Question about rense.com...I've seen it a couple of times today.

[lindashaw]

Can someone tell me about this website? Sorry to appear ignorant, I just never saw it before.

[htuttle]

1. It's often referred to as a 'conspiracy website'

And I personally wouldn't place a huge amount of faith in their fact checking. I do not usually use them as the sole source link for a post.

That being said, most of their articles are reprinted from other, more reliable sources, so it pays to note where the sources for each story come from before judging it's accuracy.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. They DON'T fact check as such... That is the point!

It is not meant to be THEIR opinion of what is going on, it is meant to be RAW information so that you can come to your own decision on what is happening in the world.

If someone says it, they will print it, whether it is "true" or not. However, if you disagree with something on there, they will print what YOU say - and let other people come to their own decision as to who is correct, or have THEIR say.

The one and only time I sent a comment on an article printed on rense.com, my comment was printed on the same page as the article. Try doing THAT with the LA Times...

[htuttle]

7. I agree with you, in fact

I was just making it clear that it's kind of an open feed, as it were.

Nothing at all wrong with that -- I spend a lot of time reading various IndyMedia sites which are also 'un-vetted' (actually, they are much more open than Rense, since you publish the stories yourself, not through an editor).

I see Rense.com and Indymedia as sources of 'clues' more than 'sources to back up arguments'. I often do follow up research on something I've read there, but I don't think people should expect to be able to say 'I read it at Rense, therefore it's true'. I think you seem to be saying the same thing.

[Domitan]

2. It's not the bastion for truth

They do have many links from valid sources, but also they have many sensational links that pertain to the weird, to distorted history, to unsubstantiated rumours, to alarmist stories/predictions, and so on. Its politics tend to lean towards creepy regarding Zionist consipiracies (far beyond reasonable criticism of Israel's policies), anti-immigration, anti-gun control, anti-USA imperialism, and so on. While I may agree with certain links, it's not the kind of place I would affiliate myself with like I do with antiwar.com and to a lesser degree democracticunderground.com.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. Ignore these other two.. They just don't understand what they are seeing..

Rense.com is best described as an UNFILTERED information clearing house. Anything and everything will be posted on that site spanning the whole spectrum of political thought - including "conspiracy theory" type stuff like UFO's and Chemtrails.

The point is, unlike other news sources you are EXPECTED not to just believe everything you read, but to actually think critically about what is there and whether or not you trust it.

The benefit of such a site is that you are able to pick out the wheat from the chaff without having someone else's opinions forced upon you. If you read something on there you disagree with, chances are if you wait awhile, something else will appear that argues against it, either directly or indirectly.

I find it indespensible as a source of information (and have done for over 4 years), and visit it every day.

Remember - don't believe everything you read on there, and don't assume that because it is there, that the site's owners agree with it or want YOU to agree with it. You have to think for yourself.

[democratreformed]

4. What an excellent analysis

I, too, have been a frequent visitor of rense.com. I had never thought about the content in the way you describe. I just knew that I did not completely buy everything I found on there.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

6. Here is their disclaimer, which spells it out:

Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest our endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein. Journalism is the profession of gathering multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information about the events of our times and presenting them to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgement and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise.

This is printed at the bottom of the homepage at http://www.rense.com

I tell you, among people I talk with on a regular basis about current and future events I am almost seen as psychic. They can't understand how I could predict some things with such accuracy, because they rely on mainstream news sources for their information.

As we here at DU know if you do that, you will NOT know what is going on right now - let alone be able to anticipate future events. However, if you study the information on rense.com on a regular basis, after a while you become much more adept at picking out the truth hidden behind the headlines, and the patterns such truths reveal.

[librechik]

8. exactly--it's not hard to weed out the whoppers there either n/t

heh

[Domitan]

9. I disagree somehow

The point is, unlike other news sources you are EXPECTED not to just believe everything you read, but to actually think critically about what is there and whether or not you trust it.

The benefit of such a site is that you are able to pick out the wheat from the chaff without having someone else's opinions forced upon you. If you read something on there you disagree with, chances are if you wait awhile, something else will appear that argues against it, either directly or indirectly.

I agree with this segment that you wrote. We both note that there are wild tales there as well as valid stories/links. However, its credibility as a "news source" (as opposed to a "clearinghouse of links" like rumormill.com) suffers if they indiscriminately include outlandish stories. Also they do have a bias as I pointed out in my other post. If they were truly were unfiltered, why do they not include stories/links that counteract the "Evil Zionist Plot" and Makow essay themes that runs rampant in that website. Sites like antiwar.com and informationclearinghouse.com are cutting edge news sources that break through the controlled boundaries of mainstream press and have excellent predictive value...I give more credibility to what they put out compared to sites like rense.com and whatreallyhappened.com (although I do find them valuable in their own way).

That all being said, I do visit it almost everyday for entertainment, and for the mental exercise of weeding out the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, many people don't actively discern what they read like we do. However, if you really want some interesting stuff from a paranormal-fixated radio host, check out clydelewis.com

[Devils Advocate NZ]

10. They DO.

They have at least one regular contributer that I know of that blames anti-semitism and anti-zionism (which he considers one and the same) on the "New World Order", who are trying to destroy Israel.

The point is, there are opposing viewpoints posted on a regular basis. You just have to visit regularly for a long period of time to see it.

Rense moves pretty fast in that it doesn't take long for articles to end up in the archive, even with the large amount of links on the main page.

As for antiwar.com and informationclearinghouse.com, I totally agree - if you are looking for "truth". However, if you want to see what other people are saying and thinking and trying to spin, you really have to see what they are saying to each other.

In other words, it's all well and good reading a site that says neo-Nazis are evil, but unless you read what the neo-Nazis are saying, you can't easily figure out what their NEXT move might be.

So with sites like antiwar.com, you are behind the 8-ball, merely staying abreast of what is happening NOW, rather than being able to discern what is coming down the pipeline in the future.

These other sites themselves view the raw material and give you THEIR reasoning on what is coming, but unless you do it yourself, all you are doing is getting the same kind of filtered viewpoints the mainstream press gives you - only from an opposing viewpoint.

The way I see it, by viewing the "raw intel" I can figure out what is happening and what is coming BEFORE antiwar.com prints it.

For example, I was talking about the "missing Boeing" theory BEFORE places like DU had even HEARD of it. In fact it was because of that theory that I ended up on DU, when I was told on another chat board that DU had just posted the first inklings of it here - so I came to fill in all the stuff I had found out over the six months beforehand.

The point is, I am not talking about staying ahead of the mainstream press - we do that here on a daily basis - I am talking about staying ahead of the "fringe press". In other words not being two or three moves ahead of the mainstream, but ten or twenty.

You have to think in CIA-type terms: antiwar.com and such sites are analysts. They look at the raw intel and produce a product based on that intel. They try to make sense of it. Rense on the other hand is like the field agent - he gathers the intel and passes it on - he does NOT try to make sense of it. It is up to YOU to be the analyst and make sense of it yourself.