|
Post by Tpatt100 on Jul 23, 2018 11:50:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RichB on Jul 23, 2018 12:55:41 GMT -5
Did you check out if "paste" is a reputable news source?
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Jul 23, 2018 13:28:41 GMT -5
I found that first and just thought it was weird. Then I saw the Fortune article, and then looked at the Knife analysts and saw that several of them were connected to that cult. For example, one of the editors wrote multiple books and articles with the Raniere guy and has been affiliated with NXIVM since 2002. I didn’t have to read it in the paste article. It’s on her own website. Maybe they are super awesome analysts who are intent on exposing media bias. Maybe they just want to profit off of current distrust for the media. Maybe they have another angle. I don’t really know. Personally I wouldn’t put them in the “credible source” category but YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Jul 23, 2018 15:43:37 GMT -5
All I really care about is that I got to read an article that had no spin or bias. Just a timeline of events.
Baby steps
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Jul 23, 2018 16:09:50 GMT -5
No spin/bias is commendable and needed.
The information against Knife has a very Pizza-gate feel to it. Most of it seems to emanate from the Frank Report, which seems to be a one trick pony. Additional salacious information is on affiliated websites (i.e. artvoice) and then there's the Brock Wilbur article. Vanity Fair and Fortune articles source back to Frank Report and Wilbur.
Frankly, Frank Report and Brock Wilbur appear a lot more shady than Knife Media.
Knife's credibility should be judged based upon their content. If you have a problem with their content or a specific article, that's one thing. Cite it and let it be debated. But to write off sourced news without spin as not credible based on Pizza-gate style smear is questionable and, to put it bluntly, dumb.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Jul 23, 2018 17:20:14 GMT -5
It’s just as (if not more) important to evaluate the publisher/author with the content when deciding whether or not a source is trustworthy. I am not convinced of the credibility of their writers, which affects my evaluation of the site as a whole (because they provide opinion and analysis in addition to timelines). As I said, YMMV. I didn’t even click on that Frank Report because it was obviously not trustworthy at all. I looked up the Knife analysts and editors and their past work. I agree that no spin/bias is commendable and needed, but I’ll wait for the next one.
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Jul 23, 2018 17:35:50 GMT -5
Mission accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Jul 23, 2018 18:16:18 GMT -5
Not disclosing their methodology is odd.
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Jul 23, 2018 18:50:18 GMT -5
I think their % spin score is hokey and unnecessary. I very much appreciate their raw data, just the facts articles and find them very useful. I find their highlighting of certain terms as indicative of spin interesting and their rewording to remove that spin helpful.
The Pizza-gate stuff is weird.
|
|
|
Post by realcranky on Jul 23, 2018 19:09:53 GMT -5
I actually like reading extended articles that include commentary and analysis by people with expertise in the field.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Jul 23, 2018 19:18:19 GMT -5
What do you read where journalists have expertise in the field?
That's something entirely out of the realm of the biased crap and opinions that are published (total clickbait pieces everywhere). AND unfortunately that's the stuff that gets shared and re-tweeted so often that people think it's real.
Its awful.
And I know because I post a lot of them here! But mostly to start a discussion.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Jul 23, 2018 21:35:50 GMT -5
I could say the same to you. I think the NXIVM connection is weird too. I don’t get it. The main editor in chief has actual credentials (unlike most of the other editors/analysts/writers), which is a point in the Knife’s favor. However there is enough of a lack of credentials/experience (amongst other things) that it wouldn’t get a high score on the rubric I give to my students for evaluating credible sources. Just to be clear, I looked at the employees’ own Linked In profiles for their educational and work experience, plus their own websites, and articles they have written. Those, in this case, are primary sources (not salacious information from some smear campaign). I’m curious, did anyone else look into this company or its employees at all before I posted? Or did it confirm your existing bias about the media so you a) took them at their word about their mission and b) decided the content was legitimate based on that? It did make me laugh that in this particular conversation, I was called “dumb” for not taking a media site at its word, but instead looking up information and drawing my own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Jul 24, 2018 5:29:42 GMT -5
I think it's great that you have been researching them. The background is interesting !
I just am not sure how anyone can be biased about wanting to read unbiased articles.
I don't typically do background checks on every journalist I read to investigate their credentials.
There is a lot of bias and spin in the media. Is anyone denying that?
They could all be a bunch of flakes-
The only thing I am basing my opinion of the site on is their content.
|
|
|
Post by realcranky on Jul 24, 2018 5:52:24 GMT -5
I read the print editions of the NYT and the WSJ - they interview MANY people who are experts.
Also, you realize that choosing *which* facts to include, and *which* dates go onto a timeline is in itself what shapes a narrative?
