Proposal: a moratorium on starting threads sourced with News Corp political articles?

[bascule]

I would like to propose an informal moratorium on starting threads with News Corp articles. That's not to say that you shouldn't reference a News Corp article in the original post of a thread, but rather that you shouldn't let a News Corp article provide the exclusive content upon which a thread is started.

 

Examples of News Corp sources would include: Fox "News" (cable channel, web site), Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Weekly Standard

 

Is this an ad hominem against News Corp? Just because a News Corp-owned organization authors an article doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I certainly can't defend that position.

 

However, I have noticed many threads which have generated unneeded, vitriolic discussion due to how News Corp sources have framed the article. To reiterate, this doesn't necessarily make the articles themselves wrong, however they have been authored to fit a preconceived narrative. Ample evidence of said preconceived narrative can be found in this thread.

 

The problem with starting a thread using a News Corp source is that this narrative translates to and ends up dominating the discussion, until such time that the particular arguments made in the course of the thread manage to eventually unravel the News Corp narrative and everyone realizes it's much ado about nothing.

 

An example of such a case where News Corp presenting an event within the context of their narrative can be found in this thread: Obama: No Nukes- Even In Self Defense. The title was pinched by the OP from a Fox headline, a headline they have since revised after I suppose Fox themselves deemed it too wrong to keep in in circulation. Much of the thread focused on the discussion of nuclear retaliation against bioweapons, something Obama, in fact, kept open, despite ample discussion on the Fox cable channel to the contrary.

 

This is just one of many examples and I would love to bring up more examples throughout the course of this thread illustrating why letting the News Corp narrative dominate the discussion is counterproductive.

 

So, if people were to jump on this proposal, what should they do?

 

If you wish to include a News Corp source in the original post of a thread, include other sources as well. Post common themes between multiple news sources. Provide your own opinion about he matter rather than providing News Corp's opinion verbatim. Avoid quoting News Corp sources in the title of your thread.

 

If someone starts a thread citing only a News Corp source, provide additional sources, commentary, your own opinion, and gently remind the poster that News Corp is not a traditional news organization and is attempting to foster a particular narrative in which they present news which is not objective and in many cases can lead to counterproductive discussion. In extreme cases it may be necessary to start a new thread which presents a particular world event or point of interest outside the News Corp narrative. I hope this does not violate the forum rules as I certainly wouldn't want to advocate that.

 

The goal of eschewing News Corp when starting threads is to facilitate original independent thought and opinion when starting threads and avoiding having News Corp invective dominating a thread right off the bat. By doing so and providing a less biased, more ecumenical perspective derived from multiple news sources we can have a more happy and productive forum on world issues.

 

What do you think?

[Pangloss]

I'm not really seeing a problem in need of a fix here. Aside from your thread asking if Fox News is a legit org (which one could understand would need to contain an FNC source), I only see thread starts that include other sources in addition to News Corp sources, and only a couple of those. So I think generally people understand that starting a thread based on a single, possibly biased source is a bad idea. Nor have I seen a lot of (or really any) outcry over provocative thread starts. I don't think we really have a history of trouble in this area. It's my general impression that it's really replies that lead to Reported Posts on the Administration board, for example.

 

I also see value in some degree of "provocation", if it challenges and motivates a lively (but civil) discourse. Note that I have never protested your use of the word "teabaggers", your regular posting of inflammatory images of right-wingers, or your regular posting of videos from The Daily Show that ridicule conservatives. Are those okay just because conservatives are in the minority here, so there are fewer people who'd become outraged?

 

(Just as a side note, I also have a problem with lumping the Wall Street Journal in with the New York Post, etc. Ownership by News Corp has not yet, to my knowledge, radically changed that organization, which has always had a conservative editorial perspective anyway. And why would they? It legitimizes conservatives viewpoints if it remains detached and aloof from the fray down in the trenches.)

 

But anyway, that's my opinion (since you asked). But I'd be happy to listen to what others have to say and I'm sure the other mods and admins will be happy to listen as well. I do wish you'd stop posting polls that make people's votes visible because I don't think the software makes it clear enough to the voter that their vote will be visible, and I think that opens people up to potential ridicule.

