Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.
Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
I do pay some attention to my sources. For instance, if I'm looking to start a thread from a story I saw on The Blaze, I wouldn't use that source. I'd find it in mainstream. And if I can't find it there? It's probably a bunch of baloney.
I consider Fox News to be mainstream. Unless it's an editorial, anyone calling a poster for a Fox News story is a bean head.
Edit:
If I'm looking for facts on abortion, I won't be using Planned Parenthood's sight. That'd be another example.
So yes, I do pay attention to my source.
Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.
Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.
Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
possibly C-SPAN, no othersWhat media sources do you consider neutral?
almost everybodyI was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
If I'm citing a news source, I'll use BBC or Al Jazeera. Why? Because **** Fox News, MSNBC, Infowars, Huffington Post, and so on. I'll find certain media sources less reliable, so I'll express my skepticism. I'll definitely be skeptical of MSNBC and Fox News because of a couple studies:Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
None. Ever.Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.
Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.
Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.
Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
I do pay some attention to my sources. For instance, if I'm looking to start a thread from a story I saw on The Blaze, I wouldn't use that source. I'd find it in mainstream. And if I can't find it there? It's probably a bunch of baloney.
I consider Fox News to be mainstream. Unless it's an editorial, anyone calling a poster for a Fox News story is a bean head.
Edit:
If I'm looking for facts on abortion, I won't be using Planned Parenthood's sight. That'd be another example.
So yes, I do pay attention to my source.
If I'm citing a news source, I'll use BBC or Al Jazeera. Why? Because **** Fox News, MSNBC, Infowars, Huffington Post, and so on. I'll find certain media sources less reliable, so I'll express my skepticism. I'll definitely be skeptical of MSNBC and Fox News because of a couple studies:
(http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/final.pdf)
(http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf)
I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?