• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Allowing blogs on media outlets irresponsible?

Fishking

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
43,134
Reaction score
16,114
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So we have a current thread running that is about a WaPo blog that provided false reporting (possibly lies) on a fund raising effort for a school by raffling an AR-15. One of the responses, and we see this a lot, was "It's in the blog section."

This happens fairly often. I think that's the thinnest of excuses for media outlets to run some pretty horrible stuff off of their blog platforms and act as if it really is much different. We all know they support it and use their platform as media to give more voice to things they wouldn't responsibly do otherwise.

This doesn't really fly as a legitimate excuse for me. They are either a media business, or they are not. Blogs can stick with places like Daily Kos, HuffPo, Breitbart, or whatever. None of the media sites that try to pass themselves off as having any kind of integrity should run it. They can still have their official opinion news programs and such but the garbage blogs need to go away.

Thoughts?
 
The responsibility for differentiating between opinion/blogs and news anchors fell on us a long time ago. What we need is more people trained in critical thinking and less anti-intellectuals.
 
The responsibility for differentiating between opinion/blogs and news anchors fell on us a long time ago. What we need is more people trained in critical thinking and less anti-intellectuals.

The doesn't change the fact that they are using their platform to spread trash and then acting like it's not their responsibility because "it's just a blog". Either they are a responsible news agency or they are not and then we should put them all in the same category as Breitbart.
 
The doesn't change the fact that they are using their platform to spread trash and then acting like it's not their responsibility because "it's just a blog". Either they are a responsible news agency or they are not and then we should put them all in the same category as Breitbart.

I see what you're saying and agree to some extent. But we cannot expect the media outlets to take care of that any more than we can expect the government to provide personal security. All we can do is be prepared, in the case of media that includes being careful about sources. There's no way media outlets give up the controversial and inflammatory opinions that feed them.
 
Placing something in the blog, opinion or ad section does not mean that the news staff believes it to be true or factual. You seem to want a news source to contain only facts and imply that if that source contains anything else, even clearly labeled (or placed) as "other than news" it is still to apt to be confused with (considered as?) news.
 
I see what you're saying and agree to some extent. But we cannot expect the media outlets to take care of that any more than we can expect the government to provide personal security. All we can do is be prepared, in the case of media that includes being careful about sources. There's no way media outlets give up the controversial and inflammatory opinions that feed them.

Then we should stop acting like a media outlet can distance themselves from being responsible for it and the "it's just a blog" doesn't work as an excuse. This also automatically puts them in the lower tiers of news sources and pretty much leaves us with no media outlets with a shred of integrity.
 
Placing something in the blog, opinion or ad section does not mean that the news staff believes it to be true or factual. You seem to want a news source to contain only facts and imply that if that source contains anything else, even clearly labeled (or placed) as "other than news" it is still to apt to be confused with (considered as?) news.

They provide a platform for it and therefor are condoning and supporting it. That's a fact.
 
They provide a platform for it and therefor are condoning and supporting it. That's a fact.

OK, then stop watching any channel that has misleading ads or opinions that you dislike. I will continue to try to discern fact from opinion or advertising hype. Keep in mind that the vast majority of media bias is simply by omission which means that the fewer sources that you view then the greater the chance that you will miss something important.
 
Then we should stop acting like a media outlet can distance themselves from being responsible for it and the "it's just a blog" doesn't work as an excuse. This also automatically puts them in the lower tiers of news sources and pretty much leaves us with no media outlets with a shred of integrity.

We must discern news from opinion. A college education is usually enough. Even those without college can generally manage some level of critical thinking. I don't think we should be claiming victimhood or blaming internet and cable news for difficulties, we should be empowering ourselves.
 
They provide a platform for it and therefor are condoning and supporting it. That's a fact.

They're providing an outlet for opinions because it makes them money. I'm not sure that should be construed as condoning and supporting.
 
OK, then stop watching any channel that has misleading ads or opinions that you dislike. I will continue to try to discern fact from opinion or advertising hype. Keep in mind that the vast majority of media bias is simply by omission which means that the fewer sources that you view then the greater the chance that you will miss something important.