[padren]

I think people can spot it when they see it and challenge the bias within the content, or post alternative sources. If someone wants to start a serious discussion on a topic, and they know most people here do not find Fox News especially credible, it's in their interest (and really, it's in all our interests in general) to post multiple sources.

If someone doesn't want to start a serious discussion but vent to a bunch of "liberals" using News Corp as the smoking gun for their diatribe then it's an issue that won't be solved very effectively by this solution.

 

At the same time, I think we have discussions about the quality of the media and bias as their own threads often enough, and am more concerned with threads derailing into "Oh not FNC but why can you post TDS/CR/MSNBC/CNN/BBC/etc" territory. Overall we have a pretty good idea of how to source material in a manner that will be considered credible across the spectrum and how people here will feel about various sources, including where we tend to disagree.

I think it would be more prone cause rehashing of old disagreements than progress on the merits and faults of any given topic at hand.

[ParanoiA]

The goal of eschewing News Corp when starting threads is to facilitate original independent thought and opinion when starting threads and avoiding having News Corp invective dominating a thread right off the bat.

 

Despite the obvious hypocrisy of a tea party obsessor and political provocateur actually possessing the nerve to complain about invective, it would only seem like a good idea if you adopted a multiple source mandate - at least 3. CNN and MSNBC aren't any better than Newscorp. I've seen more political hacks on those networks than anywhere else.

 

That said, Newscorp has been, and is planning for a subscription based format. They don't like giving away news online and bending their model to fit in the modern world. Murdoch has stated this openly. I will link this interview tonight if anyone is the least bit interested in that.

 

Point is, their time is likely limited for linking. Subscription based sources aren't the best for open forums. And their website is uber slow anyway. I have no idea what is going on in the back ground, but when you load of page of mainly text and it takes two minutes before you can even scroll, for crying out loud, then something is wrong. I'm getting the same thing at CNN too.

[iNow]

I keep thinking also of Drudge report... how they select very specific stories and give them intentionally provocative titles which help reinforce a particular narrative.

 

 

it would only seem like a good idea if you adopted a multiple source mandate - at least 3.

This is a very good idea, but like posters above... I'd rather shred nonsensical sources within the thread than mandate it. Seriously... What fun would it be if we didn't have any Fox News inspired pinatas to swing at?

 

 

I did, however, vote yes since you put in the term "unofficially" before "be banned." Unofficially, we should all strive to do multiple sources and confirm the accuracy of our core point before taking a flawed story and running with it... but people just won't do that. It's like hard en' stuff.

[jryan]

Would anyone have a problem blocking new threads started from articles from the New York Times, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, AP, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tirbune, Miami Herald, The Denver Post, The Boston Globe, CNN, NPR, Air America, FiveThirtyEight.Com, HuffingtonPost.com, Slate.Com, and a myriad of other openly liberal blog sites?

 

Since we're interested in ridding ourselves of bias thread topics...

 

Edit: While we are at it, how about we also cut out threads that start with a news article from any journalist shown to have a bias in either direction... we can scan opensecrets.org for their donation history, do a statistical analysis of their article history and it's content, give them a score with 10 being most liberal and -10 being most conservative and rule out anyone that doesn't score a zero.

 

As such, I think this thread should be closed as it fails the bias test.[/sarcasm]

 

My answer is no to the original question. If the source is biased and is bending over backwards to prove a preconceived belief then it should be fairly easy to spot and correct.

 

I would propose a counter measure that would disallow anyone from rejecting an article in a response based solely on source. If you can't show why the article is wrong empirically then you have no businessing rejecting the article's content.

Edited April 28, 2010 by jryan

[ParanoiA]

I have written an article on dentistry by toothfairies. If you can't show why toothfairies can't clean and whiten teeth, then you must accept the content?

[jryan]

I have written an article on dentistry by toothfairies. If you can't show why toothfairies can't clean and whiten teeth, then you must accept the content?

