5 ms·

Summit News is not a reliable source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/summit-news/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/summit-news/ >Launched in March 2019, Summit N

Summit News is not a reliable source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/summit-news/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/summit-news/ >Launched in March 2019, Summit News is a far-right conspiracy website. Like most questionable sources this website does not have an about page nor disclosure of ownership. The primary writer appears to be Paul Joseph Watson, who is a former editor for the conspiracy website Infowars. Although not disclosed, Paul Joseph Watson appears to be the owner and editor of this website.

Croftengea 5y ago
Thanks for the link, very useful site.
underseacables 5y ago
Don’t shoot the messenger. What about the content? Did the Danish WHO director make the statement or not? BuzzFeed was once declared not a reliable news source.
- rndmind 5y ago
  Sure, ad hominem attack.. but stereotypes exist for a reason. If a story is only in places like National Inquirer, or in this case, if the story is only on a place that is rated as a poor news site, then I'm not going to read it. If it has merit, then it will be republished by more ( non-profit, and independent ) reliable news sources.
  - nickff 5y ago
    Apparently it has merit, as the link has now been changed to AP. We shouldn't be so hasty in making (or believing) ad hominiem attacks.
    - minikites 5y ago
      So we should take everything at face value and only investigate later, if at all?
      - nickff 5y ago
        I think skepticism should vary, and we should be quicker to verify than dismiss. This post made a specific, verifiable claim; I find that most misleading articles are vague and impossible to verify, or omit any context.
        minikites 5y ago
        I agree, but I think there's another aspect to this. The way many news sources with an agenda operate is by mixing news and opinion (vague, impossible to verify, sometimes omit context, but grounded in reality). Where it starts to cross the line into propaganda is when news is mixed with misleading falsehoods and an active attempt to manipulate context. An individual associated with InfoWars should be viewed with a large amount of skepticism.

Croftengea 5y ago

Thanks for the link, very useful site.

underseacables 5y ago

Don’t shoot the messenger. What about the content? Did the Danish WHO director make the statement or not? BuzzFeed was once declared not a reliable news source.

rndmind 5y ago
Sure, ad hominem attack.. but stereotypes exist for a reason. If a story is only in places like National Inquirer, or in this case, if the story is only on a place that is rated as a poor news site, then I'm not going to read it. If it has merit, then it will be republished by more ( non-profit, and independent ) reliable news sources.
- nickff 5y ago
  Apparently it has merit, as the link has now been changed to AP. We shouldn't be so hasty in making (or believing) ad hominiem attacks.
  - minikites 5y ago
    So we should take everything at face value and only investigate later, if at all?
    - nickff 5y ago
      I think skepticism should vary, and we should be quicker to verify than dismiss. This post made a specific, verifiable claim; I find that most misleading articles are vague and impossible to verify, or omit any context.
      - minikites 5y ago
        I agree, but I think there's another aspect to this. The way many news sources with an agenda operate is by mixing news and opinion (vague, impossible to verify, sometimes omit context, but grounded in reality). Where it starts to cross the line into propaganda is when news is mixed with misleading falsehoods and an active attempt to manipulate context. An individual associated with InfoWars should be viewed with a large amount of skepticism.