Quote Originally Posted by GrowRebel
So you can't site anything specific about prison planet's reporting ..... you just think they lack credibility because of their sponsors? ..... and I'm the one with the tin-foil hat?:wtf:

:noel:
GrowRebel, I honestly don't have time to go and dissect one of the ridiculous conspiracy theory stories on prison planet that will give a specific example of it's lack of credibility. Call it a cop out if you will but...

Some intersting headlines though

"Gene mutations behind fidgety kids: German scientists"

"Former Bush Speechwriter Hints at 9/11 Inside Job"

"'I am plotting a new Russian revolution' "

"The Clone Wars"

Etc., Etc.

Anyhow, the main point is that to be really credible, a media source should be unbiased. PrisonPlanet is about as biased as it can get. That right there takes away from it's credibility. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Fox News is any better, on the contrary, they're just biased in the other direction. Either can manipulate the "truth" to make you believe what they want you to believe.

Let me give you an example of what I'm saying. These are my own "news reports" about a company that my company does business with. It does exist, but in the interest of anonymity we'll call it "Company X". These two reports are both with 100% truthful, everything I'm stating did happen. But each is presented from a different viewpoint. Much like you might get from two different news sources with opposing views.

First Report:

Headline: Vice President Leaves "Doomed" Company in The Nick Of Time"

First Paragraph: "According to its former Vice President, "Company X" is doomed. He cites poor sales and declining stock prices as proof of his claim. He goes on to warn potential investors that putting money into "Company X" is like flushing it down the toilet."

Damn, "Company X" sounds pretty crappy. If I read this and had stock in the company I'd be running to sell.

Then again, what if I had read this story first

Headline: After Firing Hated Exec, "Company X" Finally On The Road To Recovery"

First Paragraph: Three weeks ago "Company X" terminated it's universally disliked Vice-President of Sales. Since then, shares of it's stock have gone up 10% and the new plan initiated by his replacement looks to be a winner. Things have stared to turn around and now is the time to invest in "Company X"

See what I mean? Two, 100% truthful, stories about the same subject but that are obviously intended to steer the reader one way or another. This is what almost all news sources do but some, like PrisonPlanet, take it to the extreme. I don't really call that "credible". Can you? And if you agree that a news source with a specific agenda, one that is certainly not biased, can not be credible, can you then honestly say that PrisonPlanet is credible?