I don't care about ads and they aren't really relevant here. That aside, I am perfectly capable of discerning fact from opinion. That doesn't change the reality that the media outlets are propagating irresponsible product and don't get to get a pass from that. Again, blog away but don't cry when the "fake news" gets dropped on them because their excuse shouldn't fool anyone. They want to be able to express exactly what's in their blog and use that as an excuse to do such.
 
They're providing an outlet for opinions because it makes them money. I'm not sure that should be construed as condoning and supporting.

If they provide the platform, that's both condoning and supporting. If they didn't, that platform wouldn't be provided.
 
We must discern news from opinion. A college education is usually enough. Even those without college can generally manage some level of critical thinking. I don't think we should be claiming victimhood or blaming internet and cable news for difficulties, we should be empowering ourselves.

These days people can barely be bothered to read past a title. You think they are going to care if it says blog or not? You think reading a blog on the NYT or WaPo isn't treated with more credibility than reading someone blog here on DP or on their Facebook or something?

The reality is, it's doing exactly what they want it to do with the weakest of excuses to distance themselves from it.
 
If they provide the platform, that's both condoning and supporting. If they didn't, that platform wouldn't be provided.

I disagree. Providing a platform for free speech does not condone or support the opinions of those taking opportunity to speak out.

Is giving a protest permit condoning or supporting the protesters' message?
 
Last edited:
These days people can barely be bothered to read past a title. You think they are going to care if it says blog or not? You think reading a blog on the NYT or WaPo isn't treated with more credibility than reading someone blog here on DP or on their Facebook or something?

Depends who wrote it, given their real name is attached. Anonymous opinions are only as credible as the supporting evidence, logic and reason provided.

The reality is, it's doing exactly what they want it to do with the weakest of excuses to distance themselves from it.

It's clearly marked 'opinion'. Anyone should feel free to dismiss an opinion, no matter where it's published or who wrote it.
 
I disagree. Providing a platform for free speech does not condone or support the opinions of those taking opportunity to speak out.

Is giving a protest permit condoning or supporting the protesters' message?

They are a private organization and are not required to provide said permits. Providing permits, when required to by law, is fulfilling your duty.
 
They are a private organization and are not required to provide said permits. Providing permits, when required to by law, is fulfilling your duty.

But the concept remains the same. Providing a platform labeled "opinion, not ours" is not an endorsement of opinions. I get that they are likely to only allow raucous opinions in accordance with their lean but we cannot discount our ability, at least in theory, to not be victims of it.

I don't think we should protect people from it, I think we should educate people to be able to protect themselves.
 
Fact checking died a long time ago. Media outlets fly whatever fits their current agenda or narrative, the facts don't mean a darn thing. Just because they took information openly from a blog doesn't mean they haven't been doing it covertly for years.
 
But the concept remains the same. Providing a platform labeled "opinion, not ours" is not an endorsement of opinions. I get that they are likely to only allow raucous opinions in accordance with their lean but we cannot discount our ability, at least in theory, to not be victims of it.

I don't think we should protect people from it, I think we should educate people to be able to protect themselves.

Wait...I'm not saying they should be regulated out or restricted from doing such things. I'm just saying it's irresponsible and it ruins even the facade of integrity and impartiality. They may as well be barely one step up from tabloids.
 
Wait...I'm not saying they should be regulated out or restricted from doing such things. I'm just saying it's irresponsible and it ruins even the facade of integrity and impartiality. They may as well be barely one step up from tabloids.

They already are.
 
Wait...I'm not saying they should be regulated out or restricted from doing such things. I'm just saying it's irresponsible and it ruins even the facade of integrity and impartiality. They may as well be barely one step up from tabloids.

They basically have a tabloid section. People like it. It makes them money. It's up to us, especially in debate, to criticize sources.
 
The doesn't change the fact that they are using their platform to spread trash and then acting like it's not their responsibility because "it's just a blog". Either they are a responsible news agency or they are not and then we should put them all in the same category as Breitbart.
And you believe this behavior to be new?
 
And you believe this behavior to be new?

Depends on what you call new. Internet news is where this type of thing really took off and it hasn't actually be around that long.
 
They basically have a tabloid section. People like it. It makes them money. It's up to us, especially in debate, to criticize sources.

And you don't think it irresponsible of a mainstream news outlet to give a platform to tabloid trash, and not just leave it with the tabloids?
 
23 out of 24 posts on this thread so far are guilty of what the OP is complaining about.:lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom