Just got reamed for using unapproved news source in LBN thread post!

[jswordy]

Wow, I forgot that there are only certain "approved" media sources for DU! I am too widely read. I apologize!

:hide:

Now hiding out in Lobby. I hope the less rabid are here?

[Lucky Luciano]

1. care to shed some light?

What is an unapproved source?

[jswordy]

3. An unapproved source is any source that someone...

...Googles the ownership of, and they don't like it.

This kind of closed-mindedness and ignorance of the editorial process is a chief reason I post in Lobby mostly now, rather than elsewhere on DU. I read widely, and in this case and a couple others, I have posted links to stuff I have read that have not been deemed from the proper sources. Whether the material was of value or not was irrelevent.

It is fine to believe that the man who owns the media outlet controls every word in it and what is written, but that is not fact for the vast majority of outlets. It is a belief system for those who buy into it, but is not factually based.

Sigh. I do love a good censor, who only wants to hear the version of what is happening that is closest to their personal viewpoint! LOL.

:grr:

[Lucky Luciano]

8. I was implying that I wanted to know

what source is unacceptable.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Well if it's RW trash, of course it doesn't belong here.

[jswordy]

4. Thank you Vash, for your illustration

The stumbling point, of course, is where your definiton of "RW trash" lies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. but of course.

And i have no idea what article you tried posting either.

[crispini]

6. Well, what did you post?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[ret5hd]

7. geez...from what i read the guy apologized if he offended you...

said that he didn't mean to rattle your cage (as he doesnt like that done to him), put a smilie in his follow-up posts, etc etc etc.

maybe you're just a little sensitive.

[jswordy]

9. It's possible. But then, when it has happened more than once...

:shrug:

[Goathead]

10. Is Al Jazzera on the list of credible?

I'm always about to post stuff from them, then think twice about it. Google news references them and so does lunaville. :shrug:

[Lone Pawn]

15. Yes. Uncredible is only RW-owned places.

RW blogs, Drudge Report, Fox News, Moonie-owned places, and the like.

[NashVegas]

11. You Weren't Censored

Your posts weren't locked or deleted. Another poster challenged you on them.

Moon-owned outfits get challenged on DU, their info is fairly often taken with a grain of salt by liberal minded people who understand that news organization's MO.

Of course they're going to get challenged! If someone goes to Free Republic and tries to use Mother Jones, chances are they may have a similar experience.

You must consider the source of just about any story you read, especially in this day and age where newspapers increasingly print up stories based more on say-so than fact.

[jswordy]

12. Yes, I was not censored that time. I use the word...

..."censor" because of the discourse-chilling intent of the challenge.

You must consider the source of just about any story you read, especially in this day and age where newspapers increasingly print up stories based more on say-so than fact.

That is your belief. Not mine. Nor is it in itself factually based.

The financial column posted was the work of the columnist, not Rev. Moon. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the column, which explains its weekly intent.

Further, in the past I have had material posted from an American Indian perspective removed from DU as unacceptable, in my view simply because it was a view alternate to the accepted one here.

This is all moot, though. I knew the landscape here. I should have Googled all the sources meticulously before ever even thinking of posting here, to make sure I had the "correct" sources for this site. Like I said, I apologize. Won't happen again. I would hate to be tombstoned as a disruptor. Life is too short for that! I vow from now on to play by them while here. Or stay in lobby and discuss toe jam. (Which is actually more fun and way less depressing, anyway.)

[crispini]

16. How is that discourse-chilling?

It's the internet. Considering the source is important. If somebody posts something from rense.com, for example... :shrug:

[jswordy]

18. Oh come on now, I have to EXPLAIN that? LOL...too funny. n/t

[crispini]

24. No, sorry, it's not discourse chilling, it's sensible

to consider the source. In this day and age.

[NashVegas]

26. Sorry to Sound Brusk, But

You're just going to have to deal with it.


You must consider the source of just about any story you read, especially in this day and age where newspapers increasingly print up stories based more on say-so than fact.

That is your belief. Not mine. Nor is it in itself factually based.

Did you happen to see newspaper stories about a little war in a country called Iraq? It seems we invaded their country on the pretext they were storing WMDs. A woman named Judith Miller, who worked for a little paper called the NY Times, took everything her friend Ahmed said and put it right on the front page. Trouble is, Ahmed was lying. A lot of people were lying. And a lot of papers printed their words as facts.

[Goathead]

22. Yes but I've heard the same about the Washington Post

I've heard people say it has been the propaganda arm of the C.I.A. since the early sixties and that Katherine Graham was a right wing shill.

[BikeWriter]

13. OUCH!

[underpants]

14. He.....HEHEHEHE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2940873

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. There's no rule, but be prepared to defend your source if it's

from a rag with a known right wing bias. That's pretty much always been the deal on DU.

RW sources have more than demonstrated their bias and as a result tend to be less trusted unless the info can be corroborated elsewhere.

[jswordy]

19. I understand that...only LEFT-WING sources are acceptable.

Which is why I wash my hands of the whole deal. I'm liberal as hell, but I am not an idealogue. I'll read widely, and read what I want to, and just not post. The philosophy on the left here is basically the same closed one that people here bash the Freepers for. I just won't participate in that anymore, and I will be happier for it. End of story. Nuff said.

Now on to toe jam!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. That flat out is not trueJust explain WHY you think an article is valid if

it comes from a RW source. People do so with Drudge all the time.
Or pick up your jacks and leave. Either way - it's your choice.

[CatWoman]

23. and why you came here to bitch about it

rather than post your questions/concerns in ATA?

Sometimes the best reaction is a lucid one.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. OK, after careful review of the subject this is what I have to say:

[crispini]

25. LOL,

I am SO stealing that.

[EstimatedProphet]

27. Locking

Please take this issue to ATA.