the situation leaving out some information that might be useful in obtaining the correct conclusion.
It is therefore almost impossible to find any one source that gives a perfect representation of the information - even in scientific litterature, and you should instead use a broad array of sources to support your claim.

[Allybeboba]

Why? I didn't claim it was limited to right wing news sources. I don't know of any left leaning sites that are as extreme as that piece of shit site. And I only knew about that site because it was posted here.

Any "news" site that falls under those criteria are shitty sources no matter the political leaning.

Surely you can even out the playing field. Perhaps the left side of the political spectrum doesn't have any "shitty sources" only the right side does.

[Tyrianth]

Surely you can even out the playing field. Perhaps the left side of the political spectrum doesn't have any "shitty sources" only the right side does.

Shitty reporting and sources isn't limited to the political spectrum. Believe it or not, not everything is "liberals vs conservatives".

[Allybeboba]

What exactly are we talking about here? It is fully reasonable to dismiss an argument due to the fact that it is based on wrongful and/or fabricated information. Some sources are known for delivering such a picture of the situation, and could be dismissed by definition - they are very extreme though, and they are often having the editors writing the "articles", but they are also rare. Major news outlets like Fox News, CNN, BBC and so on, while they sure are biased, should not be dismissed by definition, but instead be used with a critical approach - their problem is not as often fabricated information but instead the angulation of the situation leaving out some information that might be useful in obtaining the correct conclusion.
It is therefore almost impossible to find any one source that gives a perfect representation of the information - even in scientific litterature, and you should instead use a broad array of sources to support your claim.

Yet people on this site dismiss those sources quite often, two of them at least.

- - - Updated - - -

Shitty reporting and sources isn't limited to the political spectrum. Believe it or not, not everything is "liberals vs conservatives".

Oh I know, good luck getting everyone else to believe that though.

[Dezerte]

Pointing out that some sources are not credible is okay. It should be followed by an explanation of why, and what it usually boils down to is sensationalism. I think it's a pretty good indicator on whether a source is acting in good faith or trying to gain clicks.

[Deleted]

Yet people on this site dismiss those sources quite often, two of them at least.

Indeed. And it has become a cop out in many discussions, where the information provided by the source was actually correct. It isn't the optimal way to debate, but people rarely debate with the purpose of gaining/sharing knowledge - we debate with the purpose of showing that the other party is wrong, and therefore it is inherently a waste of time.

[McFuu]

You idiots, like you've always have, are confusing the political leaning of a journalist with the accuracy of their statistics.

Just because something comes from Fox News or CNN doesn't mean it's inherently false, or true for that matter. Technically if you are citing a source, you are doing it to back up a statistic or some other hard matter of fact statement. Considering your sources and if they've fact checked and sourced themselves properly than it doesn't matter where the fact comes from. I can source Stormfront on crime statistics, as long as that source is true it doesnt matter what article I pull it from. The article can be named, Hitler did nothing wrong, as long as the stats within are accurate, it's an acceptable source.

If you guys are confusing opinion statements as facts and than request sourcing. You are the one who is fucked up. In the matter of opinion or speculation a source will matter, because unbiased reporting doesn't exist anymore, you guys like to source only those who echo your own bias.

[Taso]

Thats why I use mediabiaschecker otherwise I use literal books to get my information. You can't argue with a book even if it was written say twenty or thirty years ago.

[Allybeboba]

Indeed. And it has become a cop out in many discussions, where the information provided by the source was actually correct. It isn't the optimal way to debate, but people rarely debate with the purpose of gaining/sharing knowledge - we debate with the purpose of showing that the other party is wrong, and therefore it is inherently a waste of time.

In general, it is because many people are afraid to admit they are wrong or the side they support may be at fault. They don't want to appear weak in front of others on the big bad internet.

- - - Updated - - -

It's disheartening how true this statement is.

That is partly why I created this thread. Hoping to open some eyes, if only a few. Most opinions will not be swayed as their personalities will not allow it.

[Travis B]

When someone links a Youtube video of some totally unknown person going on some crazy rant for 10 minutes and uses that as a source (which happens quite a bit on here), they deserve to be shamed.

[shimerra]

That is partly why I created this thread. Hoping to open some eyes, if only a few. Most opinions will not be swayed as their personalities will not allow it.

The irony of this post. My god it's delicious.

There are and have been bad sources and there will never be agreement entirely. But as was mentioned there's been a new wave, largely Trumpers, of smearing news sources that disagree with them as fake for that reason and only that reason. As someone mentioned the BBC is a good example of what is internationally considered an accurate organization criticized by fools for being fake only because they don't toe a specific ideological line.

Meanwhile blogs which are little better than he mentally ill homeless man. All sources aren't equal and bad ones deserve to be called out especially if someone is arguing from it. That doesn't always invalidate the claim but it sure gives excellent reason to question it.

[The One Percent]

"Every site that doesn't lean towards my political bias is fake and untrustworthy news" - Everyone, 2017