Census Agreed upon sources in the Politics thread

This topic of conversation has come up several times in the thread, and I feel like it would be a good idea to actually get a poll going on it.

As the title says, the question is:
Agreed upon sources in the Politics thread​

This would basically boil down to deciding, as a whole, what sources that lean left, right, and center are reputable in their reporting so people on both sides of the divide have a common basis to work from without skewing far left or far right in our sources.

@anakinfansince1983 @Dread Pirate Roberts

 

https://www.sportfishingmag.com/

 

Rule one of JCC: Never do serious polls.

 

People like J-Rod will always go to sites that confirm their bias. They'll ignore the listing regardless, so why would you try to officiate it?

Who decides official, too?

 

I do not comment on the politics thread much, but I am going with no on this one. I understand that it would make things a lot easier, but at the same time, I think any source should be allowed as long as it's not promoting someone's death or something of that nature. Debates need a varied amount of sources and it is up to the reader of that source to determine if it is too biased to be trusted. All news is biased in one way or another, but as long as it's not fake news (legit fake news) it should be allowed. I enjoy seeing people's different opinions and I hope this is not stifled in any way. Well as long as it does not break TOS.

 

Probably a vote between members.

 

That assumes equality of opinion.

 

I mean, you have people like @Dread Pirate Roberts and @anakinfansince1983 who are willing to put off sources that confirm their bias that don't conform to journalistic standards. I think we, as a community, can make it work.

 

I only trust https://heatworld.com/

OMG @Darth Punk, do we make a Hollyoaks thread?!?!

 

OK but on what basis is the community agreeing? Is this based on a general tertiary education approach to sources? It it discounting tabloid press, which in some instances have been the papers that blew open scandals other papers couldn't get close to? Is it based upon pedigree in investigations to date, and if so does that factor in cost cutting and other measures in the print media space?

 

I have people on the far-left (or, for Ender so he doesn't get pedantic, the AMERICAN far-left) say, with all seriousness, that there are no sites to use except a couple of people on YouTube "telling it like it is" or listening directly to Bernie or Noam Chomsky.

 

It gets harder because there are sites that both do their own work AND act as aggregators in their articles on the same site (i.e. most of GMG). Generally it's a false dichotomy though, as you'll get enough people on the left AND right who post from places like usuncut (defunct now) or breitbart. Hell, FOX News doesn't even call itself news, so you'd never get agreement from anyone outside of your own political spectrum...

 

I’d be in favor of restoring a basic rule of no posting a link w/o discussion. The larger debate around Senate / JCC was cultural assimilation, but I believe we’ve moved beyond that argument, and there are many threads that have individual rules of participation.

 

But my point is fundamentally you're asking people to either adhere to a list that they can't, because they're in an echo chamber and if they were aware of this presumably they wouldn't be. I'm also not convinced we've anyone close to expert enough to identify the validity of sources objectively. What you're trying to do is create barriers to entry for discussion, only you don't quite realise that is what you're doing. Moreover, you're setting a baseline you're not qualified to set.

If you want to highlight nonsensical sources for being nonsense, you need to make an argument as to why to the person using them. Not simply create another line in the sand to disengage them further.

EDIT: I am in favour of a modified version of the no link without discussion piece. The basic rule of thumb should be "links are not discussion", because there can be a time when "hey guys, SOTU is live: https://www.thisistheend.com/" is a viable post. But the mere fact that a story has hit your sphere of consciousness - through social media, RSS, whatever - is not in and of itself post worthy.

It's also not a contribution to merely post the link and add nothing to it. Hence, not making links a substitute for posts. But, are you going to enforce it at a moderator level?

 

I love you, and also yes, for the elegant simplicity of Fleet St.

We know the Daily Mail is good for a laugh or to understand what anti-Islamic buzzwords the populist right of today are using.
You just know the BBC will always be accused of bias, by all parties.

The Grauniad will have an unedited (no, literally) left wing bent unless it's Owen Jones writing in which case you can practically smell the musky odours of Jeremy Corbyn's freshly kissed bottom.

And, of course, the Times will have that air of disappointment in the ramshackle policies of the left that only the British centre-right can muster.

 

This could very possibly not work at all, but why pull the plug before seeing any results?

Thanks @Outsourced for taking the initiative. I hope we can give this a shot.

 

I do see what you're trying to do here, but I think you need to trust me that I have some experience in this area and it will simply not work out as you hope. The best thing you can do is make a call that a) links aren't sufficient in and of themselves as a Senate tagged post, and b) if you're asked to PPOR, post proof and that media sources > blogs. You could also c) ban Brietbart since it's a blog with links to fascist and Nazi sympathisers, for lolz.

 

Well duh.

 

You're right, what could I possibly know about running Senate discussions and sources?

 

It's "Breedbart".

 

"Breebrt"