danarhea

Note: To the mods - Thank you for giving me permission to broach the subject that you are now discussing, and allowing input from the rest of us members.

According to the rules of this forum, breaking news is for events which have occurred within the last 48 hours, and posts there are to be accompanied by a link to a news story. The problem here is determining what constitutes a news story. In the Breaking News forum, there have been a number of posts from a few members complaining about links from non-newsworthy sources, and there was a moderator's warning concerning a link from one of the members, because it was from a blog. My own issue is not the mod himself, who is a very good one, but only an honest disagreement with policy, and also the unintentional uneven application of it. While one poster was warned for posting a blog, another poster was not warned, even though his link was to a post on a bulletin board. Again, I know this is unintentional, as policing the forum is a tough job for you guys.

My input will be that blogs should be considered as news sources. My reason is that mainstream news cannot be considered as trustworthy as it once was, and so blogs are needed to keep the mainstream media honest.

My first piece of evidence is this link from Bradblog. It is in response to an article from the Washington Post, which carried the story that Patrick Fitzgerald had received a poor performance review, and used unnamed administration sources for that story. The problem with that story? It was untrue. Bradblog, in response, ran its own story, using sworn testimony from Kyle Sampson, which showed that Fitzgerald had been rated "very strong" internally in the DoJ.

So, which link is more credible? The mainstream Washington Post, or Bradblog? The answer is obvious, when you look at the sources each used. In that context, Bradblog is actually more of a credible source than the Washington Post, and it should be allowed as a link in credible news.

What about Raw Story? It's not mainstream, but the AP has admitted stealing its material about gays in the military, and using it without giving journalistic credit to Raw Story. That issue was aired a while back in this forum. So, once again, who is more credible? Yes, Raw Story should also be allowed.

At this point, I now take you back to this thread, in which someone kept complaining that it was not newsworthy, and a original poster ended up with a warning. Once again, the mod is not at fault here, since he was honestly interpreting policy. The following is my response in that thread.

So, at this point, what should the policy be? It would be impossible to make a list of what is allowed and not allowed, and that would also lead to some pretty bitter arguments from posters as to why their sources are not allowed, while others are. My suggestion would be for the mods to keep the same policy in place that they have now, that is, deciding on a case by case basis as to what is allowable. Posters should all use a little common sense as to what they link to. If a link is used that claims that President Bush and Hillary Clinton decided to make a space alien baby out of wedlock, that should be grounds to have the post moved, since common sense was not used in the posting. Most other sources should be allowable, as long as common sense dictates their use. Whether the link is from Bill O'Reilley's Newsmax on one extreme, or Truthout on the other extreme, we are actually going to find an occasional gem, because frankly, the mainstream media is just not doing its job. This fact makes it essential that other sources and blogs be allowed.

Finally, lets not forget what is driving this debate in the first place - Politics!! A few members in this forum do not want others to have the freedom to speak their minds, and are attempting to restrict what they can link to based on their own political ideology, not whether the link is relevant or not. But I believe you know that already, and will respond appropriately.

That's my 2 cents on this issue. Thanx for listening.

__________________
Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2012

Tashah

ThankQ danarhea.

To our membership and visitors,
The Moderator Team is in discussion concerning the rules and guidelines of the *Breaking News* forum. All members are welcome and encouraged to add their input on this subject right here in this thread. The Mods will take all member input and suggestions under advisement.

If any changes are made in this regard, a Notice will be posted in Forum News and reflected in the *BN* Rules and Guidelines sticky.

Tashah

__________________

Billo_Really

Although I liked danarhea's post, I object to the comparison between Bill O and truthout.org. I find truthout to be more mainstream with public opinion than the propaganda you see on FOX. And most of the articles on truthout.org are not from truthout.org.

As far as this discussion, what about the news one sees on TV? There is no link you can post, it is just as much news as anything else, if it is seen within the time limit, so how is that viewed? Or something you heard on the radio?

