Is Youtube a reliable source for news or just entertainment?

Youtube itself is not a news source produced and directed by a single group, like ABC, CNN or a single news website like the New York Times.

Authors are .... pretty much anyone and everyone saying anything they want.

Therefore, youtube itself is not the "source." There are many different sources on youtube.

(I would think most people would realize that.)

Youtube, like public forums, is one of the best examples of a freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

I have watched two hour long documentaries, and interviews with David Rockefeller, news shows, radio shows, and people's pet videos on youtube.

It is the entire world having their say. I think its great.

You tube is a tube of "Ewww"

not usually

its just a good source for listening to what people have said and what they think

and with editing as it is,,and anonymity from legal suit, its not always a good source for that either,,,

Yep,it's called CT-News!

The problem with content on youtube is that much of it is posted without factual verification and poorly researched. If you want news as an original source, you go to Reuters, AAP, Stratfor, or similar agencies. The networks often add editorial commentary which introduces bias.

Now, there is a lot of material on youtube considered 'news' and it clearly isn't. They are merely 'opinion' pieces edited and narrated in such a way that the author's bias or contention appears to be supported. These secondary sources require further checking to establish that quotes aren't out of context, or the footage is really depicting what the narration states. Note the recent scandals exposing the misrepresentation of footage by Palestinian cameramen staging injuries and deaths (cf. the France2 scandal).

Ask yourself how many times have you been directed to a youtube piece proving someone's point and it clearly doesn't? Most times I check a link it is specious and amatuerish in its case building owing to poor research, misrepresentation, overtly biased narration and financial interests.

News, like Gold, is WHERE YOU FIND IT.

And a lot have found 'Fool's Gold'.

If you want to find out what's going on in the USA, read news that is not printed in the USA. Any real truthful news that put the US in a bad light, would be like the home team throwing themselves out of the game.

So true.

Or you can watch c-span live.

""If you argue with conspiracy theorists on the Internet for even a short period of time, you’ll notice one thing very quickly: they love YouTube. It’s extremely rare to carry on any sort of “debate” with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe—9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you—and not see the CT post at least one, and usually more, links to videos on YouTube supposedly validating their position. In fact, in terms of sheer volume of the “evidence” posted by conspiracy theorists, YouTube appears to be their primary source of information. Furthermore, most of them simply can’t understand why not everybody is immediately persuaded by something on YouTube, and if you push back against their arguments, you’ll invariably get still more YouTube links. In the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, YouTube is evidently the ultimate oracle of all knowledge.""

""So, why do conspiracy theorists love YouTube?

1. In most cases, it’s honestly the best they can do.

Conspiracy theories are, by definition, fringe beliefs. The most common shopworn theories these days—9/11 was an inside job, global warming is a hoax, the Illuminati is out to impose a “New World Order” on us, etc., etc.—are completely unsupported by empirical evidence. No reputable scientists or engineers believe that 9/11 was a “controlled demolition.” (Steven Jones and Judy Wood are not a reputable scientists, and Richard Gage is not a reputable engineer). The only studies “showing” that climate change is not happening or is not caused by humans are tainted by association with energy lobbies or other political agendas, and the supposed scientific bases for these viewpoints are not accepted in mainstream science. Therefore, by definition, you will not have pieces of peer-reviewed scholarship to point to that support conspiracy theories. The only support you can find is from some source where content is user-contributed, and thereby not vetted by any type of editorial process whatsoever—meaning, an open and unregulated community of ideas, which is the definition of what YouTube is.

Example: you can’t find a legitimately peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming that the World Trade Center towers were blown up. Papers of that nature simply don’t exist. But type in “9/11 controlled demolition” into YouTube and you’ll bring up thousands of hits. Anybody can put up a YouTube video about anything. Unless it flagrantly violates the terms of service enough to be taken off the net, it will remain there for as long as the contributor wants it there, with no factual vetting of any kind. This is great if you think your cat playing the piano is really funny; chances are others will find that funny too. It’s not great when you’re trying to prove a scientific or factual point. Conspiracy theorists don’t have much “evidence” to choose from, and the richest bed of that sort of material is going to be an open source, user-contributed interface. Ergo, YouTube is custom-made for them.""

""2. Most conspiracy theorists are unaware of, or do not appreciate the importance of, non-Web-based, factually vetted sources of information (put another way, the difference between primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources).

