It has been brought up time and again in my short life at that opinion articles are not credible sources in debate. Then there are those that disagree.

Beyond opinion articles:

What exactly do you find to be credible sources? Why?

What exactly do you not think are credible sources? Why?

What exactly do you find to be credible sources? Why?

OpEd's can be just as credible as hard news, and in many cases more so. News accounts will sometimes push the agenda of the editor or producer, just as the bias of an individual writer will be made clear. However, many OpEd's and commentary articles are penned by experts in that field; scholars who have dedicated much of their professional life to the topic they are writing about.

Often times, their opinion is based on years of research as opposed to the 'some people say' aspect of news stories.

What exactly do you not think are credible sources? Why?

Vague and unsubstantiated releases by the state, replete with political buzz phrases.

I voted 'depends'. I think they CAN be good sources if they are well-researched and have backed up their claims with factual information (based upon research findings - preferably not sponsored by some sort of agenda-based group). I usually like to cite scholarly works as being the most credible as they are probably the most scrutinized before ever coming into print. I generally don't quote anything that's not based on research (preferably independent).

Im with kmsouthern. It really depends. I think DTOM makes a good point, a lot of op-ed pieces are written by experts in the field, and should carry some weight.

I hate to make standards arbitrary, but I really think it's a "know it when you see it" sort of thing. I've read op-ed pieces that sound hysterical and have very little citations to back up opinions (for instance, the local daily here has a "speakout" piece written by locals concerned about a particular issue...A lot of those pieces are utter crap). And I've read really thoughtful pieces that do not resort to appeals to emotion to make their point.

One of my biggest issues with sources is that I often find that people do not know anything about basic research methodology, and thus say sources are not credible when in fact they are. Often, people point to social science research as "biased", then bring up a study of their own as "unbiased." This of course ignores the issue that all social science research is biased, and that there can be no perfect pollings or experiments. What is important when looking at polls and experiments is that the methodology can be scrutinized, and that there are explanations for why certain variables were included or excluded (and perhaps a discussion on how these exclusions may affect the study).

Couldn't agree more....particularly when it comes to political issues. I have a simple rule of thumb I use: ALL sources are biased in this arena. Hasn't failed me yet . The important question when evaluating sources is 'sources of what, exactly?'. Given that almost all conclusions and opinions expressed in any source are inherently biased, they really should just be sources of information. I tend to completely disregard their conclusions...that's where the bias comes in. I've seen many supposedly highly scientific sources here in where the conclusions were clearly pre-ordained before the stated research was even performed. Plus, there is the old adage about how statistics can be used to back anything. I can pick any point of view, no matter how ludicrous, and find some statistics out there to back it up. So, reader beware. Look at the information provided, and draw your own conclusions.

I would add, to DTOM's point, that op-ed pieces can provide just as much insight and information as other sources, and are indeed 'valid' sources. In fact, in the political arena, just about everything is op-ed anyway, the only difference is that some claim to be something else.

Nighttimer has been busting my chops over "sources" lately. Indeed, NT even runs to a dictionary to determine the meaning of ad hominem. So, this is a very timely topic for me.

1) Credibility is usually determined by the reputation of the author and the medium, by the apparent thoroughness of the research and anaylsis,... or not.

All sources are in great part opinion sources, of course. Here is an example:

There is a book that came out in about 1991 entitled "Point Blank: Guns and Crime in America" by Florida State Criminology Prof Gary Kleck. I have it and have read it. It is the most "fact" filled book one can imagine-filled with FBI data, local police data, etc., and bound together with complex statistical models. When published, it was by far and away the most detailed and elaborate book of its kind every published. Kleck, admittedly apolitical by his own admission in the foreward of the book, addresses one very unusual point in that he creates a statistical model of how many crimes were prevented using guns, as well as the usual types of data about crimes committed with guns, accidents with guns, etc.

In any event, most committed firearmophobes could care less about Kleck's book in that they just know guns are bad, cause all kinds of crime, and should be banned--despite Kleck's contention that many more crimes are prevented than committed using guns, and his voluminous factual data supporting this contention. And, firearmophobes can marshall plenty of data to support their contention, I might add.