If it is truly breaking news, there should be enough corroborating sources out there to prove it's validity for some that question the threads newsworthyness.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

danarhea

Actually, my comparison was in contrast, to show Newsmax on the far Right, and Truthout on the far Left. It was not intended to disparage either site. Both sites are young, compared to the mainstream media, and in their eagerness to get a scoop, which is usually politically motivated, they do sometimes get it wrong. Don't forget how Truthout printed an "exclusive", saying that reliable sources had Fitzgerald telling Rove to get his affairs in order because he was going to jail. Turns out, Truthout screwed the proverbial pooch on that one. On the other hand, I have seen stories appear on Truthout, then a few days later, the mainstream media has picked up those stories. Same with Newsmax. They have also been involved in some major screw ups. But, occasionally, they also get it right, and the mainstream media finally runs with it. In both cases, I submit that the mainstream media will always leave well enough alone unless pushed, and that sites such as Newsmax and Truthout, along with the blogs, are the catalysts which force many legitimate news stories to the forefront.

Now why is this happening? Because the mainstream media no longer does investigative journalism. Because of that, sites like Truthout, Newsmax, and others, along with various blogs, have rushed in to fill the vacuum.

That, in itself, is a demonstration of one of America's strengths - As long as there is a market for something, it WILL be filled, whether it is a new car, food on the table, a football team, or a news story. Information will always be free to the American people, and the American people will never allow themselves to be dumbed down, unless they choose to be. With this right to the access of the free flow of information comes a responsibility for ALL Americans - To not only be aware of what is happening politically in America, but to get personally involved, choose a side, and become part of the great debate that America has been, is now, and always will be. Sides will be taken, we will always argue, as is our political nature, and in the end, we are still a free nation, with the freedom to speak our minds. And yes, because of this, ours is the only nation in the world where a revolution breaks out every 4 years, and no shot is ever fired. While we are heatedly arguing with each other, we might want to remember this.

In the end, though, it does come down to one thing - Who do you trust? That is, in itself, another discussion, and also a very good reason not to limit which sources are allowable in the breaking news forum.

Hope I cleared this up, Billo. If not, you can always call me a.... <insert any word which comes to mind here>

Billo_Really

Yeah, Jason Leopold really blew it on the Rove thing. I was wondering how much people were going to try to throw that in my face, but when I just came out and admitted he screwed up and the report was bogus, it took the wind out of all those sails. I love it when their ready for a fight and you just come out and say, "Okay, I f-ed up! Next question?"

Have you ever read "In the Abscense of the Sacred (the failure of technology and he survival of the Indian nations)" by Gerry Mander. One of the premises the book points out is that "...everything you see on TV, you're meant too!"

That's why I say let see it all and let the viewer (or reader) decide for themselves what they put stock in.

Simon W. Moon

On this point in particular, the blog was not breaking the news, rather it was commenting on a news story that had already broken and was linked to in the blog.

When a blog links to news story it seems that it's more fitting for the news story (as opposed to the blogged commentary) to be credited.

As I noted in that thread, there are exceptions when citing a blog is the appropriate course of action (eg when a blog actually breaks the news).
However, when a blog merely links to a news story (as opposed to breaking the story) the blog is not the correct item to link to- in that case, the original breaking news story should be credited.

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

Gardener

IMO, the difference between a legitimate new source and one that isn't legitimate is that the former reports the news and the latter influences perceptions. It's a tough call,of course, as news is an admixture of both to varying degrees, as is so much in evidence with Reuters fabrications and Fox spin.

I wouldsay,though, that if the bulk of the information at a website reports events, it should be considered as a news source. If the bulk of information is commentary and especially if that commentary shows a consistant pattern of denigrating a group of people, then it isn't a news source.

I know my view here is decidedly more restrictive than most here, but news should be news and delivered according to basic journalistic standards -- Who, what when, where, how, and to some degree why. This news should be corroberated by other sources if possible, and depicting a real event.

I'm not saying people should be restricted from posting their various pieces they post, but if it is just some conjecture from the blogosphere,it belongs in the conspiracy forum or the bias in the media forum or any other forum to which it might apply.

danarhea

Excellent point. What about the circumstance where the blog itself does link to an original news story, which is membership limited (i.e. New York Times)? Should an exception be made there? Otherwise, we have no story.

Chanda

The blog wasn't breaking the news, but the news was breaking. If several sources report a breaking story, isn't it acceptable to cite any of those sources? Is it necessary to cite the first source to break the story?

More fitting, probably, but if the blog links to the original source, that source does get credit, even though indirectly. The fact that the blog links to the original source gives the blog credibility, and I believe, it is a factor that should make it acceptable as a source.

__________________
When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always.---Mahatma Gandhi

Simon W. Moon

You have painted with a very, very broad brush.
Where would you draw the line?
In your estimation what would not qualify for the BN forum?
Is there anything that would not qualify for inclusion?