Quote:
Originally Posted by CreativeMind
Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.
Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.
Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?
|
1) You are correct, and I think the Internet is doing a horrid thing wrt proper investigative journalism. If opinion can be counted as valid news, and editorializing by the reporter is accepted as fact "news" and "source" become meaningless terms.
2) WND has a deplorable history of fuzzing facts, omitting important bits that don't confirm their intended outcome, fail to cover stories. In short they are only a hair better than the Freepers (the Free Republic).