What exactley is it that makes a “source” credible

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What exactley is it that makes a “source” credible

Posted by tiesto14 on Jul-18-2004 17:35:

What exactley is it that makes a “source” credible

What exactley is it that makes a “source” credible?

Is this a subjective matter?
Some people claim Fox news is credible, while other say it is the complete opposite.

I have seen people say CNN is not credible but these same people down the road will quote CNN to make their case. How can someone claim a source is not credible but then use a quote from that source at evidence?

I have read a little on Chomsky, he claims no American news is credible..but I think he is some what of a radical…more like a sophisticated Michael Moore.

How credible is Rueters, Associated Press and Vanity Fair?…these 3 seem to be the most quoted.

Then I see some people say you should never really take much validity from internet sources because ANYONE can write what they want on the internet (i.e. Newsmax).

I imagine published books are the most credible sources, being that a publishers would not publish too much false facts, half truths or conspiracy theories, like “Bush flew remote control planes into the WTC and the Pentagon was a missile not a plane” type nonsense…or am I wrong?

So what is it that makes a source credible?
And what sources do YOU find credible?

Posted by NeoPhono on Jul-18-2004 21:32:

Credibility is completely subjetive. I find most only find sources credible if they support their own beliefs. Hence you have people that love Fox News and others that hate it. I think the only way to find true credibility is to read the same story from as many sources as possible and then draw your own conclusions as to the validity of their claims.

Posted by Q5echo on Jul-18-2004 22:01:

an aspect that aids credibility is coroberation. coroberation from multiple independent sources.

the cred of the source's source. for instance, if i'm going to quote Monsoor Ijaz would rather pull it off a National Review published article as opposed to NewsMax or something similar.

the internet can be accurately resourceful. it can bite an ass or two if your not willing to be honest yourself and put a little effort into the research IMO.

Posted by prolikewhoa on Aug-15-2004 00:54:

everything i say is right.

case closed.

Posted by BadBadNeil on Aug-15-2004 01:44:

I'll say a credible "source" is a source that is backed up with undoctored video and multiple substantiated claimed from other "sources". i find it hard to believe a single "credible source" as there is so much bs these days.

Posted by torontotrance on Aug-15-2004 03:34:

I look at the track record of the source. CNN has always been and will always be a lame duck USA gov't backed media outlet, they never say anything of a different view on there.

People view that Michael Moore has credible sources when in reality, the guy can't stop changing sides (even more than kerry)

Posted by imokruok on Aug-15-2004 05:06:

quote:
Originally posted by prolikewhoa
everything i say is right.

Could you give me a link or something for that? I don't think your source is very credible.

Posted by St_Andrew on Aug-15-2004 12:23:

really, i don't think you can find one news sourse that is not biased. everyone is. more or less, with an agenda, or without an agenda. Everyone is biased from how they have been brought up, where etc.

as NeoPhono said, the only way to get a rather unbiased newssource is to actually have many different ones. fox news, al jazera, bbc etc. mix them

best single newssource imo is http://news.bbc.co.uk

Posted by Matty V on Aug-17-2004 18:41:

quote:
Originally posted by torontotrance
People view that Michael Moore has credible sources when in reality, the guy can't stop changing sides (even more than kerry)

Typical journalist.

The tabloids in this country change sides all the time, just to suit public mood