 

You know what I mean, but I will make an exception that any article discussing toothfairies can be ignored without discussion... but it should still be allowed to be posted. I'll accept non-empirical proofs as well.

 

But the whole notion of limiting discussion topics to only bascule approved sources is almost as obscene a thread topic as murdering rich people to save the economy.

[iNow]

But the whole notion of limiting discussion topics to only bascule approved sources is almost as obscene a thread topic...

Nobody here has suggested any such thing happen, jryan... Not even close.

[jackson33]

Breaking News From FOX NEWS; Poll; Most Americans OK with NO protestants, on the Supreme Court....

 

 

Overall, 70 percent of American voters say it wouldn't matter to them if there weren’t any justices with a Protestant religious background on the court, while 27 percent say it would matter.[/Quote]

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/27/fox-news-poll-okay-protestants-supreme-court/

 

I would like to propose an informal moratorium on starting threads with News Corp articles. That's not to say that you shouldn't reference a News Corp article in the original post of a thread, but rather that you shouldn't let a News Corp article provide the exclusive content upon which a thread is started.[/Quote]

 

bascule; Since this was a Fox Poll, also saying about 45% would be satisfied with an 'atheist' on the Court, knowing the general sentiment of those on this forum, their is NO other source for this, that your members could voice the above thread headline. I'm only surprised that thread has not already been offered, well maybe not, 9 out of 10 members don't believe they are a NEWS source to begin with...another of your polls....

 

It continues to amaze me, the interest paid to how posters back up their opinions. Doesn't anyone know how to search on google, there must be 100K links, saying the earth is flat and that's all there is to it....does that mean the earth is flat? Going multiple sources, to back any controversial issue, is not always possible, IMO especially on Political issues. Then as I've said 100 times, when anyone states their opinion, whether I disagree or not, I already have a good idea where it came from, usually never from any News Article. Where they are from, educated, family history, economic status and age, form ideology not ever a single new item....

 

Murdock himself (Head of News Corp) is a 1950's version of a Conservative, not even close to today's version (Rogers Ailes, head of FNC) and as he say's "deals in ratings". A couple years ago he sent out a memorandum, telling all divisions to go green in the operations and has been remodeling every studio to that end. The WSJ, that I've subscribed to for 40+ years (on and off) has not changed or if anything promotes a more liberal view of economic news, than it ever has, that's opinion....

[ParanoiA]

You know what I mean, but I will make an exception that any article discussing toothfairies can be ignored without discussion... but it should still be allowed to be posted. I'll accept non-empirical proofs as well.

 

But the whole notion of limiting discussion topics to only bascule approved sources is almost as obscene a thread topic as murdering rich people to save the economy.

 

Yes I do know what you mean. Thanks for handling my adolescence so calmly.

 

And don't let the rich bashing bother you too much. I tried to include the better result of killing off the poor. As much as your assumptions are challenged, you would do well to challenge theirs.

[jryan]

Yes I do know what you mean. Thanks for handling my adolescence so calmly.

 

And don't let the rich bashing bother you too much. I tried to include the better result of killing off the poor. As much as your assumptions are challenged, you would do well to challenge theirs.

 

 

Well, see, my thoughts aren't assumptions as we have all of history with which to judge such strategies. I see plenty of fine economic counters to the premise of that thread, and have registered my judgment of it's repugnant nature several times. If someone wants to challenge my belief that the whole idea is reprehensible I suppose they can challenge me.... but in this case half of that thread's premise falls into the "toothfairy" category for me and others have handled the economic side already.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nobody here has suggested any such thing happen, jryan... Not even close.

 

I guess you didn't read the OP then, iNow. Because bascule has clearly stated that News Corp articles are bias (read: conservative bias) and should therefor not be allowed to be used in to start a thread by themselves without other bascule-approved news sources included.

 

The whole topic of the thread is predicated on bascule's view that News Corp is a bias source, and that there are sources that he prefers we all use instead.

 

Now you tell me what you think bascule said.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How about we just adopt the convention of sourcing news from two sources of different bias? That way we can compare the articles to see what's reported differently. No need for a ban on specific news sources, just a requirement that there's more than one source used.

 

It doesn't need to be a particular rule, just a convention agreed upon by people who post in Politics. If someone doesn't cite any other sources, it's easy enough for someone to search it on Google News and provide a link for those interested.

 

In fact, this is a good idea even if news sources were totally unbiased -- sometimes one article leaves out details that another includes, just for reasons of space or because the reporter thought them unnecessary. Citing multiple sources gives us a more complete picture.

[ecoli]

 

That said, Newscorp has been, and is planning for a subscription based format. They don't like giving away news online and bending their model to fit in the modern world. Murdoch has stated this openly. I will link this interview tonight if anyone is the least bit interested in that.

Newsday (owned by newscorp) has already seen this happen.. It's very annoying when trying to get local stories since they're the biggest Long Island-based newspaper.

 

I refuse to pay for this mentality, though.

 

I'm all for banning Newscorp purely on these grounds.

[jryan]

Newsday (owned by newscorp) has already seen this happen.. It's very annoying when trying to get local stories since they're the biggest Long Island-based newspaper.

 

I refuse to pay for this mentality, though.

 

I'm all for banning Newscorp purely on these grounds.

 

Well, therein lies a wholly different issue that essentially renders this thread moot. If New Corp plans to put it's news behind a pay wall then nobody will be linking to News Corp sources anyway.

 

The NYT and WP have had varying success with these pay wall formats, but I think they have been mostly abandoned. I think the NYT still uses a pay wall for some articles and archives, though.

[Mr Skeptic]

I would like to propose an informal moratorium on starting threads with News Corp articles. That's not to say that you shouldn't reference a News Corp article in the original post of a thread, but rather that you shouldn't let a News Corp article provide the exclusive content upon which a thread is started.

 

I think that

1) this isn't really much of a problem; also, putting up such a ban would be more trouble than what it would solve

2) this is over-specific. Posts are already supposed to not be provocative, and bad sources are already looked down on.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How about we just adopt the convention of sourcing news from two sources of different bias? That way we can compare the articles to see what's reported differently. No need for a ban on specific news sources, just a requirement that there's more than one source used.

 

Seems like a good idea to me.

[iNow]

I would like to propose an informal moratorium on starting threads with News Corp articles. That's not to say that you shouldn't reference a News Corp article in the original post of a thread, but rather that you shouldn't let a News Corp article provide the exclusive content upon which a thread is started.

 

the whole notion of limiting discussion topics to only bascule approved sources is almost as obscene a thread topic as murdering rich people to save the economy.

 

Nobody here has suggested any such thing happen, jryan... Not even close.

 

I guess you didn't read the OP then, iNow. Because bascule has clearly stated that News Corp articles are bias (read: conservative bias) and should therefor not be allowed to be used in to start a thread by themselves without other bascule-approved news sources included.

 

The whole topic of the thread is predicated on bascule's view that News Corp is a bias source, and that there are sources that he prefers we all use instead.

 

Now you tell me what you think bascule said.

 

Okay. I've added the relevant quotes above for context.

 

 

I think bascule suggested that... informally... we as a group should ask that posters use multiple sources when opening a thread. He referenced some of the bias we've seen out of a specific group to give clarity for his reasons for making this request.

 

Others are welcome to come to their own conclusions. Mine? I think you are unnecessarily misrepresenting his position and being a bit of a horse's ass.

[ParanoiA]

No, I think you are misrepresenting bascule's position and being a bit of a tea bagger about it.

 

jryan's opinion is not misrepresentation, it's his opinion. I share that opinion in this case, as I find the OP to be a transparent attempt to attack Newscorp, or really, Fox news.

[jryan]

Okay. I've added the relevant quotes above for context.

 

 

I think bascule suggested that... informally... we as a group should ask that posters use multiple sources when opening a thread. He referenced some of the bias we've seen out of a specific group to give clarity for his reasons for making this request.

 

Others are welcome to come to their own conclusions. Mine? I think you are unnecessarily misrepresenting his position and being a bit of a horse's ass.

 

No, bascule suggested, informally, that we use multiple sources when using a News Corp source. Had he simply made the suggestion that all new threads multi-source ALL stories then there would be no issue. In this case bascule is instead asking that we multi-source stories from a news source that bascule doesn't agree with. Which is rather ironic given the bias inherent in the suggestion.

 

The suggestion that we multi-source ALL news stories was made by someone else, and I could almost agree to that but for a few problems. I'll spell those out here as I think the latter suggestion is more worthy of discussion.

 

When it comes to multi-sourcing a news story, it may be worth considering that in many many situations you will find multiple news sources all reporting on the same AP or Reuters article. I would say that posting a NYT and Fox story on an AP report would not be sufficiently multi-sourced. Nor would it be sufficient to post an original piece in the NYT that is then reported on in the Washington Times or Washington Post.

 

If you want to truly multi-source a given news story they should be actual independent reports.

 

I would also ask for a moratorium on single sourcing blogs as evidence as well.

 

In fact, the only thing that should be single sourced is opinion, or sites that themselves provide a large spectrum of sources in their reporting. The good sites I would suggest are: Politico.com, OpenSecrets.org, FactCheck.org and RealClearPolitics.com. All of those sites, off the top of my head, do a pretty good job of providing a selection of news from many different political persuasions.

[Pangloss]

I think you are unnecessarily misrepresenting his position and being a bit of a horse's ass.

 

No, I think you are misrepresenting bascule's position and being a bit of a tea bagger about it.

 

Come on, enough of that. You started the invectives, ParanoiA, in post #4, so you can't really be surprised that they were responded to. Please try to remember that bascule is a substantial contributor and long-time member of this forum, same as you. Let's work with what he said, not what he might or might not have meant, please.

 

If it makes you feel better you can all call me a sadistic, hippophilic necrophile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(though I suppose that would be beating a dead horse)

[jryan]

 

If it makes you feel better you can all call me a sadistic, hippophilic necrophile.

 

I'd NEVER call you sadistic! (*ba dum bum*)

 

Thank's folks! I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses!

[jackson33]

Seems to me bascule, has objected to several sources on political issues from both sides the spectrum and as offered by others. However, I also think he has a particular bias opposing primarily FNC and apparently now Newscorp, which I've heard from other folks that simply don't like Murdock, one iNow being MA, from Australia on another forum. He has been a controversial figure in media, long before his entry into the US markets. The proposed moratorium, however is a suggested censorship, according to his viewpoints, which I also feel he has no idea how many sources that would actually involve, including reporters involved virtually everyplace on Earth. He and many others, have probably unknowingly quoted sources tied to NC.

 

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/news-corporation/holdings.html

 

It doesn't need to be a particular rule, just a convention agreed upon by people who post in Politics. If someone doesn't cite any other sources, it's easy enough for someone to search it on Google News and provide a link for those interested. [/Quote]

 

CR; Best I can tell, this has been practiced for several months. Where I would be asked to site a link for trivia, has been limited to a pointed comment, then where I've assumed was known by all and just misjudged. Then I have maybe twice ever asked anyone, anyplace for a reference to any thread I post under, knowing full well it's validity and/or where to find it if I wanted.

[ParanoiA]

Come on, enough of that. You started the invectives, ParanoiA, in post #4, so you can't really be surprised that they were responded to. Please try to remember that bascule is a substantial contributor and long-time member of this forum, same as you. Let's work with what he said, not what he might or might not have meant, please.

 

If it makes you feel better you can all call me a sadistic, hippophilic necrophile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(though I suppose that would be beating a dead horse)

 

Fair enough, but I was actually having more fun with it than it may have appeared.

[Mr Skeptic]

When it comes to multi-sourcing a news story, it may be worth considering that in many many situations you will find multiple news sources all reporting on the same AP or Reuters article. I would say that posting a NYT and Fox story on an AP report would not be sufficiently multi-sourced. Nor would it be sufficient to post an original piece in the NYT that is then reported on in the Washington Times or Washington Post.

 

If you want to truly multi-source a given news story they should be actual independent reports.

 

I guess it depends on if the objective is to verify the claimed facts, or to just minimize bias. So long as the same story is rewritten with a different bias (even if not independent confirmation of the facts), citing two sources with opposite bias would still help reduce bias.

 

Put another way, there's facts and there's opinion. Multiple opinions based on the same facts still has additional value.

[bascule]

I'm not really seeing a problem in need of a fix here. Aside from your thread asking if Fox News is a legit org (which one could understand would need to contain an FNC source), I only see thread starts that include other sources in addition to News Corp sources, and only a couple of those. So I think generally people understand that starting a thread based on a single, possibly biased source is a bad idea. Nor have I seen a lot of (or really any) outcry over provocative thread starts. I don't think we really have a history of trouble in this area. It's my general impression that it's really replies that lead to Reported Posts on the Administration board, for example.

 

The Obama / nuclear weapons post was really case-in-point for me. It was started exclusively with a Fox article. The article referenced contains some blatant factual inaccuracies:

 

"The United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against (those countries)," Gates said -- even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.

 

Which is wrong... Gates stated the US "reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy" in the event of biological weapons threats.

 

Unfortunately, because the Fox article was the only source cited in the OP, this lead to the following response by D H:

 

In Fox's defense' date=' this is quite a sea-change in policy. From the article,

 

[indent']"The United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against (those countries)," Gates said -- even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.[/indent]

 

The United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against (those countries)," Gates said -- even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.

 

That is a huge change in policy. The US military policy has been along the lines of an eye for an eye -- to attack in-kind. Use guns, and the US will strike back with guns. Use tanks, the US will strike back with tanks. Use weapons of mass destruction, and the US will strike back with weapons of mass destruction. Chemical and biological weapons are WMD, so per the rules of engagement, use of those kind of weapons justifies (demands!) a counterattack with WMD. We don't have chemical or biological weapons in our arsenal, but we do have nukes.

 

Which in turn lead to an extensive and rather heated discussion about this policy and nuclear versus biological threats. Meanwhile the article as Fox represented it is, well, wrong. Biological threats were called out as a possible exception.

 

The same Fox narrative (Obama wouldn't consider nuclear retaliation against a biological attack that kills millions of Americans!) can be found in the Hannity clip in the Daily Show coverage of Fox's response. Hannity is seen circle jerking with Newt Gingrich about doomsday biological scenarios and how stupid it is for Obama to take nukes off the table in that case. Except Obama didn't.

 

In my opinion, News Corp is willfully misrepresenting Obama administration policy in a coordinated manner.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Despite the obvious hypocrisy of a tea party obsessor and political provocateur actually possessing the nerve to complain about invective

 

I don't claim to be a news organization. Also, funny you mention the tea parties which are heavily fueled by the News Corp-sponsored 9.12 Project.

 

CNN and MSNBC aren't any better than Newscorp

 

If you really think that, you aren't paying attention, or since the News Corp narrative re-enforces your own opinions perhaps you simply don't find News Corp objectionable. However, my guess is if Rick Sanchez were to start backing a widespread political movement and used CNN as his platform to drive it, you'd probably take offense. However, nothing like that is happening at CNN or MSNBC.

 

I prefer news sources that, well, at least try to report the news in a somewhat object manner, instead of creating news items like the tea parties then "covering" them.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think that

1) this isn't really much of a problem; also, putting up such a ban would be more trouble than what it would solve

 

I'm not suggesting anything that would be problematic. I'm simply asking people to put a little bit more into an opening post than pasting a News Corp link, extracting a few quotes from that, and giving opinions specifically in response to those quotes.

 

If anything, I'm asking people to self-moderate here, or gently remind those who do create threads with Fox as the sole information source that Fox is not the most objective of news sources and probably not a good source to start a thread with.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

He and many others, have probably unknowingly quoted sources tied to NC.

 

I have quoted News Corp on several occasions, but I've decided to stop. News Corp is a problem for which the only solution, in my mind, is to tune out.

Edited April 29, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.