Source bashing soap box

[temporal1]

This thread is a place to come to share all your disgust about other peoples' sources.
Hopefully, it may help eliminate bunny trails from any number of member discussions.

Have at it!

[Signtist]

Don't ever quote the Ottawa Citizen to me. Other than that, carry on!

[temporal1]

This thread's alter-ego
Signtist's "Credible News Sources"
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=95

[temporal1]

o.no.
all of TNBaer's threads/posts on "The Mennonite" - lost in the great fire of 2016

[PeterG]

This thread is an excellent idea.

[Haystack]

http://lancasteronline.com/

Just recently I was shared a article they did with a headline of something a long the lines of "Amish Votes Elect Donald Trump". I see they have taken the article down, but it was drawing a lot of unnecessary bashing of the Amish and other plain groups. I see a lot of their Amish articles draw this type of hate from commenters such as "The ignorant mean heartless amish should just be made to get cars and keep the innocent horses off the road."

[justme]

This thread is a place to come to share all your disgust about other peoples' sources.

better use for this thread might be as a place to share all the disgust about other people's posts.

[lesterb]

This thread is a place to come to share all your disgust about other peoples' sources.

better use for this thread might be as a place to share all the disgust about other people's posts.

We need to revive the briar patch, or something similarly named so that people understand what it is for. Then we should enforce it that when debates get too heated they should go there. All of us have our ideas, and that's fine, but something like that might help the tone of the discussions.

[temporal1]

This thread is a place to come to share all your disgust about other peoples' sources.

better use for this thread might be as a place to share all the disgust about other people's posts.

We need to revive the briar patch, or something similarly named so that people understand what it is for. Then we should enforce it that when debates get too heated they should go there. All of us have our ideas, and that's fine, but something like that might help the tone of the discussions.

i agree with lester about the briar patch .. that was your brainchild, justme.
'was wondering if you would begin an MN version of it. it did serve a good, and healthy, community service. it changed somewhat, over time.

one thing i thought was wise about it, when i first joined, was, how you, justme, as moderator, would ask that skirmishes remain between the "principals" involved .. am i remembering that correctly (?)
it reminded me of how my parents would handle spats in our big family, to keep spats "contained," not giving them space to grow.

i may not have that exactly right, it was an early perception.

this thread, and Signtist's alternate thread, are already bringing some surprising observations, which may be helpful in unique ways.

the media IS under scrutiny, they've earned it!

it's interesting how topics, once begun, can take a life all their own.

what is going to happen in journalism/reporting, how it's taught, and how it's used, as a profession?
there is huge room for improvement, as Signtist points out in his thread's OP. i heartily agree!

the news industry is a for-profit business.
they have now gained so much distrust, people are no longer taking them seriously -
the 2014 primary election reflected this; this 2016 general election proves it.

what will be done to regain respect? i do not know.
i believe that answer is rooted in the Department of Education.

Signtist wrote, his OP:

A positive spin on T1's thread.
What are your favourite news sources? (Yes I just spelled it that way. Don't care if spell check thinks it's wrong!)

Which are most likely to present unbiased news?

I think if someone wants to make billions in the USA right now they ought to start a news agency where those writing/reporting get fired if someone can tell which way their bias runs.
I think it would be wildly popular.

In Canada the CBC is notoriously liberal, Sun Media (which some claim is nothing more than a tabloid) can be surprisingly conservative editorially speaking. Macleans seems to be equal opportunity.

strangely, and sadly, in recent years, journalists have been FIRED for presenting dissenting views/reports, not rewarded! we can hope that's about to be corrected.

[Jazman]

I guess meandering discussions are a no-no. Personally, I prefer fewer, but longer and even meandering threads over a proliferation of threads trying to cover every nuance, fork or slight in the "trunk" thread. The powers that be are welcome to move my take-down of LifeSiteNews here if it fits better or makes temp feel better...
Ironically, in prepping for this post, I checked LifeSiteNews again and saw this article, "Dear conservatives: we have a fake news problem (But don't worry, we can blame the media)" Seems that trump supporters tend to be the most prolific users/spreaders of such "news"..

"Buzzfeed reporters traced dozens of fake U.S.-focused news websites to the tiny town of Vales, in Macedonia. (Yes, that Macedonia.) There they found a group of apolitical entrepreneurial teenagers who had hit upon an unlikely path forward in the economically fragile country – exploiting pro-Trump Americans’ gullibility to generate web traffic, and ad revenue"

and

"that some of the Macedonian purveyors of fake news experimented with “left-leaning or pro-Bernie Sanders content,” but gave it up because “nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content.”

So I guess LifeSiteNews is not all bad... and temp can rest easy again

On a different but related note: What tips you off to sites that may be running fake, exaggerated or misleading "news"? I'll offer one:
- lots of click-bait ads, banners, videos, galleries etc not related to the article or even glaringly at odds with the sites content/values (like some conservative sites with pro-life, pro-family content but the click-bait around the content is salacious/immoral/etc.)