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Jul 24, 2018 7:10:46 GMT -5
I could say the same to you. I think the NXIVM connection is weird too. I don’t get it. The main editor in chief has actual credentials (unlike most of the other editors/analysts/writers), which is a point in the Knife’s favor. However there is enough of a lack of credentials/experience (amongst other things) that it wouldn’t get a high score on the rubric I give to my students for evaluating credible sources. Just to be clear, I looked at the employees’ own Linked In profiles for their educational and work experience, plus their own websites, and articles they have written. Those, in this case, are primary sources (not salacious information from some smear campaign). I’m curious, did anyone else look into this company or its employees at all before I posted? Or did it confirm your existing bias about the media so you a) took them at their word about their mission and b) decided the content was legitimate based on that? It did make me laugh that in this particular conversation, I was called “dumb” for not taking a media site at its word, but instead looking up information and drawing my own conclusions. No, I actually read the news. The Raw Data articles are sourced and excellent and, most important to me, stripped of slant. You're not dumb because you investigated the site. What's dumb is reading a stripped sourced news article and stating it's not credible. Credibility is questionable when a person can cite specific examples in the content where information was withheld or facts distorted. It's strange to me that you aren't poring over the articles for problems or issues. When making a decision about the credibility of a media site, that's the first thing I do. You go to LinkedIn. To each his own. Did the Helsinki Timeline leave something out? What about this article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: I don't support Knife Media financially. I'm judging them on their content. If they drop the ball, I'll be the first to condemn.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Jul 24, 2018 8:29:48 GMT -5
I did look at the content and at the overall website. But as I said, you can’t judge a source for trustworthiness without also evaluating the publisher/author. That is a very basic aspect of evaluating sources. I teach it to 5th graders. Who is taking ownership of the information? Is it a reputable publisher? What is their mission? What are the author’s credentials? Can you contact them? Are they an expert in their field? What else have they written? Are they trying to sell you something, or convince you of something? If you think you can accurately judge the credibility of a source based solely on content, you are flat out wrong. It requires a combination of many things, not just “do they cite their sources?” and “are there glaring factual errors?” (though those are important elements). And yes, most of the time I do look up the person who wrote the article. Especially for op-ed or analysis pieces.
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Jul 24, 2018 9:28:46 GMT -5
While I don't disagree, I put more emphasis on facts and cited sources than on pedigree these days. Those with pedigree in the media have been pushing slanted news with glaring factual errors for a while now. Examples of this abound. The pedigree isn't what it used to be, that's for sure.
Whether or not Knife Media is a sex cult, the fact remains that they're doing pretty good job of owning the mainstream media. When a sex cult is better at delivering the facts than CNN et.al., well, that's pretty embarrassing for the MSM. Owned by a sex cult!
My hope is that the Knife is not the only outlet to deliver this type of content. While there is certainly a place for op-ed and analysis, one can't gauge whether it's worthwhile without knowing the facts. The Editor in Chief certainly warrants respect.
I don't think any of their Raw Data articles are eye-roll worthy.
I do find it strange that the overwhelming majority (if not all!) of criticism for a news outlet isn't its content, rather it's ad hominem six degrees of separation, Kevin Reneiere edition.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Jul 24, 2018 11:27:14 GMT -5
These are the red flags for me: - no biographical information listed about the staff - difficult to verify many staff identities elsewhere - lack of journalism or analytical experience for most staff (except for the editor-in-chief) - no way to contact writers individually - no explanation for their spin/slant percentage methodology - trying to sell a service - the language used in their own analysis pieces (e.g. the “Media Distortion” piece posted earlier, esp the last paragraph). I am also sceptical of their aims. Why would NXIVM - a cult/MLM scheme, aka a scam - want to set up a news site in the first place? My only guess is that they want to capitalize on growing general distrust of the media. That’s why they don’t limit themselves to “just the facts”; they devote a lot of space to their dubious percentages and complaints about the media while simultaneously trying to convince readers that The Knife is the only place to find unbiased news (another red flag). Like I said, it’s a good concept but I’ll wait for the next one.
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Jul 24, 2018 16:46:08 GMT -5
The Knife is a money making endeavor, like all media. I don't give them any money but if they want to remain afloat, they're going to have to generate revenue. Perhaps there is a nefarious reason they're delivering unbiased news but I'll let others run with the conspiracies. Ain't got no time for that. I'm just here for the facts. Pizza-gate isn't my style.
I would never use any media site as a sole source of information, Knife or any other. Perhaps any taint it has with its ties to a sex cult will lessen over time and they'll acquire legitimacy in their own right, like The Christian Science Monitor which is well-regarded even though it was started by a complete nutter. Or maybe not and those who read the Knife may find they've been hypnotized into joining a secret society of crazed Kool-aid drinkers.
I can see why you find Brock Wilbur more credible. He's much more google-able.
I do think their slant/spin percentages are gimmicky and unnecessary. Their Raw Data is excellent and it's still easy to come to the conclusion that Trump is a jackass without being spoon fed hyperbole. So those who worry it legitimizes Trump to report on him without all the the drama, slant and pearl clutching can relax.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Jul 24, 2018 17:39:56 GMT -5
I’m glad you wouldn’t ever get news from only one source. Other people in this thread said they either already got all of their news from them or would consider doing so. And I don’t find Brock Wilbur credible. The only thing I said about him was that he was s guy who claimed he applied for a job with them, and then I said, “WTF?”. I’m not sure how you think that translates into me asserting that he is a credible source. I already listed my reasons, none of which have anything to do with him. The site ticks too many boxes in the wrong column for me. It would get a medium grade on my rubric. If it makes you feel better, that Frank Report would get the lowest grade. If you like them and trust their content, great for you. And as entertaining as I find your responses (“Perhaps there is a nefarious reason they're delivering unbiased news but I'll let others run with the conspiracies.” - ooh, burn ), I don’t have much else to say about them. I’m sure I will have ample opportunity to re-evaluate their content when it is posted elsewhere on this board.
|
|