Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:09 PM Jun 2014

Why naturalnews.com is not a suitable source for anything on DU.

See these ads from that site. These are paid ads, accepted by that website. What do you think:





Snake oil central. My suggestion if you have a black mole on your lip? Go see a dermatologist. Don't buy that crap. You might save your life.

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why naturalnews.com is not a suitable source for anything on DU. (Original Post) MineralMan Jun 2014 OP
I know. And there's this political forum that caters to what they sometimes refer to themselves as postulater Jun 2014 #1
DU's ads are placed here by Google. MineralMan Jun 2014 #3
Can't see them on my machine. nt Zorra Jun 2014 #2
Website ads? gratuitous Jun 2014 #4
Go to the site. Read some articles. MineralMan Jun 2014 #7
Do your own homework gratuitous Jun 2014 #12
I suggest we evaluate each OP on it's own merits in lieu of starting a "banned site list". nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #13
There already is a "banned site list" Rick zappaman Jun 2014 #16
It doesnt do any good if it's kept a secret. What next are you going to burn books? nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #17
Who has this list? Why is it only a few hosts obviously have the "banned site list"? Autumn Jun 2014 #18
Why not evaluate each OP on it's own merits? Or would that be spoiling the alerting, hiding, rhett o rick Jun 2014 #19
Can I do some more work for you Rick? zappaman Jun 2014 #22
I dont see no list. I have seen that and sadly the alert, hide, lock and ban posse think rhett o rick Jun 2014 #23
sometimes the ads say more about the user than the website. so the question is, unblock Jun 2014 #5
that was the spin last time somone posted RW crap- to denigrate othrs who actually knew the source bettyellen Jun 2014 #11
Wild oregano oil? LOL. JaneyVee Jun 2014 #6
Laugh all you want marle35 Jun 2014 #14
I think this OP is a fail. The_Commonist Jun 2014 #8
Eh...The site looks interesting to me. Lucinda Jun 2014 #9
Yep. Naturalnews is crap run by a right-wing Birther nut, who is also a Sandy Hook truther: NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #10
For many years I subscribed to Natural News and then I noticed it changed to attack Obama 24/7 kimbutgar Jun 2014 #15
What do you have against curing cancer at home? panader0 Jun 2014 #20
I agree... SidDithers Jun 2014 #21

postulater

(5,075 posts)
1. I know. And there's this political forum that caters to what they sometimes refer to themselves as
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:12 PM
Jun 2014

'Progressives'.

You should see the ads on there. All kinds of crap. I wouldn't trust anyone's opinions from there.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
3. DU's ads are placed here by Google.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:13 PM
Jun 2014

DU does not receive money to place specific ads. naturalnews.com has those same ads visible all the time. Sorry.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
4. Website ads?
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:13 PM
Jun 2014

I think you'll need to do better than that. Right now on DU, I'm seeing an ad for Audi, but in the past, I've seen promos for Jesus Camp, and some Glenn Beck goldbug scheme. When I click back to the main GD page, there's an ad for some clinical study at Tulane that looks kind of fishy.

Website ads are not a measure of the reliability or unreliability of the site's content.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
12. Do your own homework
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:44 PM
Jun 2014

I'm not here to pass judgment on anyone's site. I'm just saying that deciding a site's reliability based solely on its ads - as your original post does - is a fool's errand. I gave you examples from right here at DU (which is currently favoring me with ads for LifeLock and sending money by Western Union, two products of dubious quality and efficacy) about why that's not a good idea.

If the content of the articles at naturalnews.com is specious, give the whys and wherefores. If you can't do that, you're not making a very strong case.

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
18. Who has this list? Why is it only a few hosts obviously have the "banned site list"?
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:49 PM
Jun 2014

Please post it and share.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
19. Why not evaluate each OP on it's own merits? Or would that be spoiling the alerting, hiding,
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:50 PM
Jun 2014

locking, and banning project? I can see how that would be a power trip for some.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
23. I dont see no list. I have seen that and sadly the alert, hide, lock and ban posse think
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 07:00 PM
Jun 2014

that gives them carte blanche to decide which sites are "kooky". Ah the power to lock and hide, hide and lock, and ban. Working hard to protect DU from the nasty outside world of "kooky" sites. No thank you, I would rather make my own mind up as to the danger of reading something from a "banned" site. You dont give liberals enough credit.

