Verifying the info provided in the links you post here on DebatePolitics

Here's what I did after reading a headline that 'validated' my beliefs about some Republican politicians.

First the headline and the source. GOP Rep Asks Muslim High School Students: ‘Do You Beat Your Wife?’ found on AddictingInfo.org. Right off, I go - Wha? Why is the guy asking teenagers "do you beat your wife?"

Second, a side note. Last year, Ed Brayton, an atheist liberal who blogs at Patheos.com, posted a list of left-leaning sites that should not be linked to - or trusted without verification, AddictingInfo is in the list:

Please Stop Sharing Links to These Sites

The liberal side of the internet has a serious problem in the form of far too many websites that people mistake for actual news sites that use clickbait headlines and highly distorted articles to feed into the confirmation bias of their intended audience. And it works. Far too many people, including some of you I’m sure, are falling for it.
(. . .)
So why do so many people share this crap? Primarily because of confirmation bias, I think. They support Hillary (or Bernie) and hate Donald Trump, so if the headline says something bad about them, they’ll share it. If the studies are accurate, about 60% of them don’t even bother to read the article to see if it contains any evidence that matches the headline; if the headline fits the narrative in their head, they share it. Sadly, when you call them out for this and point out that what they shared simply is not true, or at the least is vastly exaggerated, they often get angry rather than being reasonable about it.

Click to expand...

The bolded phrase, I have found to be true for people all across the political spectrum, not just liberals.

Third, Look for links to other sites within the original post. For the example in the AddictingInfo post, there are several but the one I chose to check went to HuffPo as Huffington Post does tend to have somewhat more rational posts - even though it is 'left-leaning' Before Meeting With Muslim Constituents, GOP Lawmaker Asks If They Beat Their Wives In the article at HuffPo, I found a link to the Tulsa World, a real newspaper published in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Legislator requires Muslims who want to see him at Capitol to answer questions, including 'Do you beat your wife?'

OKLAHOMA CITY — State Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw, confirmed Friday that three Muslim students visiting his office on Thursday as part of Muslim Day activities were handed tracts that, among other things, asked: "Do you beat your wife?"

"CANT REFUTE FACTS!" Bennett wrote in an email. "According (to) her testimony in the Hadith (a collection of Muslim sayings and traditions), Muhammad physically struck his favorite wife for leaving the house without his permission.

. . . the students went to Bennett's office "to speak with him as Oklahoma citizens."

There they were given a two-page handout that included questions such as “Sharia law says that it must rule over the kafirs, the non-Muslims. Do you agree with this?”; “The Koran, the sunna of Mohammed and Sharia Law of all schools say that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?”; and “Mohammed was a killer of pagans, Christians and Jews that did not agree with him. Do you agree with this example?"

Click to expand...

The students did answer the questions but Bennett still refused to meet with them because - "unless they were from Bennett's House district, they "weren't welcome" to meet with him.

All of the checking took less than 5 minutes. In this instance, the original headline from the 'unreliable' source turned out to be an accurate statement, though this is not always the case. When a linked article/post/blog has no links to other sources, it must often be viewed as untrustworthy but some people who post here on DP seem to act in the manner Ed Brayton noted - if the words read seem to confirm what a person already believes then that person simply accepts the statement no matter how factual any refutations offered to them. There are also those who never click provided links simply because they know the linked site is biased against their personal beliefs.

Somerville said:

Here's what I did after reading a headline that 'validated' my beliefs about some Republican politicians.

First the headline and the source. GOP Rep Asks Muslim High School Students: ‘Do You Beat Your Wife?’ found on AddictingInfo.org. Right off, I go - Wha? Why is the guy asking teenagers "do you beat your wife?"

Second, a side note. Last year, Ed Brayton, an atheist liberal who blogs at Patheos.com, posted a list of left-leaning sites that should not be linked to - or trusted without verification, AddictingInfo is in the list: The bolded phrase, I have found to be true for people all across the political spectrum, not just liberals.

Third, Look for links to other sites within the original post. For the example in the AddictingInfo post, there are several but the one I chose to check went to HuffPo as Huffington Post does tend to have somewhat more rational posts - even though it is 'left-leaning' Before Meeting With Muslim Constituents, GOP Lawmaker Asks If They Beat Their Wives In the article at HuffPo, I found a link to the Tulsa World, a real newspaper published in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The students did answer the questions but Bennett still refused to meet with them because - "unless they were from Bennett's House district, they "weren't welcome" to meet with him.

All of the checking took less than 5 minutes. In this instance, the original headline from the 'unreliable' source turned out to be an accurate statement, though this is not always the case. When a linked article/post/blog has no links to other sources, it must often be viewed as untrustworthy but some people who post here on DP seem to act in the manner Ed Brayton noted - if the words read seem to confirm what a person already believes then that person simply accepts the statement no matter how factual any refutations offered to them. There are also those who never click provided links simply because they know the linked site is biased against their personal beliefs.

Click to expand...

This is a very good beginning to a very good way of guiding partisans through things that should not be warranted or welcome in a political debate, sadly it will go over most people's heads, and the rest will avoid it.

Somerville said:

Here's what I did after reading a headline that 'validated' my beliefs about some Republican politicians.

First the headline and the source. GOP Rep Asks Muslim High School Students: ‘Do You Beat Your Wife?’ found on AddictingInfo.org. Right off, I go - Wha? Why is the guy asking teenagers "do you beat your wife?"

Second, a side note. Last year, Ed Brayton, an atheist liberal who blogs at Patheos.com, posted a list of left-leaning sites that should not be linked to - or trusted without verification, AddictingInfo is in the list: The bolded phrase, I have found to be true for people all across the political spectrum, not just liberals.

Third, Look for links to other sites within the original post. For the example in the AddictingInfo post, there are several but the one I chose to check went to HuffPo as Huffington Post does tend to have somewhat more rational posts - even though it is 'left-leaning' Before Meeting With Muslim Constituents, GOP Lawmaker Asks If They Beat Their Wives In the article at HuffPo, I found a link to the Tulsa World, a real newspaper published in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The students did answer the questions but Bennett still refused to meet with them because - "unless they were from Bennett's House district, they "weren't welcome" to meet with him.

All of the checking took less than 5 minutes. In this instance, the original headline from the 'unreliable' source turned out to be an accurate statement, though this is not always the case. When a linked article/post/blog has no links to other sources, it must often be viewed as untrustworthy but some people who post here on DP seem to act in the manner Ed Brayton noted - if the words read seem to confirm what a person already believes then that person simply accepts the statement no matter how factual any refutations offered to them. There are also those who never click provided links simply because they know the linked site is biased against their personal beliefs.

Click to expand...

This has always been advisable, but it is now necessary. Even our better media have become rather lax in separating news from opinion and trying to show the whole picture. This is true for media of all leaninga.

joG said:

This has always been advisable, but it is now necessary. Even our better media have become rather lax in separating news from opinion and trying to show the whole picture. This is true for media of all leaninga.

Click to expand...

Absolutely how many people regurgitated Debbie Schultz and the Muslim guy sat down during the wife ref in the big don speech. Turned our it was cut and paste from a different occasion

You mean to say that not everything posted on the internet is true?

Who would have thought!

Actually, you can support nearly any position, however absurd it may be, by citing links to the internet. Winnowing out the truth from all of the BS is the hard part.