"News Source Rule - Defunct" Topic

As per the voting, the "questioning a news source" rule is now history.

Is this a National Enquirer, Fox News, MSNBC, Daily News, (you fill in your favorite source) scam?

You have taken away from us one of our favorite whines about inconsistent moderation!
Oh wait. I'm the one who proposed it.

Alright, I'm looking at you Superior, Nebraska Express! You're going down. Er…something.

Since Winston proposed it, I must express my disappointment and indignation!

Winston you troublemaker.

So do I get in trouble for using the terms Faux News or MSNBS?

Confusing, since the OP mentioned "history", which IIRC is open for full discussion here on TMP.

So do I get in trouble for using the terms Faux News or MSNBS?

Apparently not, but only if your post in its entirety is judged to break the 'no politics' rule.

What a great idea! This makes perfect sense, I don't even recall why we had this rule to begin with.

So now, instead of a hard and fast 'don't do x,' it gets left for a moderator to determine if the post was political or not. Yes, that will definitely assuage the fears of inconsistent moderation.

It also occurs to me, from previous experience here, that once insults start flying at news sources the insults at followers of said news sources (and their return fire) is not far behind.

So, it's been pretty quiet around here, dawghouse has been empty, no real issues with drive-bys or other websites, time to see if we can't stir up some acrimony.

And hats off to the OFM for continuing to propose the poll until we got the results 'right.'

I get all my best information from supermarket tabloids. I just feel so sorry for those poor Kardashians.

"And hats off to the OFM for continuing to propose the poll until we got the results 'right.'"

I never saw John ask for the poll but the one time, and as far as I know we've never, ever voted on this issue before. So how did we "get the results 'right'" if this is the only poll we've ever had on the subject? Or do you just have issues with the OFM?

Never mind, I know what the answer is…

My Dear Nazrat,

We've voted on this at least once before, that's how it became a rule. I seem to recall we've voted on it a total of three times (including this one), at least since I've been perusing this website. So it doesn't matter who proposed the vote previously. It was proposed, we voted, and the rule was no denigration of news sources. And then we got to vote on it again.

For what? Is it that important for folks on a toy soldier website to let the world know their political affiliations via bad-mouthing this or that news channel?

And I bring up voting until 'we get the results right' because OFM constantly complains about this, apparently except when he does it.

So, for the record, I have a problem with people acting hypocritically, and I think this was a terrible idea, regardless of who proposed it. I also think the Editor knows it's a terrible idea, but sometimes enjoys running this website as a social experiment, and he doesn't seem to mind the chaos that comes with stuff like this.

Chaos is too strong a word, more like aggravation. But we know what happens when people start taking shots at news sources, which is why we voted to make it a Dawghouse-able offense in the first place.

Luckily we kept voting until it was again okay to start political catfights here (EDIT: interesting. I wrote a curseword before 'fight,' but it didn't get 'bleeped,' so I went back in and changed it). Apparently you're a fan?

Or do you just have problems with me? Never mind…

When and if Dear Editor in Chief decides that the results of a poll are final, and it will never come up again, I will accept that.
However, I do not think that playing by the rules as practiced is hypocritical.

And if the Like button ever passes through a poll I will immediately start a poll suggestion to remove it. The voters will have gotten it "wrong".

If you want to bring back the "criticism of a news source" rule, by all means start a poll suggestion.
After all TMP is not the Rhineland having a plebiscite.

However, I do not think that playing by the rules as practiced is hypocritical.

Playing by the rules not counting the News Source Rule, you would not violate the News Source Rule.

The News Source Rule was simply an instance of several of the other rules that prohibit defamatory (not derogatory) remarks. Most likely it was put in place because people frequently needed to have it explicitly explained that you can criticize what a news organization writes all you want, but just like any other person or organization, on TMP you should not purely assault their reputation.

Present or not, that behaviour is already covered in the rules.

Present or not, people tend to comment on the rule without actually reading it, as is exemplified in

If you want to bring back the "criticism of a news source" rule

which is not what the rule ever said or meant. As with most of the rules.

What was the rule anyway?

It is quoted at the top of the thread for the poll to revoke the rule.

Can I question the reliability of a news source?
Yes, if the criticism is fact-based and not based on politics. Saying "The National Enquirer is only a tabloid." would be OK. Saying "Don't trust The New York Times, they're so left-wing" would not be OK.

Fix News

"Sorry for the poor Kardashians"? I feel sorrier for the poor Enterprise crews who have to fight them!

No,wait…

It was one of the more ridiculous rules and its intent was obvious.

For those of us lacking your psychic powers and limited to only the written intent, can you elaborate?

so I can now question Fox as to whether it is a news channel or just a gossip/wind-up channel with dullards in charge of it and employed by it? It's not like it's ever used facts!

so I can now question Fox as to whether it is a news channel or just a gossip/wind-up channel with dullards in charge of it and employed by it?

You could do that with the rule in place.

But still get Dawg Housed…

No, because that doesn't violate the rule.

For Current Politics..

… or the news source rule. The news source rule is a subset of the current politics rule. It was put in place because people thought that making political statements about news organizations was somehow not making political statements.

would have gotten me doghoused

Well, I'll see my rose coloured glasses and rise you back your unfounded accusation. Unless …

Bill used the no criticism of news sources, regardless of whether one was criticizing politics or no, with gleeful abandon especially with Fox news.

… you can provide longitudinal data to back up the statement.

I'm not sure why you so devoutly defend the old rule

I'm not sure what you call "defending". Can you link to the part where I said the rule was a good idea? No, because I have not.

What I have done, multiple times, is point out that what the rule says is not what people object to when they criticize it. And I have asked several times for people to provide data, rather than accusations, about misuse of the rule.

I couldn't care less about the rule itself. Sometimes people game the rules and you have to create a new, redundant rule detailing specific cases under the general rule for those people. The way the rule was written, it was a subcase of the general politics rule.

The only thing I have been advocating for is actually demonstrating that the system is broken before your try to fix it.

I once wrote here that Hitler must have watched too much Fox News. Ignoring the fact that Hitler could not, of course, have ever watched any Fox News, and that what I wrote was quite clearly a joke, I got DH'd.

I did not question the truth of what Fox News broadcasts, merely pointing out that watching too much of it will only give you one view of events. Didn't wash with Bill though and his legendary biased moderating. He seems to have mellowed more recently though.

So you made a direct correlation between Fox News content and Nazi fascism and didn't think that was political?

Similar to saying "Hitler would have loved XYZ's policies." and whining about "well, I didn't actually call the guy a Nazi, so I didn't break the Nazi rule."

what I wrote was quite clearly a joke,

You might want to actually read the FAQ as joking about forbidden topics is explicitly discussed in several places, and counts the same. No different than you can't call someone a [insert derogatory term for homosexual here] and you can't "jokingly" call someone a [insert derogatory term for homosexual here].

Bill though and his legendary biased moderating

"Legendary" is a great descriptor.

So you made a direct correlation between Fox News content and Nazi fascism and didn't think that was political?

No I didn't. You need to read more carefully before lambasting people. I explained my point in the second paragraph, but maybe you didn't bother to understand that bit either.

The first sentence of your second paragraph is explanatory, not demonstrative. You are explaining your intent, not describing what you did.

Regardless of your intent, you made an affinity correlation between Hitler and Fox News. (Or at least you say you did.)

Do you people even know why you're fighting any longer? :)

Well, it's hardly a fight.

Every time somebody whinges about the inequity in the application of the news source rule, I ask if anyone actually has any actual justification for the complaints.

The responses have been more unsubstantiated accusations, a hypothetical "Well, this would have gotten DH'd …", and a suggestion that invoking Hitler could not in any reasonable way be subject to reproach.

I got DH'ed for like 3 days, for making a crack that both CNN and Fox were worthless but in their own ways :)

I didn't keep the receipt though and I frankly don't care that much either way.

Do you know what you actually said?

The News Source rule never forbid criticizing news sources. It prohibited using a news source as a political whipping boy, most likely because people thought the politics rule didn't apply to "entities" like news sources.

That said, it is pretty easy to rant about something you dislike and cross the line. From the above discussion, we have a statement that someone invoked Hitler. I think it's relatively obvious that Hitler/Nazi Germany is easy territory for stepping across the line, independent of the intent of your statement.

It is equally easy for an adjudicator of such a rule to be overly interpretive for pretty much the same reasons.

One of the more entertaining part about complaints on the News Source rule is that the majority of the complaints about the rule charged abuse in implementation. Changing the rules themselves does not fix a problem with abuse. In fact, many governments have used law changing as a technique to pacify the public in the face of abuse.

(Please note that I didn't say there actually was abuse. All I said is that I saw that accusation as the prevailing (most vocal?)rationale for removing the rule.)

What I personally believe is that most people dissatisfied with a news organization have at least a major (if not majority) problem with that organization's politics. When blowing off steam about such things, it is really tough not to let that show through. I am perfectly willing to change that opinion, but I would want substantiating data to do so. I keep asking for it and never get it.

With the rule removed, there will likely be fewer complaints about it, so fewer opportunities to discuss the actual salient points. Which is sad, since I couldn't give a cold bucket of farts on a rainy day for the rule itself, however the underlying principles of the discussion are very important to me.