Naming Your Sources of Information

Sure, see the list of "acceptable sources" is listed in the same book that intructs people to be closed minded and leary and unbelieving of anything not listed in their book. You'll never actually see the list or the book because if you ask to see it they will accuse you of calling them liars. Ok, you didn't ask for sarcasm but I couldn't help myself. There is no list and I don't think it matters who is posting 'stuff', all that really matters is which side happened to come across it first.

Annie, While I fiercely disagree with many things you post, I must give you credit on the quality of your posts. As far as acceptable sources are concerned, "acceptable" is whatever the reader deems is credible. For arguments sake, the major news outlets are acceptable, and while slanted, I think the think-tank organizations are legitimate sources for putting a specific viewpoint out there as they do have a lot to lose for not using valid sources.

The really funny thing about snopes being rejected is that at least one of the chain letters going around about Obama includes a statement saying "I just checked snopes and it's all true!" However, when I checked snopes, the information turned out to be anywhere from misleading to false. I think most people recognize snopes to be a reliable non-partisan website, and I think the ones who don't share that opinion don't want to be "confused" by facts. The problem is that snopes doesn't address every single rumor that's going around. The guys who run it probably don't have the time to keep up with everything people are making up about Obama these days. However, I don't know what other sources you might use to get some of the conservatives to accept your information. I don't think you'll ever see eye-to-eye with the ones who think the mainstream news media is so biased that it can't be trusted at all.

I do not know about anyone else. But when I post about news, it hast to come from a ligitimate news source. I do my best to stay away from gossip. If it is celebrity news that I have heard, I may just post it for the fun of it. But when it comes to politics and other serious information, it hast to be credible. When I post news articles with a link, I try to do it as a Jounalist would. If you add a link, then you are proving what you are saying is true, only if your source is credible. I would never write about something from a tabloid magazine or anything like that. I have no idea what snopes.com is though.

I'm a librarian and spent years in school learning about authoritative sources. As a result, I'll attack any source that doesn't meet the criteria to be deemed authoritative. A lot of people like to cite wikipedia which is a joke since I personally could edit it and write that Obama is an alien from the planet Neptune. I think at one point Hillary Clinton's picture was replaced with a walrus on wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE wikipedia. It's just not a valid, authoritative source. Snopes is nice, and typically accurate, but still not authoritative in the official sense. They do cite their sources which come from authoritative locations which is why I'll generally accept what people get from their. Blogs are garbage as far as sources go and I'll tell that to anyone I see using a blog as a source to prove something is wrong with candidates. Unlike Wikipedia there is absolutely no oversight that would even try to validate what is written. Newspapers are better than blogs or wikipedia, but many have political spin and fail to tell the whole truth. I'm not saying they flat out lie (some do) they just omit certain facts that don't support their agenda. The most authoritative sites are often the most boring so people don't use them often. I have personally researched the claim that all the Democrats in the Florida legislature opposed changing the date of the primaries and that it was forced through by the Republicans. On the Florida Legislature website, there is absolutely NO proof of that whatsoever which is why I attack everyone making that claim that provides no reputable sources.

You don't need to prove anything to anyone here or anywhere else in life. You just keep stating your opinions about what eve you want. I say just ignore the people who give you a hard time. No matter where you go in life, including in mylot, you are going to come across people that just are nasty and mean. Ignore them. But in saying that, if you don't want people to disagree with your opinions, then don't state them. It is your perogative to say what you want and it is other people's perogative too. So let it roll off of your back and go on. This is just my opinion and since you asked for it, I am saying it. Thanks my friend for listening.