Locking, hiding and banning sounds more like conservative behavior than politically liberal behavior.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
5. sometimes the ads say more about the user than the website. so the question is,
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:15 PM
Jun 2014

exactly what sites have *you* been visiting lately, mineralman?


 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
11. that was the spin last time somone posted RW crap- to denigrate othrs who actually knew the source
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:37 PM
Jun 2014

was total RW spin, LOL.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
6. Wild oregano oil? LOL.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:17 PM
Jun 2014

Spend money for a placebo whose only effect is making you smell like oregano. Save your $, buy a pizza.

The_Commonist

(2,518 posts)
8. I think this OP is a fail.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:26 PM
Jun 2014

Which is too bad, really, 'cause you're one of the good guys, MM.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons to not use naturalnews as a source.
But pointing to their scammy ads is not gonna cut it.

I've seen plenty of horrible ads here on DU.
And saying "well, it's Google!" is no excuse.

If the owners of DU didn't want scammy ads served by Google, they would not have signed up for the service. Therefore, the owners of DU are just as responsible for the scammy ads on their site as the owners of naturalnews are on theirs.

Its a fail, but that's OK.
We're all allowed a fail once in awhile...

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
10. Yep. Naturalnews is crap run by a right-wing Birther nut, who is also a Sandy Hook truther:
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:36 PM
Jun 2014
Obama birth certificate is just as authentic as the money supply, the food supply and Obamacare

The Birthers just don't know when to quit, do they? Now that the White House has released President Obama's birth certificate, the case is now closed, but they just won't stop ranting about it. Why are these birthers still complaining?

They claim the birth certificate document is a fake. Why does that matter? But of course the document is a fake. It's not "merely" fake; it's so fake that the whole thing has become an IQ test for figuring out how many people can be so easily fooled by a fake. If I turned in a document like this as part of an effort to get a home loan, for example, and I assembled it layer by layer with obvious cutting and pasting of numbers from multiple sources in order to fake my reported income levels, I would be guilty of a felony crime. At the very least, I would be laughed out of the room. "Are you kidding me? This is your best attempt at falsifying an income statement?" they would say. Even a high school kid with a scanner and Photoshop knows how to make a more convincing forgery than this...

http://web.archive.org/web/20120504053520/http://www.naturalnews.com/032217_Obama_birth_certificate.html


Sandy Hook fundraising relief page created 3 days before shooting, Google search results confirm

I did some checking around and found that one Google engineer says the date is a "glitch." That seems odd, since Google's date property seems to be accurate for everything else I can find.

For example, I wrote a story about the mysterious death of John Noveske yesterday. If you run a Google search for it, using the date parameter, it correctly lists the exact HOUR of my publication of that page.

Click here to see the search results yourself.

So I'm not sure why Google search results would be correct about seemingly all the others pages it indexes, but somehow wrong by three days on the United Way Sandy Hook fundraising page.

The "glitch" explanation seems suspect to me. It sounds like a quick answer to try to downplay something that could be the biggest story of the year. Because if the United Way knew about the Sandy Hook massacre three days before it actually happened, then the entire thing had to have been scripted.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130114000609/http://www.naturalnews.com/038633_Sandy_Hook_Google_search_results_December_11.html

kimbutgar

(20,882 posts)
15. For many years I subscribed to Natural News and then I noticed it changed to attack Obama 24/7
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:19 PM
Jun 2014

with the Alex Jones/Beck tea party bullshit. It no longer was a health site but an anti Obama and anti liberal conspiracy site The last straw for me was when Mike sent out a email saying the tea party were going to save the country and to vote republican to bring liberty and freedom back to the US. I finally unsubscribed. It was a good site at one time now it is a bunch of crap.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
21. I agree...
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:52 PM
Jun 2014

too bad certain GD Hosts refuse to exercise their responsibility and lock threads that use naturalnews as a source.

Articles from that site have no business on a progressive site like DU.

Naturalnews - generally regarded as the #1 anti-science website on the internet.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283

Sid

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why naturalnews.com is no...