Source/citation shaming

[Sunaka]

They're in "skews liberal" territory. There is no "non-bias" section, as even the sections on either side of the y-axis are labeled "minimum partisan bias."

To be fair, current HuffPo should probably be lower. And CNN should probably be closer to the line left of it considering the way they've handled things since late Dubya. When on point, CNN should actually be higher than they are, but that's not how they've been handling things for a long while now.

[Allybeboba]

Simple statement rules here. Not everything on the internet is true.

In general, here is a good graphic to let you know the quality of common news sources:



I don't care if you are sourcing your news from Breitbart and Infowars, or Natural News and Addicting Info, those are garbage sites...and people who think that there is good information on such sites deserve to be ridiculed to some extent.

If you are sourcing important information from either The Huffington Post or Fox News, you really need to find secondary (and much more reliable) sources. Both are known for some of the fake news out there, but more commonly they are missing important pieces of context that results in a twisted view of reality.

Keep in mind that any news source can be wrong from time to time. So despite idiots who think all mainstream media is fake news, much of the mainstream media is not trying to deceive people...it just that sometimes the quality of their journalism isn't as good as they want to believe (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post).

For quality journalism stick to the circle labelled "Great in-depth sources of news", and I would recommend using all of them. I also strongly recommend that you take the time to read entire articles as there are too many people that want to pull out a line here or there and twist in their minds until that line doesn't match the point of the article when taken in context.



It really depends on your source. If you are using the bottom tier of news sources, then you really need to improve those sources. If you are using the upper tier of news sources, then ignore the idiots who think all news sources are fake.

I have seen that info graphic before. It is quite informative.
Sadly, a great many links on this site come from the "bottom tier". Maybe you should link the source of this info graphic it might make it more 'credible' to some of our dear readers that might find fault with it.

[Naxere]

I've seen people rip links from Fox News that contain basically the same information as an article posted on another site (that Fox might've quoted from in their article). It's hilarious.

[Allybeboba]

I've seen people rip links from Fox News that contain basically the same information as an article posted on another site (that Fox might've quoted from in their article). It's hilarious.

Some people's pure hatred is quite humorous.

[Krigaren]

My favorite is when Mark Levin cites his own books as source material. I'm totally down with shaming him for that.

[Beet]

Saying Fox isn't fake news but that politifact blatantly lies. What world do you live in or how many drugs are you on?

I said they're not entirely fake news. I know you're biased and it's hard to swallow that Jon Stewart wasn't always right when he lambasted Fox News. Fox News is the same as CNN. They do have real reporting but they also have their bullshit and are biased. You just have to read the information and it's not hard to judge for yourself. And yes politifact is about as credible as Info Wars. Okay maybe not THAT bad, but they've lied so many times. You should do some google searching on the subject. They'll rate democrats as Mostly True for the exact same statements they've rated conservatives Mostly False on for example. The one nice thing is they'll edit this if you call them out on it, but it shouldn't need to be called out on.

Another example of them is how they'll rate something False then say the numbers were correct, but the source didn't give reasons for said numbers. That's just hilarious.

I wish more people would wake up to these biases and stop pretending that their favorite media is the good stuff while what the opposite side likes is all lies. But I don't suppose that will happen anytime soon.

[Anon56]

CNN isn't on the same level of bias as Fox news

Yes, they are. It's only your own pov that make it looks like it's not the case to you. Nowadays most sources come from newspapers, a newspaper or a journalist is often aligned. If said source is not aligned with your own pov, you can just discard them as unreliable or non credible and another source more aligned with your pov will probably give you some reasons to do so, yet it doesn't mean you're right.

That's one of the main reason wikipedia is turning to shit.

[Mormolyce]

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.

This is the single funniest thing I've ever read in all my long years on internet forums.

[Dr Assbandit]

Or the BBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP....

Fake news is fake news.

[Deathquoi]

Yes, they are. It's only your own pov that make it looks like it's not the case to you. Nowadays most sources come from newspapers, a newspaper or a journalist is often aligned. If said source is not aligned with your own pov, you can just discard them as unreliable or non credible and another source more aligned with your pov will probably give you some reasons to do so, yet it doesn't mean you're right.

That's one of the main reason wikipedia is turning to shit.

No, they aren't. Show me something from CNN that was as journalistically irresponsible as the Seth Rich bullshit that Fox recently ran with.

[Dr Assbandit]

CNN isn't on the same level of bias as Fox news. Not even close. The fucking irony of you telling people to wake up.

I'd actually disagree. News segments aside CNN's articles are hard to take seriously when they start trying to appeal to your emotion rather than use facts. An example being there are plenty of things to criticize the president on, CNN however thinks it's important to focus on absolutely asinine articles based purely on speculation.

[Super Kami Dende]

Funny. You guys make that list longer every time you post it.

Lists generally expand when things are added to it.

[Dr Assbandit]

Lists generally expand when things are added to it.

Except some of the sources listed on there as "fake news" is ridiculous and just plain brainwashing at this point.

[Aggrophobic]

Lists generally expand when things are added to it.

Yes, thats whats funny.
You keep adding to the list, not becuase the source is unreliable but becuase it has information you don't like.

[Beet]

CNN isn't on the same level of bias as Fox news. Not even close. The fucking irony of you telling people to wake up.

Yes they are. You just don't want to accept it because everyone on the internet has said how bad Fox News are. The only difference between Fox News and CNN is that Fox is more obvious in their bias bullshit. You should get out of your bubble. But nah go head and pretend that it's only conservative ran media that are biased or fake news. Liberals NEVER would violate basic journalistic principles right?!

[Deathquoi]

Yes they are. You just don't want to accept it because everyone on the internet has said how bad Fox News are. The only difference between Fox News and CNN is that Fox is more obvious in their bias bullshit. You should get out of your bubble. But nah go head and pretend that it's only conservative ran media that are biased or fake news. Liberals NEVER would violate basic journalistic principles right?!

Like I said to another poster, provide one example of something CNN ran that was as journalistically irresponsible as Fox's recent Seth Rich coverage.

[Powerogue]

Sources should be shamed. Not all information on the internet is created equal. If I'm citing something that's wrong as the basis of my argument, obviously it matters that it's wrong.

[Orange Joe]

This is the single funniest thing I've ever read in all my long years on internet forums.

To me the funniest thing is he seems to be doing this so everyone can be as woke as him. Since he doesn't seem to ever make mistakes.

[Machismo]

If your source is garbage, then it doesn't really help your argument. It's best to cite the original article, since most news sites will actually just rehash what the original put out. Now, there are many sources and sites that have been shown to be consistently incorrect, or spread misinformation. It's one thing to be biased, it's another to be downright disingenuous.

[Dezerte]

This graphic goes through some of the common biases we have, some which are very relevant to determining what makes a source credible.