• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How to check your news sources:

Earthling

David Henson
With all the talk of "Fake news" today it is useful to know how to do the research yourself to see if your sources are reliable or not:


Interesting. The trouble is, good sources like Google, NASA, and The Washington Post are far from infallible and well, arguably, reliable.

However, although this is a Current Events forum, consider applying these rules to let's say . . . The Great Deluge (Noah's Flood) with, let's say . . . Gilgamesh. Which was first? Which is more authentic? The best source of such a thing would be the Bible, if you follow the guidelines set out in the video. Of course, thus the potential harm in sources. You favor the one which matches your own belief.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Interesting. The trouble is, good sources like Google, NASA, and The Washington Post are far from infallible and well, arguably, reliable.

However, although this is a Current Events forum, consider applying these rules to let's say . . . The Great Deluge (Noah's Flood) with, let's say . . . Gilgamesh. Which was first? Which is more authentic? The best source of such a thing would be the Bible, if you follow the guidelines set out in the video. Of course, thus the potential harm in sources. You favor the one which matches your own belief.
The point of the article was how to check your sources, it does not rely on just "Google". Google may be the search engine that one uses but it will give multiple sources, from good to bad. This allows one to sift through those sources.

As to the Flood the Bible is the last source that one should use. It is what is on trial. We can first rather easily check if it ever happened or not. And from multiple independent sources it is obvious that the Flood story is a myth. Since they are both myths can one say which one is "more authentic"? If is like asking which version of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is more authentic. Historians can tell you why the Gilgamesh version is older. Mainly because the Hebrew version dates to the fifth to sixth century BC. *EDIT*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Line up all your news stories side to side.

Seperate the spin from the consistency.
 

Earthling

David Henson
The point of the article was how to check your sources, it does not rely on just "Google". Google may be the search engine that one uses but it will give multiple sources, from good to bad. This allows one to sift through those sources.

The point is, ultimately you have to rely on sources and that in and of itself is problematic. I trust many news reports I see on You Tube by people like James Corbett and other unauthentic sources than I would The Washington Post or any reputable news agency.

If you want a reliable source it's difficult to find one in a hundred these days because few people own and operate all of those sources. And how much does the government have to do with those sources compared to what they used to have to do with them prior to the 1980's. Increasingly so as time progresses.

Historians can tell you why the Gilgamesh version is older. Mainly because the Hebrew version dates to the fifth to sixth century BC. Moses was fictional too after all.

I don't doubt that Gilgamesh is older, but like the video you posted suggests, the first report isn't often the most accurate or authentic one.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The point is, ultimately you have to rely on sources and that in and of itself is problematic. I trust many news reports I see on You Tube by people like James Corbett and other unauthentic sources than I would The Washington Post or any reputable news agency.

If you want a reliable source it's difficult to find one in a hundred these days because few people own and operate all of those sources. And how much does the government have to do with those sources compared to what they used to have to do with them prior to the 1980's. Increasingly so as time progresses.



I don't doubt that Gilgamesh is older, but like the video you posted suggests, the first report isn't often the most accurate or authentic one.
You misunderstood the video if that is your conclusion. The video suggests checking the first report. First reports of stories are often corrected, but that does not apply to myths. There are other methods than those given for checking out the reliability of myths.

By the way, conspiracies of the sort that you seem to follow do not hold up well. They are easily exposed. Conspiracy theories often lead to crazy claims such as denying the Lunar Landings or doubting the events of 9/11. If your sources believe those they are almost certainly far from reliable.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Young, intelligent people with unbiased minds could learn from the video. But older adults have biases. We will consider those sources which best support our biases "reliable."
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Young, intelligent people with unbiased minds could learn from the video. But older adults have biases. We will consider those sources which best support our biases "reliable."

You may consider you bias as reliable. Me I prefer accuracy but i am only 48 so i guess i must count as young ;-)

I do however know several much older (and surprisingly* intelligent) people who are also pleased to educate themselves rather than rely on their personal biases.

* Thats called sarcasm
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You may consider you bias as reliable. Me I prefer accuracy but i am only 48 so i guess i must count as young ;-)

I do however know several much older (and surprisingly* intelligent) people who are also pleased to educate themselves rather than rely on their personal biases.

* Thats called sarcasm
Well, there's no doubt that as a human being you are my superior. (That's sarcasm also)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Driving in my car today I heard a very similar bit to my video. Certain sources it suggested leaving right away and then one could check sources by opening several tabs and comparing articles.

It's a conspiracy!!:eek:
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
When I read information widely accepted as factual information on Wikipedia, I promptly verify this information with an online, reliable academic source which I do cite. ...:)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
When I read information widely accepted as factual information on Wikipedia, I promptly verify this information with an online, reliable academic source which I do cite. ...:)
Wikipedia is a good place to start since they very often link their sources. It is not like the bad old days when any troll could change an article.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
With all the talk of "Fake news" today it is useful to know how to do the research yourself to see if your sources are reliable or not:


Any resemblance between characters in the attached comic and our resident Trumpettes purely coincidental.

1462804584-20160509.png
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Young, intelligent people with unbiased minds could learn from the video. But older adults have biases. We will consider those sources which best support our biases "reliable."

Wait...you know intelligent people who have 'unbiased minds'?
I'm calling BS.

Better they learn to recognise the bias in both themselves and sources.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
When I read information widely accepted as factual information on Wikipedia, I promptly verify this information with an online, reliable academic source which I do cite. ...:)

There is also the question of interpretation though. Citing even credible information doesn't make ones conclusion credible.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
With all the talk of "Fake news" today it is useful to know how to do the research yourself to see if your sources are reliable or not:

I have never quite grasped why people (including my family) fall for fake news. Somewhere along the way, I have developed a way to sniff out fake news almost automatically. If I could explain how to do this to others, it would be great. :)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
With all the talk of "Fake news" today it is useful to know how to do the research yourself to see if your sources are reliable or not:


That was a good video with some good advice. I was a bit put off early on when the guy said he didn't know who Woodward and Bernstein were (he didn't look that young). It made me think that another good way to not be fooled by fake news is to be reasonably well-informed to begin with.

I also wondered why they expended so much energy trying to determine if the photo of Woodward and Bernstein watching Nixon's resignation speech was legitimate. Whether or not someone took a picture of them watching the resignation speech, or whether they saw it together, separately, or not at all - that doesn't strike me as important enough to qualify as "news" at all - fake or otherwise.

But overall, I think it's a good idea to check for other sources whenever possible.
 
Top