In defense of the firearmophobes, there is no doubt that any gathering of "facts" and analyzing of "facts" are colored by the point of view of and the models or systems used by the persons gathering and analyzing. In that sense, all sources are "opinion" sources. Also, anyone would have to be blind to suggest that two people cannot look at the same "facts" and come up with differing views on what those facts mean.

So many "factual" articles are written as conclusions, too--how can one know the accuracy of polling data, for example, unless one knows all the details of the process by which the data was collected and analyzed? Well, you can't, and oftentimes you do not have the time or inclination to do such in-depth research behind the scenes. Instead, you must rely on the conclusions, based upon the credibility of the author and the source.

The single most important factor in determining "fact" is understanding how big a portion of society, or the relevant subgroup in which one finds oneself, believes a certain "fact" to be true. People usually follow like sheep to the "facts". Anyone who has watched 12 Angry Men understands this. Maybe this shouldn't be the case, but it is....global warming is a perfect current example. Heck, the pack mentality on this board is an example.

Men and women are reasoning creatures but oftentimes not so rational. Our Philosphy 221 course on the "Advanced Theories of Knowledge" will begin at 2:15 p.m. in the Saginaw Auditorium.

Lest I sound like we cannot "know" anything, a la David Hume, well, I think I know I am typing this now....

2) Non-credible sources? Anyone who does not agree with me, of course.

Oh god, I knew there was no escaping this thread.

Normally, I'm all inclusive, but I don't accept blogs, or websites with an idealogical slant (heritage, EPI).

We've also run into problems with shady news organizations in the past.

Editorials from major news papers are fine. But not some guys random website.

The internet is the wild west of information, it's up to the poster to defend the validity of the information they provide.

I go by a different touchstone when it comes to credibility, as I first read in Mark Twain:

Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read.

It's a good idea to take everything with a grain of salt. When I read similar things from several sources, I tend to agree that something might be true. But of course all the sources could be wrong too.

Another thing is the sense test, as in does something make sense. It makes sense to me to invest in and develop alternative energy sources. Maybe it'll help the planet too, but depending on fossil fuels when we can develop solar and geothermal is just plain stupid, in my not so humble opinion. We also have two sea coasts.

Online education makes perfect sense to me. The grandkid (14 years old) is going to try this for finishing high school and getting a jump on college. What's pretty horrible is that many people still consider online education as inferior to on-ground. This is especially true with colleges and universities. I guess people don't get enough alcohol and bong hits when doing it online. It certainly can't be that there's more work on-ground. I've seen this first hand that online requires a lot more work. So add that to the mix -- personal experience and observation, which is very credible to me. Yes, and very true when someone tells me one thing and I experience and/or observe the direct opposite.

On op-ed pieces it really depends on how much I've read from a particular columnist. If someone were to use Ed Quillen of the Denver Post as a source on writing, newspaper publishing or history, I'd be inclined to believe Quillen because he has done all these things -- including making up his own history (western novels).

Now when it comes to convincing others of something, it all depends on if the horse will drink.

Couldn't agree more.



Another very good point...does the author merely have an opinion on what he's writing about, or has he/she actually done it/lived it/breathed it? I guess what this points to is the difference between an opinion and an educated opinion. I'm always even more concerned about one other facet that is almost always present in anything political...the self-serving opinion. Just about any opinion in the political arena is designed to have the reader reach a conclusion the author has predetermined, and which almost always then either agrees with the author's preconceived notions, or which is designed to improve the political power of the author or the party the author follows. It is almost always not a presentation of facts leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions. I tend to think this particular bias is what led Twain to have such distaste for





Here's the dilemma I have on this...what makes the editorial any better, less biased, etc than the random guys website? There have been numerous stories in recent years of major newspaper articles that were found to be complete fabrications. Also, consider that just about every journalist has a blog now. I suspect the major difference between their blog and their articles is political correctness...making the article less 'truthful' than the blog. To me, its the content...I could care less who provides it. In the immortal words of Sgt Hartman: "Here you are all equally worthless!". I have no way to tell who is more biased than anyone else, so I just assume they're all incredibly biased (which is usually true, btw). So, I find the random guys website no more or no less credible than anything else...the content contained within should be judged on its own merit.

