Look, I don't care if your right or left wing, STOP complaining about sources! It isn't discussion of the topic. It's a diversion tactic so as not to discuss something you don't want to agree with or isn't favorable to your side. We are all adults here right? So let's stop acting like there isn't this thing called Google, which is a search engine. The left is gonna use left leaning sources, the right is gonna use right leaning sources. It's not gonna change folks. If you don't like the source in an OP, don't ask them to provide you with one that suits YOUR taste, go find one yourself. It's not up to the OP to link to 300 different sources to satisfy 300 different viewpoints. The OP source is provided to alert those who are reading it to the story. If you don't like that source, Google your own source, don't (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan b/c the OP used dailykos or hot air or life news or huffingtonpost. You, as an adult have the capability to seek out multiple sources on any topic. Google will give thousands of hits on any news story out there. So stop stone walling discussions b/c you simply disagree with the facts or opinion in the OP. Discuss the subject and if you have personal issues with the source provided, go find a source YOU do approve of or simply don't post in the thread.
I see you point to an extent but I understand it from the other side too. There are a number of common sources used which have clear bias (in various directions) and are not above spinning and misrepresenting the facts in a particular way. If someone wishes to have an honest discussion about an incident or situation, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to provide a relatively neutral source of the core information. Of course, this typically comes from people who quite clearly aren't interested in an honest discussion but only about presenting a particular (usually negative) image of some individuals and over-extending that image on to a much wider group. The people directly opposing them are often only interested in the exact opposite too, but that doesn't make any of it justifiable.
You are totally right. But there are sources that clearly indicate that the poster giving them is wearing a tin-foil hat and thinks Prince Phillip is a shape-shifting reptilian. Do I want to waste my time discussing such sources other than in rather mean moments of comic cruelty? Probably not.
I don't even know why I bother subscribing to four newspapers. Sometimes I wonder if they're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. After all, how am I ever going to be able to confirm 99% of what I read?
You cannot "demand" that anyone accept a source. And besides, one source does not provide proof of the point being made. Sources Are provided as backup to support one's 'opinion'--emphasis being on opinion. It does Not necessarily make that opinion the truth. It's okay to point out that a source is biased one way or the other--as long as that's not your only point. If it is your only point then you may well be guilty of breaking the meta post rule. But you are correct that just complaining about a source and not engaging in any other debate or discussion is not a good idea.
That is exactly what I am talking about. And on general complaining of sources, it's still lazy. Go google one if you don't like the one provided. The OP isn't here to cater to the likes/dislikes of people whining about their source.
It's understood that anybody who follows politics has a clue which are more mainstream then others. If you don't like the fringe sources, go google something less fringe. Or simply don't post about the source and just keep to the subject matter.
On that point it should be noted that this is an international forum, so it may be that not everybody is aware of the background of various sources from the USA, for example. It should not be assumed that everyone will be familiar with all of the available sources out there, even if they do 'follow politics'. It should also be noted that the moderators aren't in the business of deciding what sources are 'legitimate', 'trustworthy' or 'permitted' - it is something that members can and should consider and discuss for themselves AS PART OF DISCUSSING THE TOPIC, and it can be an important aspect to discuss. Pointing out the potential flaws in a certain source is a perfectly legitimate part of discussing a topic, if the source is being used as justification for an expressed opinion. However, it is PART of discussing a topic, not the topic itself. Nobody should be 'demanding' things repeatedly of other members, or simply posting nothing but repeats of the same points about the source being used - that kind of thing could be viewed as off topic thread derailment (by posting multiple posts with essentially the same meaning that don't contribute to the actual topic discussion), or in extreme cases even as flamebait or harassment of the member who posted the source originally (if the demands are constant, and/or offensively constructed). Note this rule, which is relevant to the above: However, that does NOT mean that sources can't be examined or question, or that people aren't allowed to suggest that a source may be so flawed that is not credible evidence of what a member is claiming that it is credible evidence of, and nor does it mean that people can't suggest that alternative sources should be provided as a result of that, and nor does it mean that the person who posted the source can't suggest that those who question it should find an alternative source to back up their comments. There is, though, a big, big difference between suggesting that a source is flawed and asking for an alternative AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF A TOPIC OR OPINION, and derailing or disrupting a thread by repeatedly dismissing a source or repeatedly 'demanding' another source instead of discussing the actual thread topic itself. I'll repeat the key phrase from the above rule:
I think the Hats comments are well intentioned. He is right that there is no such thing as a neutral source. But there are also sources which are worthless. You can't legislate against people using worthless sources, nor prevent people from dismissing them. What we could have on here...and this could cover how we speak to each other as well...is a voluntary code. We (that is any forum member of their own volition) could agree to a tighter set of rules and include that in their signature: 1. Not to ridicule mainstream sources (need to be defined but as a liberal I would say it should include Fox for example) but to criticize them with other sources. 2. To try and see and understand the point that is being made that you are debating with and not to misrepresent the other person's point of view for the childish objective of "winning" an argument. 3. Not to engage in hatespeech and inflammatory abuse by derogatory generalizations of whole groups is society or the world (Jews, arabs, black people...) (this is a forum rule but it is very seldom enforced) A voluntary code for people to sign up to when they debate with each other would result in much higher quality of debate. I would be very interested, as a liberal, in debating with conservatives and socialists who would sign up to this very brief code of debating. The enforcement of such a voluntary code would be by its members reminding each other of their obligations. There would be no enforceable sanctions of course.
I'm really new here, but I really appreciate your suggestions, and I totally agree that, if enough people agreed to these voluntary rules, the quality of debate and the cross polination that can occur between opposing points of view among people of good will could be very interesting andrewarding.
