It's never about the source .... it's about a particular sources bias to a particular story.
Does the reporter/web master have any credibility. Have they lied about the facts & twisted the figures to fit their own views.Here's what i said in the other thread.posting.php?mode=edit&f=6&p=115359
blackvault wrote:Rath, since you trash every source that's thrown at you, I'd like to ask this honestly.
You don't believe 1+1=2. You don't believe U.S. news agencies. You don't believe statistics. You don't believe in Santa Claus.
Tell me, what are your sources of information? What NEWS agencies do YOU get your information from that you consider clean, unbiased, and FACTUAL?
I look at all sources with a critical mind .... what is their agenda, what are they pushing. then i look at the ( WHO WE ARE link ) on their site. & then i look at their disclaimers at the bottom of their web page.
it does not matter who they are or where they are from as it matters not ... just so long as their facts are accurate & honest.
For example ....... it matters not whether the source is a big global news paper or news program. or a little independent run paper or web site.
The standard is the same (( Accurate & honest reporting of the facts & figures. )) fact is almost every journalist & news reporter / Web master will lie & misrepresent the facts when they are pushing their own agenda.
Let me ask you this ........
Why do most the people on the Black vault seek out news sources that only back their own view.
For example this gun debate thread.
Look at the links you all / i quote / link too.
All the pro gun members always link a source FROM THE USA that backs their claims.
( even if the source has made his/her facts up & lied about the figures )) ..... example The Australian Criminal Bureau.
( There is no such agency in Australia as the Australian Criminal Bureau )Yet when i post a link to back up my view / position ... do i take the easy path & just find an Australia source that pushes my view ... NO I DON'T.Example ...... the topic (( Japanese whalers on the move ))
Now i could have go a million anti-whaling news articles from Australian newspapers & news programs to back up my views. ....
Anti whaling story's are a dime a dozen in the Australian media. ( to easy ) ........ but instead i found a news story from a Japanese & British news papers so that the story & the views i link to remained impartial. Is the Source Impartial or not.
After you can answer that question. Then you can move on to analyzing they facts & figures.
But when the very first thing they right in a straight up lie. (( The Australian Criminal Bureau )) their credibility is already shoot.
So in short ....... the most important thing when using a source is that the source can be seen as impartial.
Im not going to trust statistics provided on gun crime provided by the NRA.
Im not going to trust a north Korean news story that claims they launched a rocket because they wish to put a satalight into space.
Im not going to believe Syrian claims that there is no uprising in Syria & that all is fine ( the Syrians love their President )
Im not going to trust reports about Iran on Palestine from Israel.
Im not going to trust a Pro Jewish news story's from the Israeli press.
It all comes down to Impartiality & credibility
Is it Arms lengths reporting.
Or is it just more Propaganda.Top 5 quotes from Walter J. Lippmann
“It requires wisdom to understand wisdom; the music is nothing if the audience is deaf”
"Where all men think alike, no one thinks very much."
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
“To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe.”
“Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.”