While we're on the subject, one thing I think should be brought up in this regard...within the political arena, as I stated above, I think just about anything you read or see is biased. Therefore, someone's conclusion in a citation really doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's conclusion. It is their basis for that conclusion that is important, not the conclusion itself. To me, these are essentially useless citations....no more weight than stating that you know a guy who knows a guy who said 'x'. It is the facts and reasoning that is important, not who says it, IMHO. The conclusions they draw are full of preconceived biases, regardless of their stance on a particular issue. Consider the following scenario:

Debater A cites a conclusion drawn by Person X. Debater B simply says I don't believe what Person X says. What then does Debater A have to show to defend the citation? Nothing, unless the underlying reasons for Person X's conclusion can be shown and discussed. It is those reasons that are important and carry weight, not that Person X drew a conclusion from them.

I see this quite frequently here on -- people citing the conclusions or opinions of others, not the underlying data that supports them Personally, I could care less about the conclusions drawn by others, especially in politics. I think it is far better to cite the research and data that might lead to an opinion, and draw one's own conclusions from it.

Cause people on the internet can say whatever they want. While big newspapers might occasionally have false of misleading information, columns are generally read by an editor. Newspapers have an incentive to curtail fibs and falsehoods because their profitably is often tied to their reliability.

As I said, I have a big problem with ideological think tanks. Lets take the conservative website, heritage. Because I know their ideological slant promotes thinking backwards from the conclusion, I have a hard time accepting their evidence. It could be wrong. It could be misleading. No one has checked over it. It's soundness is difficult to determine.

This is different from a newspaper article or a study in a peer-reviewed journal, where the facts are double-checked. Its not so much about the bias, its what the bias says about the information.

Compare the accuracy of blogs to newspapers? Anyone?

If the source of information is legitimate, this should never be a problem. No one will double guess the BLS, and if they do, they do so at the expense of their own credibility.

Fibs and falsehoods, yes, but still just as slanted. In fact, I believe they intentionally slant things precisely because of perceived effect on profitability--they will be more likely to tell people what they think they should hear, as opposed to what might really be the case. I would grant that I wouldn't trust any of the facts presented in most blogs, whereas I would trust published articles...but there's really no reason to assume any analysis or interpretation in published materials is any less slanted or biased than in anyone's blog.



Agree on the think tanks, but I wonder why you think that is so different from a newspaper article. Both will be called out if their facts are off, and also both are going to be inherently biased in their presentation of those facts. The only difference is the think tank is a more obvious bias. Also, facts are never biased--only the conclusions drawn from them. So, facts presented by an ideological think tank are just as valid as facts presented anywhere else, and in both cases you should wonder to yourself which facts they left out that might have contradicted their views.




But what makes a source of information 'legitimate'? There's inherent biases everywhere. For example, there's probably not any source who knows more about the oil business and any facts or data related to it than the oil companies, yet I'd be willing to bet that most things they say are rejected out of hand. Why? Assumed bias. The only difference between the oil companies and anyone else that says anything though is that the (perceived) bias is more obvious. It's still present in just about anything you read anywhere. Even in peer reviewed scientific journals...you might remember this thread , in which the cited journal article, despite all its claimed objectivity was perhaps one of the most fallacious pieces of scientific bunk I've ever seen--the conclusions were completely unsupported by the research.

There's all kinds of reasons to doubt the BLS, and many of their statistics are questioned quite frequently, as are the methods in which their data is gathered. Not that they're not a good source...they're certainly one of the better ones to use. At least they're sources of data as opposed to pure opinion, but there's still plenty of reason to question them. Which is kinda my point in all this...good data can come from anywhere, as can bad data or faulty interpretations or conclusions.