It sounds like a cliché, but it is largely true that most conspiracy theorists, at least those active on the Internet, are white males between the ages of 18 and 30 who either don’t have or are not yet finished getting college degrees. Let’s face it, the term peer-reviewed journal doesn’t come up much in this demographic, and far be it from most of these people to set foot into a respected university library. For these people, the Internet with its ease of information retrieval is the paradigm source of knowledge. Need to find something? Google it. Need to learn something about a particular subject? Type it into Wikipedia. ""

""Note, however, that even Wikipedia has a gatekeeping function. There are editors and moderators who constantly view and vet the articles that are posted there. So even a tertiary source like Wikipedia has some editorial control.

Here’s the point: open-sourced Web services like YouTube don’t even rise to the level of tertiary sources! YouTube lacks even the minimal gatekeeping functions that Wikipedia has. I can post a video claiming that Ringo Starr was the first President of the United States. As long as it doesn’t violate the terms of service, which have nothing to do with factual accuracy, no one will take it down.

Conspiracy theorists, however, typically don’t understand the hierarchy of various source materials. The difference between YouTube and the National Archives is completely lost on most of them. Consequently, YouTube is a “source” as equally credible as the National Archives—in fact, possibly even more credible because the gatekeeping function of source materials is often mistaken, in conspiracy theorists’ eyes, with conspiratorial meddling or other chicanery.

3. Conspiracy theorists cannot distinguish between credible and non-credible sources.

This point is closely related to the above one. Because there’s no difference in a conspiracy theorist’s eyes between any two sources based upon the nature of those sources, they have no way of telling whether a source is true or false. David McCullough, a respected academic historian with decades of credentials, is no more reliable a source than David Icke, an ex-football player who believes that the world is controlled by reptilian shape-shifting aliens. John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists in recent history, is no more credible than bloviating radio talkshow host Alex Jones on matters of economics. This is why conspiracy theorists generally interpret any questioning of the credibility of their sources as an “ad hominem” attack, because to them credibility is irrelevant. Taken to an extreme, this idea results in the bizarre belief that a YouTube video can be just as true and credible as a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a nationally-respected journal.

However, because the world (and especially the Internet) is filled with tidal waves of contradictory information, as human beings we must necessarily have a mechanism that separates truth from ********. No one believes absolutely everything they hear, even people who are extremely gullible; it’s just that the truth-versus-******** mechanism of gullible people is out of whack compared to that of the non-gullible. In evaluating the credibility of a particular piece of information, conspiracy theorists do not ask the questions that most of us would ask—“Where did this information come from? Who did it start with? What supports it? Is the source credible?”—because their shallow understanding of epistemology does not result in that sort of analysis. Too often, conspiracy theorists’ thought processes center around the content or outcome of a particular piece of information—“Does it support the ‘official story’ or does it support my theory?”—or a set of associations, usually negative, with the disseminator of the information itself—“Is it a government spokesperson saying this?”""

""4. Presenting an argument in video format is much more emotionally satisfying than presenting an argument in any other way.

Motion pictures have been used for propaganda purposes since the technology was invented. The phenomenal success of movies to make a political, social or racial statement was demonstrated first with D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, and the extraordinary power of movies to persuade people continues today.

Packaging an argument in a video format, especially if it has interesting visuals and a good soundtrack, will carry your argument further and faster than it would travel by any other means. Conspiracy theorists are always recruiting, and using video is one of their most powerful tools. Consequently, it makes sense that their weapon of choice would be YouTube.

To a large extent, conspiracy theorists probably don’t even realize the immense power of the medium that they seem to choose (unconsciously, perhaps) as their preferred means of communication.

5. Conspiracy theorists often exhibit an anti-intellectual bias, and because of their positions are forced to attack, ignore or explain away the legitimacy of expertise. YouTube plays into these biases perfectly.

Here is the real meat of this blog: conspiracy theorists are usually anti-intellectual. They have no patience for the opinions of experts—usually because those experts do not support conspiracy theories—and they’re often contemptuous of credentialed experts in the first place. Consequently, conspiracy theorists invest a tremendous amount of thought and effort into denigrating or explaining away the views of those who know more about the subjects they’re talking about than they do.


Conspiracy theorists hate experts and intellectuals mainly because they are forced to. Few if any real experts in anything—engineering, economics, metallurgy, political science, or history—agree with conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theorists know that this is a major obstacle in their attempts to gain mainstream acceptance. Honestly, if one structural engineer with questionable credentials says that the World Trade Center towers were dynamited and 99 real structural engineers say that theory is ********, which side are most people going to believe? Consequently, conspiracy theorists have to tear down experts. They do this mainly by denigrating the real value or relevance of expert opinion, which usually means casting aspersions on expert status in the first place. This has two effects: first, they think it blunts the attacks of experts on their theories, and second, it elevates non-expert opinion into the same realm as expert knowledge.""