Hello Annie, As we all know, very few journalists or pundits are free of bias, even those who sincerely try. We are, after all, Human, and not machine. So, bias is to be expected. Hence, the reason why it becomes necessary to choose sources carefully. When I select a source, I consider the subject first. If it is a polarizing issue, I will try to seek out a source that makes an effort to present both sides of the issue. If no such comparative source is available, then I will seek out a source that provides limited commentary, and more of the journalistic basics: who, what when, where, why, and how. I tend to give more credence to articles that leave the deciding up to the individual. This tells me that the journalist wishes for the reader to make up his or her own mind. When possible, I try to go to 'the source', meaning the article written before the news wires pick it up, and adapt it to include their own 'bent' or commentary. That 'additional commentary' is none other than someone else's opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, right? In most cases, the source isn't nearly as important as how the news is presented. If it's presented factually, with relevant specifics included, then it is probably a good source. Though, sources have a history of either presenting the news, or commentary about the news. As such, reputation is a reasonable check/balance. In the same way that a good journalist checks his or her 'sources' for credibility before submitting the story. To consider obtaining source content from a news organization that is not free to employ objectivity would be unsound. Perhaps the lack of objectivity relates to government control as in the case of "The Islamic/Republic Wire", or sadly "Pravda". Or, because of publisher dictates that require the news be slanted toward the bias of its paying readers, like "The San Francisco Chronicle", the "Catholic Digest", or "WorldNetDaily". That is UNLESS that slant is the point of the post. Pertaining to the discussion that I believe you posted this discussion about, I will add that even "The Daily Kos" offered a much more objective presentation of the information than the SF paper. When credibility is on the line, I will effort myself to compare the news that I wish to discuss with known biased sources. For example: I recently posted a discussion about Hugo Chavez, using Venezuelan sources. To protect my credibility, and to confirm the veracity of the source, I took the few necessary minutes to hunt down the perspective of the recent events, as presented by an American Human Rights watch-dog. In doing so, I was more confident that the content had been previously disected, and found to be accurate. Granted, the commentary added by the rights group was indeed biased toward their objective. Though, that was not nearly as relevant as the fact that the news had already been disected confirmed. What I believe is worthy of mention is that we put our own credibility on the line, each and every time that we present a sourced discusion. As such, I believe that committing a little bit of time to make certain that our credibility will be protected serves our own interests, and the interests of the rest of the MyLot community.

I've leaned that since the advent of the internet, people will search out information that already supports their opinion. If someone believes that 9/11 was caused by bombs George W. put there himself, or that Obama is really Osama in disguise, they will find someone else who believes the same thing, then quote them here from the blogosphere. So, even if you quote from AP, or Snopes, they won't believe you, because their minds are already made up.

i dont think there are such things as acceptable or not(resources) it really depends on the veracity of information you had given and links as well...surely if you refer a link to it to verify your discussion then it could be true or acceptable...i dont think also that being acceptable depend on who post it..thats ridiculous then if that will be the situation here...

The only source I use and the only one I trust is the Annenberg Fact Check at the University of Pennsylvania. They are completely non biased. They take no donations and have no sponsors. It is funded completely from the estate of the late Walter Annenberg and it's avowed purpose is to provide folks with the facts so they can participate in political debate. It's an amazing source.

I'm not really sure. I think you should be allowed to use any good sources of information, no matter where you found it from. Every one of us should be able to voice our opinions here without bashing one another for it. I'm not sure what is acceptable and what isn't here anymore here though.

As I recall Annie, you got on me for bringing forth newsbusters for one discussion and then bringing in mensnewsdaily for another (also notice I've been "merciful" in regards to not bringing those forth at all in... what's in been 7, 8 months?). Some people will disagree with the sources being brought forth either on opinion or experience but I say, let them bring it forward. I at least appreciate the viewpoint and expression. Of course that won't stop me from countering what is being said same with some other members. I don't think there is a list of acceptable sources just people who will take it, read it, react to it or have different opinions on the source itself. I do like your question of what really makes for credible sourcing or even credible members and why is there a difference in reaction when brought to mylot (and other forums). Some members do bring forth items and they are not questioned while others face constant uphill battles. "Meanwhile, as most of you are aware, an hour doesn't go by without another new "forward" posted here from someone attacking one of the Democratic candidates, more about Obama recently than anyone else but there have also been plenty about Hillary and these opinion pieces and blogs have no credibility whatsoever, yet they're viewed as gospel." Pot look in the mirror before you meet kettle? The double-edge sword cuts both ways? I mean there have been "attacks" like this on everyone in terms of blogging and on mylot: Obama, Clinton, Shirley McLame, Bushwacker, Cheney... And also some people just have their opinion in blogs or discussions, others state items but do not provide references (again making the reader default to trusting the blog/discussion). Have these insults been happening more recently Annie? The last time I checked I thought things were more civil (keep in mind I've been gone for over a month).

Acceptable to me would be published articles written by journalists. Then we offer up our opinions on the subject at hand. I think more people respect what you say when you know what your talking about it. I would rather see solid journalism as a basis for discussion and then the opinion of the poster. There are some people I respect on here more than others when it comes to certain subjects and politics is your strong suit. I have learned a lot from you and I appreciate that.