+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
Users Threads  
ShortNewser of the month
      Back to Forum
  Blacklisted News Sources  
The following sources will not be accepted as news sources at, for various reasons. The blacklisted sources include, but are not exclusive to:

The Drudge Report (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, 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

News using any of these sources will be blocked, and webreporters will be asked to resubmit the story with a different source.
 From: Lois_Lane     03/02/2004 11:08 AM     
A bit of censoring i see going on here?..Trying to silence the masses are we..?..oooh wee..
j/k ;)

What if anoher user submits the same news after its been blocked?..Does the user who had his/hers news blocked still get a chance to re-submit it?..
  by: Whipd+Kreem     03/02/2004 02:08 PM     
  No whipd  
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)
  by: boolie     03/02/2004 03:18 PM     
  what about ... I've always been tempted to post a summary from one of their reports.
  by: sbenglish     03/02/2004 10:22 PM     
  They seem  
thoughrouly opinionated and not in anyway reliable sbenglish, I'd stay away from them, even when I do agree with a lot of the things they say.
  by: Lois_Lane     03/03/2004 10:02 AM     
  And they call this ruling...  
Lex BN... *loooooooool*

  by: BreakingNews     03/05/2004 10:26 PM     
opinionated news in not allowed? good to know...
  by: noopinions     05/07/2004 12:36 AM     
  another news source that needs blocking
notorious for making up lies and other science fiction stories and advertising them as facts.
  by: Elite   06/10/2004 08:20 PM     
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.
  by: Whipd+Kreem     06/19/2004 08:19 AM     
  What about  
Communist, far righty, extreme leftist or nu jib greeny sources?
  by: Whipd+Kreem     07/05/2004 09:27 PM     
  What if  
I create my own news site, which replicates stories from credible sources, would my site also be a credible source?
  by: Whipd+Kreem     07/07/2004 06:00 PM     
  Ah... I need to have a submission removed then.  
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.
  by: krinsh   07/07/2004 08:40 PM     
Well, you can check if you can still read the source link from the news you submitted. If you cant, then you probably have to IM a mod about it.
  by: Whipd+Kreem     07/13/2004 06:05 PM     
  An addition  
Following the removal of the date of their stories, Ananova will no longer be allowed here as a source, either. The news could be weeks old and we wouldn't know.

Therefore, news summaries that have Ananova as a source will be blocked and the webreporter asked to resubmit. This is affective immediately.
  by: Lois_Lane     07/19/2004 12:41 PM     
  I also was unaware of Annanova....  
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.
  by: wabbitstu     07/25/2004 05:14 PM     
  thank god that  
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.
  by: sbenglish     08/07/2004 06:57 AM     
  Overly political sources  
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: **NEW** **NEW**

Insight Report **NEW**

Prison Planet

The New American

World Net Daily




Village Voice

National Review

The Free Republic

Blue Lemur

Ncrumors **NEW**

The Drudge Report (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.

Your Admin Team.
  by: Lois_Lane     09/22/2004 04:15 PM     
  opinionated news is not allowed?  
By defacto standard and common sence it is impossible to write news without an opinion . maybe you should consider blocking after that crock which was posted here recently about people in Iraq being really happy with the current state of affairs there....
  by: rory182     09/23/2004 04:26 PM     
  media bias defined  
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.
  by: sbenglish     09/23/2004 06:28 PM     
  What about FoxNEWS ??  
They seem pretty opiniated to me - or is it just me? lol
  by: 1Phr0zenGuy     11/02/2004 02:43 PM     
  abc news  
what about abc news at the bottom of their articles it says ..... Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, REWRITTEN, or redistributed
  by: msgtcody   11/03/2004 10:28 AM     
linguistics... you're not re-writing, you're paraphrasing ;) which is another way of re-writing I suppose... but it's not re-writing word-for-word...
  by: sjava     11/05/2004 10:39 PM     
You're right, but there are an incredible amount of journalists out there who are, as you so succintly put it: "not worth a fart!"
  by: Cameron in Texas   11/18/2004 04:21 AM     
  rediculous and a lie!  
"National 'No Arnold Schwarzenegger for President' Movement Launched' has been blocked.

This happened because the following reason: 'wrong source'

Please take care when you submit a news that the URL for the page when you found
it is correct. We cannot accept merely a generic URL
such as It must be more specific."

