Re: Sources, please do yourselves a favor...

[Writer]

As a media scholar, may I offer some DU'ers here a word of advice?

Stop relying on Raw Story, cloakanddagger, etc. as sources. You are killing yourself with this bunk. These are not, even for online sites, sources with any capital - political or otherwise - that can provide you with ANYTHING reliable, only with what you want to hear. Get off the junk.

[MadJohnShaft]

1. and instead rely on......?

[liberalnurse]

2. Truthout.org

n/t

[NYCGirl]

4. And:

www.cursor.org

www.workingforchange.com

www.salon.com

[nosmokes]

3. count on the NYtimes instead, right?

i take 'em all with a boulder of salt.

edited because the spirit moved me...;)

[thinkingwoman]

5. Keep saying it

Some of them MIGHT eventually listen.

They also need to stop swallowing hook line and sinker every tidbit printed in the major papers attributed to "a source brief, officially briefed, or close to the investigation" which all point to defense attorneys.

[Kagemusha]

6. More people seem to be talking to Raw Story nowadays at least.

I'm too old to put much stock in a lot of things - particularly the mainstream media, which is putting in a dismal post-Fitz press conference performance - but places like Drudge or Raw Story are only as reliable as their sources.

I can understand hoping for the best in a situation like the indictments where everyone was basically completely helpless except to accept what came without trying to be too disappointed there wasn't more. Now that "Fitzmas" is over, it's time to box the rumors away and move on to the rest of the presidential term and, well, deal.

Seriously, while I'm not a media scholar in any kind of professional sense - my pet field is linguistics, though I study widely - seeing press reports about the war going on trial along with Libby after Fitz made explicit, crystal clear statements that he was NOT putting the war on trial, that it wasn't his bleeping job, just makes me sad for people who are paid good money for this junk.

If I don't criticize Raw Story too too highly, then that is the reason why.

[Blackthorn]

7. Please explain...

...how taking in information from as many sources as possible is a bad thing?

And at any rate, all these websites claim the other indictments handed down are SEALED, which means the MSM cannot report on them even if they wanted to.

It'll be interesting to see at the end of this just how many of the poeple being called now are actually indicted. That's the only way to prove or disprove these rumours. With facts.

Bottom line: Read everything, discount nothing.

[wryter2000]

8. I see that now

I don't normally cite such sources when talking to others because I'm not sure of their reliability, but I've believed them and forwarded them to sympathetic folks. After seeing how miserably far off they were about Fitzmas, I'm not taking them seriously anymore.

I've felt from the first that Capital Hill Blue was off-track.

[ultraist]

9. Does anyone have a comprehensive list of creditable online news sources?

That includes blogs, such as Talking Points Memo and Huffington?

[cassiepriam]

10. Then what do we read for the truth? The MSM, NYT????

[carolinalady]

11. I rely on the old saying-There are two sides to every story and

the truth lies somewhere in between. I think all of the media sources- those that you deem to be "credible" and some of those you do not got some things right and some things miserably wrong. The info is only as good as the source and as we all know, the source has a motivation for providing the info. It may or may not be true even when they are sworn to tell the truth in a court of law. Everybody has their own experiences that determine how they receive and process the info. Something that is considered to be the "absolute truth" may appear to be a lie to someone no matter what irrefutable evidence is provided. Even if everyone on this forum only consulted a limited amount of media sources, my bet is that you would still get as many interpretations of the information as we have now.

Just my opinion to add to yours!
:)

[t73rvo]

12. REALLY!....Thank You Scolar....but in the AMERICA I believe in...

Informed, intelligent citizens are capable of determining what is junk, what are lies and what is reliable!
Perhaps someone bequeathed with such stellar skills might consider addressing a far greater need then those generally required in DU..for instance the glaring need for illuminating the content
of bills presented in congress...Maybe you might consider writing an Op-Ed as to the 'bunk nature' of labeling Bills "Patriot Act", "Clean Air", "No Child Left Behind", etc. when in fact they are the an thesis of their title. Certainly your expertise deems you ever more credible in demonstrating that the real danger lies not with the 'junk' you read, but with the 'junk' you don't!

[LibertyorDeath]

There is NO Legitimate MS media in America today None Zero Zip

They are all Owned Corporate Propagandist Whores.

I'll take Jon Stewart over all of them.

MSM you may as well get the news straight from Rove.

[elehhhhna]

13. thanks for nothing, raw story is on the money.

C&D is goofy.

We can tell the diff.

[blogslut]

14. I'm no media scholar.

Just the child of a newspaperman. I learned long ago to discern the truth from the bullshit.

RawStory has made some mistakes but IMHO, they're no less credible than the NYT or WaPo.

[RazzleDazzle]

15. Media scholar, huh?

Hmmm, coulda fooled me.

Frankly, I've seen better info earlier from them than from sources you probably consider superior in a number of cases lately. As a result, your own reputation (as a media scholar, no less) suffers as a result of what seems to me to be your ill-informed assessment.



Edit: I should probably say a bit more. I am not myself a media scholar (and would offer something about my credentials if I were), but I am an avid if casual observer of the media, and something of a fan of GOOD media, as I perceive most DUers to be as well. What I see happening is a sea change in the media. Nature abhors a vacuum. There has been a vacuum in factual, objective, truthful, in-depth reporting, not to mention investigative journalism. And I see blogs AND organizations like RawStory stepping up to the plate (to mix a metaphor, just a bit).

The simple truth of the matter, it seems to me, is that one simply can NOT be well-informed in this day and age without access to the internet, and it takes many more than one or two or three outlets to become well-informed as well. I believe it was Bill Moyers who talked not too long ago about putting together his own newspaper each day by accessing a variety of sources.

In such an era, RawStory definitely has its place -- as does the NYT or WaPo still, though the place occupied by these latter two has dwindled in size to the extent that they are becoming less and less relevant and may indeed be supplanted all together in the not too distant future.