A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Credible sources

Posted: Dec 1, 2012

I am posting a new message because the old thread is so far down the board.

A credible source is one which is able to back up their statements with facts. This group does not include Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or CainTV. And believe it or not, even though I have always been liberal, I used to enjoy watching William Buckley and will sometimes read George Will. I wish that Buckley were still alive to give his opinion on the first group I mentioned because I know what it would be. Even Bill O'Reilly admitted a few weeks ago that commentators like Beck and Limbaugh are in the business of selling hate because they are making a lot of money doing it. I suspect CainTV will do the same because Herman Cain knows how to make a buck.

Even though I do watch MSNBC, I try to check out some of their statements on my own as they have also been known to exaggerate.

It's very difficult to get at the truth because we are constantly being bombarded with opinions in the guise of fact but there are too many posters on this board who don't even make the effort.

;

Depends whom you trust - -

[ In Reply To ..]
To illustrate my point, I'll substitute sources in your post:

"A credible source is one which is able to back up their statements with facts. This group does not include MSNBC, Huffington Post, ABC, CBC, or NBC."

No matter which source you trust I think it is important to....sm - VTMT

[ In Reply To ..]
recognize the difference between opinions/editorials and actual "just the facts" news.

Right. No source can be trusted to be correct in - all matters. Plus, "faith" that a source

[ In Reply To ..]
inappropriate. Trust has to be continually earned, and even sources approved in general need fact checking and confirmation by other sources.

Then, of course, they can all be wrong. Like the talking heads about this election. Of course. After all, every election they, as a group, are terribly wrong about something.

Semantics - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Trust, opinion, and facts are not synonymous.

You're one of the few who check out statements on your own and I respect that - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
I do disagree about Fox, though, because most of the time, they have videos and/or representatives from Congress (both sides) on their shows - I'm talking about Shep Smith or Bret Baier - those are the only 2 I watch for news. I sometimes put Meghan Kelley on because they usually break in with live news conferences from Carney, Obama, the dems or the GOP, but I'm usually on CSpan.

I don't have a radio to listen to Rush, don't get Beck on any station here, so they're out of the equation for me.

I do watch CSpan every day. I read government reports, financial pages, opinion pieces from both sides, TV station videos, etc., etc., watch This Week with George S., and Meet the Press with David G., but its still evident that those aren't credible sources to some posters here.

Your last paragraph hit the nail on the head and it's sad, but they're not the only ones. If you check out any comments under stories you read on line, it's all over the country, not just on this board.

Fox, etc. - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
I will check out some of the shows you mention on Fox just for the heck of it. If you haven't seen the magazine "The Week", they also will present both sides of an argument and it's a very concise and easy read. Also, a friend of mine just recommended a book called "The Righteous Mind" (201.6.5) by Jonathan Haidt. I plan to reserve it the next time I am at the library. The friend is extremely intelligent and well-read and said that this book was invaluable in providing an insight into why the two sides cannot or will not understand each other.

This book is available on Amazon.com for $16.76 - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
I read an opinion about the book on The Guardian and I don't think any progressive, liberal, or Democrat would like what he has to say. The following is from their review (BTW, the only one I got to read so far; I was really looking for places selling it-next stop: ebay!) LOL

Haidt looked at the usual ways psychologists explained away conservatism, such as strict parents or an overbearing fear of change. And he came to a radical conclusion: conservatives, rather than being victims of bad childhoods or possessing ugly personality traits, were just as sincere as liberals in wanting the best for society.

This may not sound such a startling statement. But many on the left are endlessly baffled as to why working-class voters seem to go against their own interests by supporting conservative politicians, those hated promoters of big business and tax cuts for the rich. They presume such voters are either stupid or are being tricked.

But the left's real problem, according to Haidt, is that it does not understand the motivations of the right. Drawing on everything from advertising to anthropology, he argues that liberals are driven by a morality based on compassion, the desire to fight oppression and, to some degree, fairness. Conservatives have a broader set of six "moral tastes", sharing such concerns but balanced by the binding foundations of loyalty, authority and sanctity.

It is, he says, as if the left has three taste buds but the right has six. While the right can "taste" issues such as compassion and fairness, the left struggles to embrace patriotism or religion, seeing traditional institutions and hierarchies as obstacles to their fight for liberty and equality. Haidt calls this "the conservative advantage".

Indeed, he goes further, saying that western progressives seeking a secular, rational society are out of step with the vast majority of people on the planet. He shows how our liberal values are "Weird" – supported only by those who are western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic. He draws on visual perception studies to show how Weird and non-Weird people think differently and see the world differently, with those in the west putting far greater emphasis on individualism.

At heart, however, The Righteous Mind is an old-fashioned liberal plea for tolerance. Haidt readily admits that he set out to use moral psychology to help political partisans understand and respect each other. It is a welcome attempt to combat polarisation at a time when politics is descending into dysfunctional tribalism, a process speeded up by technology and changing residential patterns. It takes only one glance at the grocery store to determine a US town's politics: if you see a Whole Foods Market, for example, nine times out of 10 you are in a county voting Democrat.

Thanks for the review - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
And thanks also for the Amazon info. I am still going to try the library first although there are quite a few people who have it reserved and I may not be able to get through it in 3 weeks as I don't read as quickly as I used to.

BTW, the friend who recommended it is definitely liberal but also very interested in fairness and delving into issues to discover the roots of any attendant problems.

From the review, it looks like a very interesting read.

I've recommended that book to you (and others) twice, - BW. Beware, it's about what's RIGHT

[ In Reply To ..]
with both conservatives and liberals. A couple of weeks ago I posted an excerpt from an article by him even. Read it, and you'll end up respecting liberals, too.

BTW, I don't find the conservative communal orientation of morality all that different from liberals--when you recognize that most liberals see themselves are part of much larger communities, national and even planetary. I know I do, tending to see myself and people like me in some grandma sweeping the dirt outside her yurt. Mostly the same values and emotions, just encompassing a larger, more diverse picture.

I checked ebay and their prices were higher - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
The book jacket was a little obscene in how he used the hand in the word "mind." I didn't find many other reviews that differentiated between the first one I posted, except for one in New Humanist, but the author of that review was quickly admonished for NOT reviewing the book:
"I was hoping to find a review here, but all I learned was that Jonathan Rée doesn't like Jonathan Haidt, which might be entertaining if Rée supported his disdain with evidence rather than rhetoric, which I have to say seems awfully chuffed with itself. As for a book review of The Righteous Mind, I'll look elsewhere."

The above comment was in the majority of the "book review" article.

He also did a bio UVA:
http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/

Your forgot to add to your self-approved list - Demopublican

[ In Reply To ..]
sources you don't consider credible - MSNBC. Exaggeration is putting it mildly. They just outright lie. Saying they exaggerate is like saying a root canal without anesthesia will just hurt a little. Huff post is questionable. Sometimes they have news stories, but when it comes to politics they give opinion pieces not always able to be verified by an independent source, so you cannot trust their political opinion pieces.

Since moving I have not ordered cable, so I don't watch any of the main stream media. I do disagree with your self appointed list that Fox is included in the groups. Yes, they have a conservative slant (though I wonder bout Bill Reilly at times - I think he's more liberal than anyone will admit cos I used to sit there going, oh c'mon Reilly, you don't really believe that do you? LOL), but when they do political pieces they do have videos to back up what they say (most of the time), and they always have people on all sides (like politicians or commenters) and they give all sides an equal amount of time. Hannity (or as I call him Insanity) is another story. I think he is rude and a complete idiot. I think this because every time I used to hear him talk he would show that he is uninformed about an issue (and if I heard him one more time say "Ronald Regan" I was going to spit at my TV LOL. Glenn Beck is interesting to say. Let me explain about him. There is a lot of hate here towards him. When his show was on I realized it was because he was bringing to light what was going on. I never agreed with everything he said, maybe it was an 70/30 Agree/disagree. However, he brought up very valid points. He would talk about who is running things, how the government works. From there I would take the information he discussed and research it myself to come to my own conclusions. This is the way it is supposed to be. Just like opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are very important. You are supposed to read something, which will give you something to think about and then do your own research. Opinion pieces are never meant to be taken as gospel. Someones opinion pieces can be wrong and sometimes they can be right on the spot. I've never taken any post here that posts an opinion piece to say this is the truth, just this is an interesting article I found. Read it and do your own research.

I'm pretty sick of people posting articles here to then be told this or that, "are you kidding me". When in fact whether or not I agree with the article I will research to find indeed the information is correct (or incorrect).

Posters need to lay off other posters that post links. If you don't like the article then discuss why you disagree, but it's not right for any poster to make fun of anothers link because you don't agree with it. Who cares if it's opinion, a blog or whatever. Take the information and do your own research and then come back and discuss why you don't agree.

For the most part if I do post and it's something from Drudge, Huff, WND, Before Its News, or whatever site I decided to post something from I will post because I find something interesting and would like to talk about the information itself. I don't post so others can come back at me calling me this or that or "are you kidding", etc. etc. I don't really care what others think of my posts. I will continue to post if I find something is interesting.

Again, opinion pieces are good because it gives us something new to think about and research.

"I've never taken any post here that posts an opinion piece to say this is the truth, just - grits

[ In Reply To ..]
Good point, and food for thought.

I'd be fine if the station were called Fox Opinion - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
but it's not, it's called Fox News and news it ain't.

They can take a leaf from the WWE's book - grits

[ In Reply To ..]
and call themselves Fox News Entertainment. I've often said that they are to journalism as the WWE is to sports.

Yes it is new - you need to learn the difference - between

[ In Reply To ..]
opinion shows and news. Fox News is called Fox News because they are a news station. Throughout the day people can tune in and find out what is happening in the news. Shep Smith and other news casters tells what is going on in the news all across the country and world. They talk about crime, politics, and what is happening in the "news". News is not opinion. A bank robbery or car chase, or sunken boats, earthquakes, around the country and world are not opinions, it is news.

What you need to learn to decipher is their opinion shows. They have them just like MSNBC has them. Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Meghan Kelly, The Five and other shows are not news shows. They are opinion shows. They do not call it The Bill O'Reilly News, or Hannity News show. They are opinion shows just like Matthews, Maddow, Olberman, The Ed Show, etc. They are all opinion shows. There is no reason (or justfication) for calling a News network an opinion network. Just like MSNBC and CNN. They all have opinion shows.

The difference that people are seeing though is that Fox reports the news. MSNBC distorts the news and deceives the viewers. I'm not talking about the opinion shows, I'm talking about actual news. If it's dealing with politics I know never to trust MSNBC because they zoom in or out to distort and decieve a real story to get it's viewers to ramp up their hate.

But guess they are doing their job well because it works.

Just watch "Leno" - He's "credible."

[ In Reply To ..]
ha ha ha. according to some on this board, anyway. No "opinion" stated there!

Have you noticed - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
the station is not called MSNBC News?

you have made your point... - stop beating that poor horse

[ In Reply To ..]
he is dead already. Yes...you are the ONLY one who distinguishes between news and opinions...but nobody really cares. give it a rest, already. Repeating yourself 15 thousand times is not going to make you any more "credible" than you think you are.

15,000 times - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Wow, didn't know I was that prolific.

wish we didn't either. - ugh

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Just curious - grits

[ In Reply To ..]
Since you're one of the anonymous, I have no way of knowing. Are you one of the ones who routinely complains when you feel your opinions are being ridiculed or stifled?

