Websites debunked thread?

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
There are forums for "People Debunked" and for debunking the various conspiracy theories, I was wondering if the idea has been explored to have threads devoted to exposing the websites out there that seem devoted to spreading the debunked conspiracy theories and are run and written by many of the individuals that have merited having a thread devoted to debunking them. I am thinking about the websites like, inforwars, prisonplanet, weatherwars, blacklistednews, naturalnews, beforeitsnews, geoengineeringwatch....

My reasoning is, that by showing that these sites have a demonstrated pattern of spreading misinformation, even after that information has been shown to be a load of bunk, that people would come to realize that they are not reliable sources and are in fact spreading disinformation.




For example, in light of the recent FALSE allegation that Chuck Hagel had been paid to speak to "Friends of Hammas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigGovernment.com


and also the fact that Breitbart employs James O'Keefe, who is the person that created the video that created a false impression of wrongdoing by the group ACORN and other seemingly incriminating videos about other people and groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe


""Friends of Hamas"

On February 7, 2013, Ben Shapiro published on Breitbart.com article reporting allegations that Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), former Senator and nominee forUnited States Secretary of Defense, may have been paid to speak at an event sponsored by a group called "Friends of Hamas".[36]Breitbart.com claimed that the story was based on "exclusive" information by a Senate staff. The story was later followed by conservatives media such as RedState,[37] National Review,[38], Washington Times,[39] PJ Media[40] and commented on by US Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
However, investigation by Slate reporter Dave Wiegel unable to confirm the existence of the purported group.[41] On February 19 however, reporter of New York Daily News, Dan Friedman said that the story had originated from a sarcastic comment he made to a Congressional staffer, "Friends of Hamas" being one of several groups which he considered to be so over-the-top as to be implausible and obviously fictitious. He claims he made the sarcastic comment in an effort to find out what Hagel did that was purported as anti-Israel: "Hagel was in hot water for alleged hostility to Israel. So, I asked my source, had Hagel given a speech to, say, the 'Junior League of Hezbollah, in France'? And: What about 'Friends of Hamas'?". He claimed that the joke inadvertently turned into a scandal.[42][43]"

Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It would be good if there could be some kind of very quick way of getting a sense of how trustworthy a site is, with something like "top ten falsehoods" for each site (assuming it has some). Just a quick reference - backed up with links if needed, that can be used to illustrate the patterns of deception (or otherwise) that a site seems to promote.

Alex Jones is an obvious example. But you could even do it for more obscure and verbose sites like carnicom.com - there the more direct lies (or mistakes) are buried under the mountain of words.

The bottom line would be: "why do you trust X when they say: A, B, C, .....", and "why won't they remove the lies/mistakes from their sites?"
 
Top