I read the impetus for this thread, and the lashing that you took. This is a girlish thread to create given the circumstance. You should respond with your debating skills, citing what you believe to be reliable and make an argument. By doing this thread, you are making an argument against your own position. Your asking for opinions on the credibility of opinion articles. If you agree with the opinions of the posters, you are saying that their opinions are credible, thus disproving your point that opinion articles are not credible sources because you just used opinions to make your case.

If you want a source, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.org stating how to source information. Link

This is what Nighttimer did and he does it all the time. He took someone else's opinion, from a reputuble publication (i.e. - Kansas City Star & New York Times), and offered their opinion along with his to make his point. This is what is known as journalism. What you did is described as tomfoolery. Asking "anything of substance" when he posted three sources in one post.

There is no difference between news and opinions. The news stations decide what to report and it is always decided by opinion. In my city there was a legal battle between the School Board and the Mayor's Office. The Mayor was planning on circumventing the democratic process and appointing the school board instead of using elections. The local "news" station picked this story up and reported on it. During their coverage, they had a snippet of the Mayor presenting his position. He was articulate, calm, and presented a clear position. Then they did a counter-point, but instead of having a school board member justifying their position, they chose a wildly outraged black woman. She was screaming and incoherent. She accomplished nothing, except irritating the viewers. Which is exactly what the "news" station had intended. The mayor got his appointed school board, which quickly moved to shut down many schools and then sold them to a land developer for low costs.

Thats assuming you need any substation for an argument. People put a lot of emphasis on links and data, especially when they disagree with you, but in some cases its not necessary at all, I made a forum about music taste without any links. That falls under casual conversation, and there are many debates such as that where I wouldn't worry about it.

Now obviously this is much less true in debating politics, war, or race matters, in these cases its often good to have links to show where your getting information, if its an opinionated article, that can work depending on the authors credibility. If the author is a respected journalist that ups the credibility of the post, but often the best thing you can show is raw figures, and data, if your really trying to validate a point. Opinions are limited in the sense that they usualy come with stiff opposition that is rarely shown by a poster favoring one argument over another.

For example if I wanted to debate something highly controversial like saying that Liberals are less educated about the Iraq war than Conservatives, and I substantiated that by quoting Ann Coulter and BIll O'Riley 24/7, naturally thats just going to get giggles and criticism from the left, in that case rightfully so.
Nobody wants to hear someone spin someone else's opinion as if it has more merit over theirs. Personally that sort of thing ticks me off, unless of course opinions are presented as ((opinions)) rather than conclusive evidence.

I'll tell you right now sometimes links will do you absolutly no good with some people, some will suggest you need to show links but when you show them they are not looked at or disregarded. Typically most posters appreciate good substantiation but every now and then its a waste. For example on a site called ChristianForums.com I was debating in a geology subsection of the site with someone who believed that the center of the earth is cold rather than hot. I still don't understand exactly what he was going on, but he believed it. I was trying to show him scientific evidence of various types, from some very respectable sources. I talked about the magnetosphere, plate tectonics, I talked about volcanic activity, and how the seismic waves of earthquakes are used to view deep inside the earths mantle like ultrasound. I probably showed him 15 links, but for religious reasons he had determined that the center of the earth was not hot.
In cases like that its best to just agree to disagre at some point.

In short you can cite almost anything as being some kind of substantiation but obviously there is a limit to how convincing an opinion based article can be. I don't usually pressure people for links unless they make a wild claim or something, and yes it happens.

Wow, opinions galore! There may be no difference between news and opinion, but there is a vast difference between those and peer reviewed research papers, wouldn't you agree?

Not that I have to defend myself to the likes of you, but for your information, this discussion of credible sources comes up in more than just one thread on this board. I couldn't find any actual discussion about what is credible, so I started a thread for members to discuss. It appears more than just one person found this to be worth discussing. I don't give a flying fart what you think about this thread, you are cordially invited not to come back if you think it is too girlish. BTW, no lashings from someone that can't support an opinion of his own without any FACTS.

Also, be careful about using Wikipedia as your reference. I have yet to come across any academic professor that allows Wiki as a source, and if you read the disclaimers on Wiki itself, you will find in great big bold letters: