Advice when using blogs for citing/sourcing news.

[1still_waters]

I want to offer some advice for those who may reference blogs for giving news, citing information, or sourcing data.

Many blogs write content based on news that's from the more verifiable news sources. You'll often find a link to said source somewhere within the blog entry.

Often a blog writer will take information from an original article, then weave their opinion/comments into it, then create a headline based on the conjecture of their own writing.

Readers of said blogs can make the mistake of thinking the blogger's commentary is the real news story. Often it's not.

To make sure you're getting more than a blogger's commentary and conjecture, click the sourced link they're commenting on, and read the entire article.

Sometimes it may take navigating through multiple blogs before you find the original article. Bloggers sometimes source a blog, and then that blog sourced another blog, so you may have four layers of blogs before you find the actual news story.

For example, last week I saw a story on Ebola. The blog totally inflated Ebola into something it wasn't. Other blogs sourced that blog as if the initial blog was telling the full story. I finally found the original story, and it was a simple quote about Ebola from an official, that was actually rather tame.

Don't get me wrong, yes the media has bias, but as a whole, just make a point of finding the original sourced news entry before you go passing off blogs as sources of information.

That's all.

 

[iamsoandso]

"just for laugh's",,I years ago read an article on Jeff Rense(lol),,to this day I think it is the only article I ever read there that I think was legit. The article was called "how to read the news",it was one of the last articles I read because I personally did not think that I needed any instruction on how to read the news. As I read,I realized it really was a good article why is this,,

,It first broke down the source(abc,nbc,cbs,fox,ect.) from the others,then it explained that news agencies that are "licensed" must present the facts as best as they can and if they make any mistakes they must then publish/post a correction to the misinformation they gave. It then explained the reasons for this license revoked,law suit for slander ect.ect.

It then explained the different internet sites and the laws regarding amateur,unlicensed writers and the difference between the way they are looked at by law in comparison to a legit news agency. Then it broke down the different Http's and explained the difference between .com,.net.U.S.,.U.K. ect. to explain how to determine the origin(nation) that the page was from. It then addressed the different tabloids,magazines ect. and then the different writer's(Aurthur) and then on and on.

I did learn a great deal from that article(not much from the others.lol),but ever since I read that article I have always (when I see something posted on a thread),clicked on the link given and then,minimize the window,open another,Google the Aurthur's name and the company,web site ect. where it came from before I consider it valid. Many times as I have done this other articles will pop up where there is friction over the Aurthur who wrote it being scorned over things they wrote and the facts they either added or removed. The same I found in cases of web sites these Arthur's are writing for. Even here I have found that it is very useful to search for the phrases in many o.p.'s to see if I get exact quotes from other articles/names on the www and many times I find the original article elsewhere on the internet.

I do agree with you on the advice to look at the sources of information being taken as news under the assumption that it has been researched and found as credible. I wish I could relocate that article I read back then and post it it really was helpful (to me) in determining which things I see posted on the internet as to if they are on the up and up.,,,well I hope this helps others when they see links,quotes,Aurthur names ect.

 

[1still_waters]

Here's a perfect example of what I mean.

This blog states Kim Jong Un has been overthrown.
[h=1]BREAKING: North Korea Overthrows Dictator Kim Jong-un[/h]http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/news/breaking-north-korea-overthrows-dictator-kim-jong-un/

It links to this..blog..
[h=1]North Korea Overthrows Evil Dictator Kim Jong-un
http://mrconservative.com/2014/10/50530-north-korea-overthrows-evil-dictator-kim-jong-un/[/h]
Then that links to this blog.
[h=1]BREAKING: KIM JONG UN OVERTHROWN – Has Not Been Seen in 26 Days! …Update: Pyongyang Under Lockdown[/h]http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/breaking-kim-jong-un-overthrown-sister-running-country/

and that links to this blog...
[h=1]Former Top Official Says Kim Jong-un Is No Longer in Control of North Korea[/h]https://news.vice.com/article/former-top-official-says-kim-jong-un-is-no-longer-in-control-of-north-korea


And all of this links back to the major media article here..
Has Kim Jong-Un lost control of North Korea? Pyongyang is on lockdown and nation's former intelligence officer says Kim has ALREADY been overthrown
Kim Jong-Un has lost control of North Korea claims former intelligence officer | Daily Mail Online

So a statement from someone who isn't even in the regime, was repurposed into a headline claiming Un was for sure kicked out.