The following sources will not be accepted as news sources at ShortNews.com, for various reasons. The blacklisted sources include, but are not exclusive to:
The Drudge Report
Onion.com (or similar websites)
News sources which require registration, ie: The Washington Post, The New York Times, TimesUK (to name a few).
If you are writing news from Google.news.com, or any other Google news bot, please ensure that the source does not require registration. It will not ask you to register if you click on it directly from Google.news.com.
News using any of these sources will be blocked, and webreporters will be asked to resubmit the story with a different source.
If a news is blocked and someone else submits the same news afterwards and the user with the blocked news tries again, the resubmitted news will be blocked as "news appears twice". Always do more than one search in creator and doubles should be avoidable. :o)
Are alot of sites that are bieng used that most peopel would agree that they have opinionated news and twist the facts. Theres probably a good 3 or 4 sources. But remember, its not just opinionated news thats banned. Its also sources that require one to sign up first.
I put up a (I belive) NY Times story without looking at this first and even though I think I linked directly to it w/out registration, because I got it from my ISP's news page and didn't have to; I may have screwed up. Didn't find the article anywhere else than that site, however.
I submitted one article when I joined from Annanova (not blacklisted then), and recently did a second only to have another Shortnews person tell me that Annanova can't be used for submission. Maybe Shortnews should have something akin to a "What's New" or "Updates" link on their homepage, perhaps with a brief reason (i.e.=undated sources, no links to actual news source). This could reduce mistakes and misunderstandings with the people reporting. Just my two cents.
ananova is blocked, and i'm sure i'm not the only one here who feels that way. it was just too easy -- one-stop shopping for a sensationalized story that would run up thousands of hits, albeit rather dishonestly.
Due to an increase in news sources here on ShortNews that are biased towards one political agenda, and articles which also hold an editorial/opinion from the author, the following websites have been black listed by the Administration team:
Insight Report **NEW**
The New American
World Net Daily
The Free Republic
The Drudge Report
Onion.com (or similar websites)
Any ShortNews summary that uses these sources in the future will be blocked and the webreporter will be asked to resubmit. This is not available for discussion/negotiation.
We would like to point out that the above list contains both right wing and left wing news sources.
We would also like to inform you that politically biased stories may still be posted in the forums, as that is the place for discussion. Should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact a member of the team.
We will also be keeping an eye out for new politically biased sources, so please watch this space.
By defacto standard and common sence it is impossible to write news without an opinion . maybe you should consider blocking http://www.sacbee.com after that crock which was posted here recently about people in Iraq being really happy with the current state of affairs there....
media bias is not the media reporting someone else's opinion, like the Iraqi woman story. Media bias is a journalist presenting OPINION AS FACT, presenting HALF-TRUTH AS FACT, or, more insiduously, a journalist NOT PRESENTING ALL RELEVANT PERSPECTIVES or simply IGNORING NEWS.
sorry for the caps, but people get so worked up when, for example, a news network presents a report quoting SBVFT as saying Kerry didn't deserve his Vietnam medals -- despite the fact that someone representing Kerry, or Kerry himself, is allowed their say in the report as well. this is not bias. this is doing a report about a controversial statement made by an influential group that merits coverage.
of course, an editor selects what his/her news organization covers and does not cover, and bias can come into play here. a news network can appear to cover, in an issue with two sides, everything negative Side A does and everything positive Side B does, and to many people, it appears that the news organization is biased toward Side B.
the fallacy of that logic is that Side A may very well commit a greater number of negative acts than Side B, and Side B may very well commit a greater number of positive acts than Side A. common sense dictates that this is usually the case.
the difficulty lies in what each subjective viewer/reader/listener may define as "negative" or "positive." a great example is Wal-Mart. one audience member may hear of a Wal-Mart coming into their town and think, "great, now i can save some money and do all my shopping at the same place." while another might think, "crap -- they're going to put the locally-owned stores out of business and create more traffic congestion."
so, some signs that the news source you're looking at is biased:
* it has political advertising in close proximity to "objective" (not op/ed) editorial content. * it does not have its own version of a wide-interest mainstream story; for example, a hypothetical discovery of a signicant cache of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. * conversely, its stories tend not to be picked up by other news agencies. news agencies constantly try to do a better job covering a news story than the competition. if other organizations aren't creating their own angles off a story your source broke, it could be because the story isn't considered credible by professional journalists. *it plays up one news story inordinately while ignoring or downplaying other stories of equal or even greater interest. if a newspaper runs a picture of a drunk George W. Bush in his college days 10 inches tall on its front page and relegates his health-care speech to page 12, it's biased against Bush. if it runs the health-care speech in a banner headline at the top of page 1 and omits the photo, it's biased in favor of Bush.
and if you've made it far into my rant, here's something really important: journalists spend their entire careers cultivating an objective professional perspective that is, for true pros at least, completely separate from their own personal views. i have not shied away from expressing my bias against Bush on this Web site, but if i ever wrote a story that was supposed to be straight news, but i really did it for the purpose of trying to sway people against Bush, i'd resign in self-disgust. any professional journalist worth a fart would do the same thing.
How about banning the NY Times!? All they did was applaud and cheer Bush's claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and regurgitated every lie the white house spewed. And despite their later apologies for lack of diligence, they continue on with their shameless lack of journalistic investigation (as with most mainstream american media). I fail to see where you draw the line. Are we only to quote those with the big money media (owned by a small group of individuals with a globalist agaenda)? Where and when do differing opinions get heard? Or stories get investigated which the big media does not want to touch because it does not suit their agendas. ?
has already stated, news summaries using Prison Planet as a source will be blocked and the writer asked to resubmit with a different, more acceptable source. The reasons why such a source has been blacklisted are stated clearly in my post, dated 09/22/2004.
NY Times has long been blacklisted here, as it requires registration before you can read a source article.
really i would never know about this if i didnt accidently click on "whats new"... wouldnt it be easier both for you cops and for the reporters to have some script to warn on news submission preview that the source is blacklisted?
that would be easier. There's already a link to this on the front page, though. Not to say a script shouldn't be in place, just to say that if I was here with the intention of submitting news, something that has "Blacklisted Sources" as its title on the front page would make me want to read.
...It's different with ShortNews since the visitors are posting the news. It could easily shift depending on world politics. Just ignore U.S.A. bashers (or any bashers who just bash nations for no apparent reason) and go along like normal business. -np-
that I have to question banning any news source. The mainstream media has become so controlled, censored, pasteurized and homogenized that I fail to see what use they are any more. The only place you can find what is really going on in the world is small online news services and the so called conspiracy theorists news organizations. To ban these sources is to play into the hands of the propagandists that want to keep us in the dark. It seems that everything that is now news was a nut ball conspiracy theory just a few years ago. I just don’t see how we can separate the wheat from the chaff. FOX is FAUX obviously and should be banned if other sites like Alternet are banned. While Alternet is biased, they do let the cat out of the bag and inform the public of what is going on behind the scenes. I think we need to be more “Fair and Balanced” about which sources to allow and which to disallow and look at all the angles.
I don't see what the use is of banninga any source? I am capable of determining on my own as a reader of a summary which stories a believable, balanced, etc. I don't need another "nanny" watching out for me! I do agree that sources that require registration should be off limits, as the registration process is a form of access limitation and unneccessarly consumes the reader/researchers time.
Again, I think ShortNews should allow ALL sources, except those that require registration or subscription. I also think that biased, opinionated, and fictional sites/sources will reveal themselves for what they are, and we the intelligent readers at ShortNews will quickly educate the gulible submitters as to the worth of thier submission, and the truth or not of the source.
If we already know certain sites are worthless as a source of news, we don't want to bother having to block them. It's bad enough with all the other reasons we have to block news. If you can convince me that any of the sites listed above deserve to be used as a legit news source here, I'm all ears.
Fox News is about as unfair and unbalanced as it gets. They use a tactic of using a sound byte out of context to misrepresent the truth. They do this repeatedly and in some circumstances it is truly damaging.
I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here or be a smart ass, but if opinionated news sources are not allowed or biased news sources, i challenge anyone to read any of the reporting in the NY times (case in point the Georgian situation) and tell me that the NY times isn't a newspaper full of editorials and opinion pieces.
I have to agree with the sentiment that its all or nothing and one has to trust the readers that they will know what not to accept. for example if a story gets assessments under a certain percentage quality, then block it, after a minimum of 15 bad assessments or something. that way the readers police and you still hold the power of blocking, while allowing all possible freedom to submit with in reason.
I'd like a little clarification on sites that are partly for free and partly signup required.
FT.com gives 3 articles per month to non-registered users. For the casual user, that a link may display the entire article. For others that visit FT more frequently, their unregistered viewing quota may have been exceeded and they may be asked to sign up.
Fox News owns the Republican Party and is the office of disinformation for radical conservatives. It is nothing but lies and radial right-wing terrorist propaganda. It should be banned off the planet and Rupert Murdock should be in prison, especially after news of his criminal cellphone hacking.