""Conclusion

Conspiracy theorists suffer from a number of profound misconceptions regarding how the world works, how knowledge is gathered and verified, and what constitutes proof and evidence. If they did not suffer from these misconceptions, they would not be conspiracy theorists, because the fantastic and unsupportable nature of their theories would be self-evident upon careful review of the real evidence. YouTube, being open-sourced user-generated content with no editorial or “gatekeeping” function, has become conspiracy theorists’ prime source of information preciselybecause it’s open-sourced with none of the gatekeeping functions, such as peer review or editorial processes, that make other sources of information reliable. This coupled with an inability to tell good sources from bad ones plays directly into conspiracy theorists’ conceits that they have “special” knowledge, that expert opinion is overrated or irrelevant, and that they can “change the world” simply by spreading a couple of YouTube links and “opening people’s eyes.”

But conspiracy theorists’ reliance on YouTube is yet another illustration of why their worldview is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of attracting serious mainstream attention. When your “evidence” regarding something is a YouTube video from Prison Planet or Infowars, you’re telegraphing to the world that you’ve got nothing better to support your position. Don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously.""


Conclusion

Conspiracy theorists suffer from a number of profound misconceptions regarding how the world works, how knowledge is gathered and verified, and what constitutes proof and evidence. If they did not suffer from these misconceptions, they would not be conspiracy theorists, because the fantastic and unsupportable nature of their theories would be self-evident upon careful review of the real evidence. YouTube, being open-sourced user-generated content with no editorial or “gatekeeping” function, has become conspiracy theorists’ prime source of information preciselybecause it’s open-sourced with none of the gatekeeping functions, such as peer review or editorial processes, that make other sources of information reliable. This coupled with an inability to tell good sources from bad ones plays directly into conspiracy theorists’ conceits that they have “special” knowledge, that expert opinion is overrated or irrelevant, and that they can “change the world” simply by spreading a couple of YouTube links and “opening people’s eyes.”

But conspiracy theorists’ reliance on YouTube is yet another illustration of why their worldview is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of attracting serious mainstream attention. When your “evidence” regarding something is a YouTube video from Prison Planet or Infowars, you’re telegraphing to the world that you’ve got nothing better to support your position. Don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously.""

Conclusion

Conspiracy theorists suffer from a number of profound misconceptions regarding how the world works, how knowledge is gathered and verified, and what constitutes proof and evidence. If they did not suffer from these misconceptions, they would not be conspiracy theorists, because the fantastic and unsupportable nature of their theories would be self-evident upon careful review of the real evidence. YouTube, being open-sourced user-generated content with no editorial or “gatekeeping” function, has become conspiracy theorists’ prime source of information preciselybecause it’s open-sourced with none of the gatekeeping functions, such as peer review or editorial processes, that make other sources of information reliable. This coupled with an inability to tell good sources from bad ones plays directly into conspiracy theorists’ conceits that they have “special” knowledge, that expert opinion is overrated or irrelevant, and that they can “change the world” simply by spreading a couple of YouTube links and “opening people’s eyes.”

But conspiracy theorists’ reliance on YouTube is yet another illustration of why their worldview is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of attracting serious mainstream attention. When your “evidence” regarding something is a YouTube video from Prison Planet or Infowars, you’re telegraphing to the world that you’ve got nothing better to support your position. Don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously.""

"So, why do conspiracy theorists love YouTube? "


A: Everyone loves Youtube because it is pretty much the ONLY truly free speech and free press America has any more.

Sad but true.

And there is no evidence that 16 Islamic "terrorists" (or anyone for that matter) ever boarded said "highjacked planes" and there is no evidence that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the attack on the world trade center.

Conspiracy theorists are the only people who have the brains to ask questions and question authority.

The rest of the population are what are called "sheeple."

I am actually glad that a lot of people don't respect youtube for getting news. (They just don't know where to look.)

To say that youtube is not a good source for information is as silly as saying that the Internet is not a good source for information or that wikipedia is not a good source for information and news, or yahoo or google, etc.

And yet everyone who wants to find out anything goes to the Internet to find it.

And what world famous genius uttered this hoo hah

anybody can see that there is overwhelming evidence of the takeover

just look at the world economy

and the health of the people of the world

they get there news from the tv( one eye logos )

not independent sources

i would rather listen to 10 sources on youtube

than the news anyday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbS1k_isER0&feature=related

I like how the speaker says that men and women become accomplices to those evil forces that they fail to appose.

I can't say I liked the rest of the video.... long and too boring.