Relative credibility of vs.

In this thread, Poptech and I got into a Battle of the Cites as between SourceWatch and DiscoverTheNetworks. See post #32, post #38, post #49, post #50, & post #51.

Now, this isn’t exactly a hijack, since the relative credibility of sources (WRT global warming, in this case) is what Poptech’s thread in question is about. But I believe this particular cybershouting match reflects a worldview cleavage that deserves a separate, focused debate, hence this thread.

Wikipedia says of SourceWatch:

Wikipedia says of DiscoverTheNetworks, or, rather, of its parent organization, the David Horowitz Freedom Center:

DiscoverTheNetworks says of SourceWatch:

SourceWatch says of DiscoverTheNetworks:

Poptech says – or somehow implies – that SourceWatch is not credible because of its wiki format. And because it is sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy.

I say DiscoverTheNetworks is not credible because it is a project of David Horowitz. As I have argued before on this board – see this thread, this thread, and this thread – the dude’s a pure-D crank. There are intellectually honest conservatives in America, but he ain’t one of 'em.

As for the wiki-format thing, I’ve known RWs (far more than LWs) to bash Wikipedia for the same reason, and I don’t get it. Why do RWs seem to have such a problem with “consensus reality”?! (Is it because the facts have a liberal bias? ;))

Skimming through both of those descriptions, personally I wouldn’t trust either of them.

In the meantime, billions of dollars in taxes go to the EPA, NASA, DOE, USDA, etc. just to research the climate. If I’m going to spend all that money hiring scientists, I’d sure be interested in what the people I’m paying are reporting.

I think SourceWatch is credible to a point. That point is identifying the people and groups which sponsor particular organizations. Beyond that, I check up on those people and groups independently of SourceWatch.

In other words, ignore the editorializing. It’s not difficult.

I’ve never heard of DTN, but I think it’s fair to treat it the same way.

I suppose the best way to find that out would be from the websites, etc., of the agencies in question – straight from the source, IOW. But that’s got nothing to do with this.

But, they’re not analogous to each other, no more than MSNBC is analogous to Fox News. Look closer.

No, of course not- but they should be approached the same way.

Person A: I have these two websites and I want to know which to trust.
Person B: Neither of them. Go to a website that there’s no question about whether you can trust.
Person A: Man, why can’t you stay on topic?


How are they not analogous to each other? One was founded by a right wing activist to monitor left wing groups, and one was founded by a left wing activist to monitor right wing groups.

Perfectly true.

Sorta true, but “monitor” is probably not the right word. Try “excoriate.”

Sorta true.

False. Look closer.

Also, I take the position that the iterative open-editing format of a wiki makes SW by and large more credible and reliable than DTN, which, presumably, only Horowitz or those he authorizes can edit/supplement.

Your position is irrelevant. If you’re trying to debate someone, using a source that they will give no credence to is pointless. It would be like someone trying to argue with me that homosexuality is bad because it says so in the Bible. As an atheist, that source of information simply isn’t going to have any weight so far as I’m concerned. You can holler all you want that your cite is superior than theirs and you win the argument based solely on that fact, but really the debate ends right there. You’ve already won so far as you’re concerned. But don’t expect the person you were debating against to see it that way.

That might be relevant to the other thread, linked in the OP. But the debate in this thread is over which of those two sources is, in fact, more credible and reliable. If you want to participate, don’t duck it.