You may see above that I have argued the web site in question is not reliable.
We also discuss anti-vaccination campaigners, homeopathy, Pete Evans magic machines and many other ideas that are not generally considered reliable. Some are dangerous and some straight out crazy. Fake news has become a feature of our modern connected society, the only way I know to deal with it is to present sound facts. Censoring rumourmongers only adds to the conspiracy theories that the establishment has something to hide.
Is it that the subjects of this particular rumour mill are often politicians that bothers you or do you want all the above-mentioned conversations curtailed too?
Clearly the site is one person’s rant blog forum. I looked at a few entries, and will never feel the need to return. The ‘truth’ in this case is very debatable.
But then I gave up years ago taking any notice of other ‘truthers’ on media like Bolt, or Palmer, or A Current Affair.
Yes, I did see that you have argued the site, promoted as the truth by the contributor, is unreliable.
I have also noticed that there have been discussions on anti vaxxers, homeopathy and Pete Evans magic 5G machine (I think it was). These discussions do meet the Choice Community’s broad overarching objective of ensuring fair,just and safe markets.
However, the journalist who reports the ‘truth’ thread is outside the Community’s overarching objective.
If the Community users feel this type of post is worthy of reading then change the objectives to allow it. Otherwise, such contributors should stick it on Twitter.
Then I suggest that you take it up with the moderators. If you create a personal message you can address them using ampersandmoderators, where you type the character @.
The purpose of the Community has been kept fluid from its inception, and the Choice staff responsible for its ongoing success have generally taken a broader rather than narrow view. Semantics and scope have purposefully not been taken to constrain members’ interests regarding topics, within bounds.
Over time a number of members have linked questionable sources for curious (if not questionable) claims and they have been discussed, debunked, or supported case by case.
It is an honest concern as to what is news versus opinion, and how well researched an opinion might be, and this has been mentioned already.
Our culture is for each individual to assess, accept, or reject information rather than the medium it is delivered by. Kangaroo Court of Australia purports to be ‘the truth’ but much of it reads as unverified opinion.
Regardless of the written Community objectives and whether they are changed or not, the vast majority of Community members have been broadly concerned with consumer issues, and government and politician’s integrity is possibly at the top of most consumer issues. If any commentary rankles one might ask why that is the case and what basis there might be for what some would feel is censorship in context, rather than presenting counterarguments to debunk the site, or sans being able to do that ‘attacking the messenger’ which in this case was the content of a member post (not the member).
As moderators we try to avoid censoring unless it violates civility as stated in the FAQs, doing our best to assure discussions are evidence based. Links such as in the OP are neither promotion nor done by Choice, they are made by members to take or leave, discuss or not, sometimes they create interest in something new, and sometimes just a ‘meh’.
If there is an issue you still wish to pursue please communicate directly with @BrendanMays (Choice staff) via email at community@choice.com.au or click on his name and use the forum message tool.
It isn’t journalism, but opinion of one individual who possibly attracts others to his blog who have similar views.
There is often a mistake make by internet users that information in professional looking websites must be correct or have truth into claims. Unfortunately with the internet, it is hard to find independent, unbiased, real investigative journalism and why websites like this one, and many others thrive. They also attract a cult following of believers.
With revenue and value of websites/blogs measured by clicks or regular visits, the more sensational or controversial, the more likely it is to attract clicks/visits. The odd court action also can accelerate clicks as more individuals seek information to what the fuss was about.
Consuming content is a consumer issue as it is harder to find reliable and accurate sources. Discussing this particular website is relevant to the community as through this discussion, most posters possibly agree with your take on the website’s content.
Hopefully when others doing some research on this website and some of the claims being made, they come across the thread in the community to assist them in judging the reliability of the information. This is a good outcome and may assist in the interpretation of its content.
I have amended the thread title, to make it clearer and better reflect the threads content.
Many valid points have been made about the apparent veracity of the referenced web site as a news source. Other than questioning it as has been done there seems little that could be added so I am closing the topic.