You may feel that OABO has made his/her point, but you don't get to tell another poster to stop posting something you're tired of hearing.

to just curious.... - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
and with me posting as anon, you don't need to know who I am and if I am one of the ones who "routinely complains when you feel your opinions are being ridiculed or stifled" either, anymore than you saying "I don't get to tell another poster to stop posting something something I am tired of hearing". basically you are telling me that if I don't post with a regular moniker, I shouldn't post anything at all. stop telling ME what to do, as well. If I wanted you to know who I was, I wouldn't post as anon, now would I. Stop trying to force us to post the way you seem to feel we should post, when, what about, to whom, and with the moniker of anon. makes you no better, board police! I was not telling her to STOP posting, just giving my OPINION that it was being over-stated. She can do whatever she wants...just like you can...and I can! :-P Stop trying to find out who I am because it is noyb.

Nice projection. - grits

[ In Reply To ..]
I imagine you feel nice and limber after that great big stretch.

I don't care who you are, BION. I'm just don't assume that I know who's posting what. You can do whatever you like, post whatever you like under whatever name you like. But you still don't get to tell someone else to stop posting something you're personally tired of.

"I'm rubber, you're glue" went out when we got into middle school.

no it didn't....it is alive and well on this board - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
and I never told her to stop posting, just it was well over done. If she decides to stop posting about it, that's on her. and you don't get to tell me to stop posting that, either, which you are doing.

and yes, you do care who is posting what and under the name of anon. You have been "pushing" people to take a moniker and stick to it for a week now, even on the other boards. You want everybody to take a moniker so you can differentiate between all the anon posters on any board and attack them with what you perceive is your truth, not theirs. Our refusing to follow your rules is a source of irritation to you...so now I will do it even more...just because. :-P

Not the poster you replied to, but... - hmmm

[ In Reply To ..]
...you give yourself away by posting that little tongue-out emoticon at the end of your posts. :::::::

oh gees, always looking for things.... - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
I do not ALWAYs use that little tongue-out emoticon in any of my posts, only today...so again, I don't know who you think I am, but why does it bother you all so much not knowing??? maybe because there are so many of "us"??? ha ha.

Similar Messages:

Mar 21, 2012
As I see it, one problem on this board is citing acurate sources. It's really not our fault as informed voters. It's the fault of the media - radio, TV, internet, newspapers, etc. For example, if a poster here wants to discuss "Fast and Furious," the only sources are going to be right-leaning sources (RLS), since the left-leaning sources (LLS) are not covering the story. The same is true, for example, regarding the transvag ultrasound story only being reported ...

Jan 12, 2010
Please take action to support a comprehensive climate and energy bill. In the last year alone, new evidence has emerged that the climate crisis is nearer—and scarier—than we had believed. Please take action now to urge your Senators to support comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation that will reinvigorate our economy and create millions of new jobs. The stakes are high. We must start cutting our carbon emissions now, or we may soon lose the ability to prev ...

Jul 10, 2012
Too many posts below regarding links. If you want to post a link that is your choice, if you don't want to post a link that is your choice. Nobody here is required to post a link. We are all MTs and know how to do our own research. We can find the information on our own and make up our own minds as to whether or not you want to believe it. However, too many people are posting links only to have others post nasty replies claiming whatever link is not credible and the ...

Nov 01, 2012
Romney's ads airing in the undecided states today, reporting that Jeep is outsourcing to China are called "Wholly inaccurate" by PolitiFact.com and "Clearly misleading" by the Washington Post. In addition, General Motors calls the ad "politics at its cynical worst" while the CEO of Chrysler calls them "Inaccurage". It's time to wake up and recognize the truth. ...

Nov 18, 2016
...and Trump is sending all the right signals so far with his picks. I've been pulling for Bolton for Secy of State, but this morning there's a rumor it might be Mitt Romney. If it's either of those, America's stature in the world would be immediately enhanced - and Trump would have once again shown what it means to be an executive. ...and not just by the people he picks, but also those who've been jettisoned. Pay no attention to the media reports re ...

Jul 16, 2010
Since you keep changing your moniker, didn't know what to call you. But, when I had time, I spent the last 2 days looking up resources. So.....have fun and let me know what problem you have with the below. No blogs are included. Have fun. GW BUSH POLICIES DURING HIS PRESIDENCY 1. Tax cuts: A $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history. Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying "the surplus is not the ...