THAT IS A LIE! It submitted a link to the source which was an official Press Release, not simply a generic website.

I protest this decision and request that the article be re-instated immediately.
  by: adanac     11/27/2004 09:02 PM     
  remainder of the URL  
oh i see, you won't let me post ot to the board either.
well here is the remainder of the URL that i posted:
"National 'No Arnold Schwarzenegger for President' Movement Launched' has been blocked.

This happened because the following reason: 'wrong source'

Please take care when you submit a news that the URL for the page when you found
it is correct. We cannot accept merely a generic URL
such as It must be more specific."

THAT IS A LIE! It submitted a link to the source which was an official Press Release, not simply a generic website.

  by: adanac     11/27/2004 09:08 PM     
see Lois' post as site admin, prison planet is blacklisted...
  by: boolie     12/02/2004 07:19 PM     
  how about banning the NY Times ?  
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. ?
  by: adanac     12/03/2004 04:49 AM     
  @ adanac  
read the thread again, New York Times is blacklisted.....
  by: boolie     12/03/2004 12:35 PM     
  As Boolie  
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.
  by: Lois_Lane     12/03/2004 02:01 PM  
what about this website? it once tried to have us believe the sun will blow in 6 years, surely you can't let them get away with these crap fictious stories?
  by: elite   03/11/2005 11:03 PM     
Are University websites allowed as a
source? The school newspaper and
security page has information I want to
  by: jaded fox     04/09/2005 12:08 AM     
  a script maybe?  
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?
  by: the at     09/05/2005 09:24 AM     
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.
  by: Lois_Lane     09/08/2005 10:24 AM     
has been reallowed as a source.
  by: Lois_Lane     08/15/2006 12:52 PM     
  Why not ban....  
ShortNews on account of being too left wing and of removing freedom of speech.
(There is too many U.S.A. bashers here!)
  by: cavador   01/08/2007 01:07 PM     
...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.
  by: NicPre     01/22/2007 11:35 PM     
  the same articles  
on Drudge can be found on google news. what makes them different if found on Drudge? a story found on drudge about a mud volcano is hardly opinionated.
  by: stop4trains   02/04/2007 12:26 AM     
Define 'US bashing' for me, because I see very little US bashing here. I do see a lot of criticism of US policies, but criticism (especially when justifed) does not equal bashing.
  by: StarShadow     02/04/2007 02:01 AM     
  My stance.  
I think Drudge is alright. It's certainly selective in which stories they post, but the stories themselves don't appear to be biased.
  by: GuyFawkes   02/20/2007 11:39 PM     
I'm with you on the Drudge report, don't quite understand that one. But, since almost all of Matt's articles are links to their web sources, I guess it doesn't really matter.
  by: ablindmansees     07/20/2007 09:47 PM     
  The NY Times  
no longer requires registration and as such is allowed here as a source.
  by: Lois_Lane     10/24/2007 07:30 AM     
  It has gotten to the point  
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.
  by: Valkyrie123     01/08/2008 05:15 PM     
  Why ban any source?  
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.
  by: archeon   01/22/2008 10:18 PM     
  Why bother with them?  
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.
  by: caution2     01/30/2008 10:17 PM     
  Fox News  
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.
  by: Nanook   06/08/2008 05:28 AM     
so i take it CNN MSNBC CBS and so on are fair and balanced right?
they can be looked upon as valid balanced NON BIAS news sources?

what a joke.
  by: cray0la     07/17/2008 07:27 AM     
  @ NY times  
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.
  by: dieu_7     08/26/2008 07:31 PM  
I'd like a little clarification on sites that are partly for free and partly signup required. 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.
  by: yreulogy   04/01/2009 04:26 AM     
  Another one is now on the blacklisted sources list.

For further clarification, it clearly states above that any site with an obvious bias or agenda is not a reliable news source. Please keep this in mind when posting news.
  by: Lois_Lane     07/22/2009 08:49 AM     
  Time to ban  
  by: MannyisHere     12/19/2010 02:53 AM     
  Down With Fox News!!!!!  
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.
  by: Lurker     08/12/2011 03:20 AM     
Ban Donald Trump from the planet!!!!!!!!!!!
  by: Lurker     04/06/2017 04:15 AM     
   Back to Forum
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: