Make your suggestion for the BEYOND DOUBTFUL list of no-go-to sources

I’m starting a new page called “Beyond Doubtful” to identify people and sites you SHOULD NEVER EVER USE AS NEWS SOURCES because they repeatedly say or write utter crap.

They are BEYOND DOUBTFUL, they are not to be trusted and should just be ignored, not retweeted, FB posted, Tumbl’d, or linked anywhere even in outrage because that just gives them hits. Don’t do it.

I’ve already started this list virtually after we swore off Alex Jones debunking entirely. Here’s what we have so far:

Natural News (Mike Adams, “Health Ranger”)
Daily Mail (U.K.)
Pat Robertson (700 Club)
Before It’s News
Info Wars – Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
Mercola.com (Joe Mercola)
Age of Autism
CryptozoologyNews.com

What sites or public commentators do you NEVER trust and wish peopel would STOP taking seriously? They have to be reliably churnalism, lies, speculation, nonsense, woo-woo, or dangerous most of the time. Add your recommendations in the comments but be sure to just not post what you dislike, it has to be bad science, poor journalism, full-time insanity, or a public safety hazard.

Skeptical lemur says, "STAAP, I don't want to hear anymore."

Skeptical lemur says, “STAAP, I don’t want to hear anymore.”

Comments are tightly moderated. Please follow the Comment Policy.
This is not a forum or free-for-all. Only thoughtful additions and pertinent opinions will be approved.

idoubtit

Editor and owner of Doubtful News. Writer, specializing in science and society, science policy and education. 

  51 comments for “Make your suggestion for the BEYOND DOUBTFUL list of no-go-to sources

  1. Angela
    March 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM

    Glenn Beck and The Blaze. Or as I like to call him…Alex Jones, the sequel

  2. Marco
    March 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

    Conservapedia
    Age of Autism
    911truth.org
    answersingenesis.org
    Australian Vaccination Skeptics (avn.org.au)
    deepakchopra.com

  3. Marcus
    March 28, 2014 at 10:25 AM

    Anything to do with the AVN should be treated with utter garbage http://avn.org.au/

  4. Barry
    March 28, 2014 at 10:27 AM

    Australian Vaccination Network. Although they’re operating under a slightly more honest name now, their Facebook page is still called AVN.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/nsw-anti-vaccination-group-changes-its-name-after-complaints/5312910

  5. L. Barth
    March 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM

    How about Doug Kaufmann, proponent of the cancer as fungus idea?

  6. Barry
    March 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

    Wattsupwiththat – climate change denial site pushing a “teach the controversy” agenda.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  7. Lowell
    March 28, 2014 at 11:08 AM

    My first thought was Cryptomundo, but they’ve already given up writing anything beyond previews & reviews of televisions shows from Animal Planet or the History Channel. So, I’m going to go with any news outlet owned or operated by Rupert Murdoch.

  8. Chuck Nelson
    March 28, 2014 at 11:11 AM

    Dogs Naturally
    A blend of natural news, age of autism, and Mercola for dog owners.

  9. March 28, 2014 at 1:18 PM

    90% of the internet should be questioned or avoided. Perhaps you should concentrate on reliable information sites. The list is bound to be much shorter than for unreliable sites.

  10. March 28, 2014 at 1:48 PM

    Do you want to include satire news sites? Most folks know about The Onion now, but there are a plethora of similar sites that are lesser-known, and people link to them or repost their stuff without realizing it is intended as comedy or satire.

    • shawmutt
      March 29, 2014 at 10:04 PM

      duffelblog.com is one of my favorites, like a military-based onion. I’ve had folks cut and paste their stories like they were real. One guy nearly blew a vein while posting this one: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/07/vfw-military-fakers/

  11. skeptictmac57
    March 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM

    Snopes regularly mentions a conspiracy site called ‘whatdoesitmean.com’ as being disreputable,as well as ‘European Union Times’.

  12. terry the censor
    March 28, 2014 at 1:53 PM

    These are the worst UFO news sites.

    Whales in Space (Contrails frequently reported as UFOs. Promotes the fringiest contactee claims no self-respecting UFO buff will discuss. Stuff about how to spot reptilians. Etc.)
    http://whalesinspace.com/

    All News Web (Takes mundane articles from non-English sources and finesses the facts so they become UFO reports. Even so, site readers were able to find the sources and debunk articles — so proprieter permanently turned off comments sections. All News items are banned from ATS, it’s that bad.)
    http://www.allnewsweb.com/

    The Canadian (Prints stuff even the Examiner won’t run.)
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/ufo_extraterrestrials.html

    Ufo Sightings Daily (Scott C. Waring frequently posts pictures of reflections on the inside of windows and calls them UFOs. Lots of pictures of “creatures” and “buildings” on the moon and Mars.)
    http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/

    Examiner.com (Uncritical bordering on delusional columnists promote ambiguous lights in the sky, CGI hoaxes and Icke-level UFO conspiracies. Jon Kelly plays spoken word recordings backwards to find hidden UFO messages. Earnest columnist Roger Marsh repeats MUFON cases, usually without critical analysis. Jack Brewer is the lone reliable poster.)
    http://www.examiner.com/

    UFO Digest (Wholly uncritical, continues to promote claims long disproved by UFO researchers. Clinically insane columnists.)
    http://ufodigest.com/

  13. skeptictmac57
    March 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM

    Oh! I almost forgot the biggie that I see almost daily on Facebook from my crazier ‘friends': Anything from ‘WND.com’ formerly World Net Daily. Total garbage!

  14. Chelsea Conlin
    March 28, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    Mother Nature News.

    Brian Dunning actually did a great Skeptoid episode on this here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283#.UzRM9xrCgt8.facebook

    • March 28, 2014 at 4:14 PM

      Mother Nature news often reproduces syndicated pieces that are OK. But you can tell which ones are.

      I’ve referred to the skeptoid piece often but it slightly different than what I’m trying to construct. I took several suggestions from there though.

  15. March 28, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    Russia Today – RT. Com for its crazy anti-American conspiracy articles

    And following Tim’s suggestions I would include the Duffelblog, military themed satire. Funny stuff until someone takes it as reality.

    • MGM
      March 29, 2014 at 12:37 AM

      Thanks for bringing that one up (RT). Totally agree. Way too many people take it seriously.

  16. March 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM

    Another that comes to mind is LifeNews.com.

    Here’s a resource worth perusing for ideas: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Websites

  17. Sean A. Elliott
    March 28, 2014 at 3:03 PM

    Well, I’ve got to throw my hat in the ring with the Bigfoot Evidence blog. An absolute sewer.

    • Lowell
      March 28, 2014 at 4:12 PM

      That site has the funniest comments section EVER!

  18. March 28, 2014 at 4:13 PM

    I’ll have a link to satire sites but I don’t typically get news from blogs unless they have primary accounts. There are a zillion bad web sites that promote crap, I can’t possible include those but just ones that people would think were actual news sources.

  19. March 28, 2014 at 4:47 PM

    VeteransToday.com

    It claims to be a military and foreign affairs journal, but despite it’s name it’s really just conspiracy theory promoting website that also promotes antisemitic propaganda.

    PressTV.ir

    Basically the Iranian version of Russian Today.

  20. March 28, 2014 at 4:58 PM

    MrConservative.com.

    I actually have a class exercise for my freshman composition class where we take a look at a headline from this site <Bookworm. "Feinstein Says All Our Veterans Are Mentally Ill and Can't Own Guns." MrConservative, n.d. Web. 3 April 2013 and then view the actual words used by the subject, Feinstein, to show how a student researcher can’t simply take a news report and assume it’s fair representation of what someone said.

    One of the tip-offs that MrConservative may not be entirely objective in their coverage was the $1000 reward they were giving for “the best anti-Obama video” a while ago.

    I’m looking forward to a compilation of the various entries.

  21. hunter lyon
    March 28, 2014 at 5:23 PM

    ActivistPost.com, Collective-Evolution.org, and global research.CA.

  22. March 28, 2014 at 5:28 PM

    whale.to – comparable to Natural News

  23. March 28, 2014 at 5:58 PM

    BirtherReport.com

    • March 28, 2014 at 7:17 PM

      BirtherReport is not a news site.

  24. March 28, 2014 at 7:01 PM

    Huffington Post
    Anything on the Gawker network
    Buzzfeed
    Really, any site where they pay writers based on page hits, where they disdain journalistic standards & hire barely literate people who don’t even spellcheck, let alone factcheck.

    • March 28, 2014 at 7:17 PM

      I disagree with this having used Huff post piece (not all writers are bad) and some Gawker pieces are available other places, not inaccurate.

      • peter mccarthy
        March 28, 2014 at 9:58 PM

        I was tempted to add in Rupert’s papers but this answer gave me 2nd thoughts. I’m guessing they get something right every so often. :-)

        I now try for a different source if something looks suss like the recent comment about the missing plane attributed to Sarah Palin. It looked too delicious to be true and so it was.

        Great site BTW. I’m enjoying the Net much more now with I Doubt It. It feels like someone is fighting back.

        • March 28, 2014 at 10:22 PM

          Peter: Thank you. I could use the encouragement!

  25. March 28, 2014 at 7:02 PM

    ICR.org
    Creation.org/Creation.con
    Timecube.com

    Really, it might be easier to list the sources that are merely occasionally reliable.

    • March 28, 2014 at 7:18 PM

      None of these are news sites.

  26. drwfishesman
    March 28, 2014 at 8:11 PM

    Free Wood post http://www.freewoodpost.com is a satire news site I see posted uncritically a lot. Even though they make no effort to hide the fact that they are satire. People still put their stuff out there as fact.

  27. Terence Waites
    March 28, 2014 at 8:31 PM

    I use the Web of Trust as a resource for reporting bad sites. It does rely on a lot of skeptics to add their support to ensure a site gets the rating it deserves but it has proven to be good over the last couple of years. It could be what you want provided people are encouraged to report the bad sites regularly. The Skeptical Guerrillas also use this resource. Check it out.

  28. March 28, 2014 at 9:32 PM

    Huffingtonpost (for blindly promoting the ridiculous hoax of ”heroic spontaneous human combustion survivor” ”Frank Baker” – because surprisingly, gullible people still believe that it can happen.)

    Daily Mail (anti-GMO, dubbing a case of child abuse in India as spontaneous human combustion, inedia promotion, promoting the feat of living without water, and milking long-debunked hauntings.)

    Cryptomundo (do I need to elaborate?)

    Mercola.com (unsubstantiated, anti-vax conjecture.)

    MNN & nature.com (chemtrail/mobile phone conspiracies ahoy, alt-med promotion.)

    NewScientist.com (promoting PSI, precognition.)

    Infowars.com (chemtrail conspiracies, anti-vax conjecture, and the like.)

    Wikipedia (anyone can edit this website – it is hence not what I would consider as a reputable source.)

    Ageofautism (anti-vax.)

  29. Ted Hartwell
    March 29, 2014 at 12:15 AM

    Enenews.com for blatant fear-mongering and republishing dis- and mis-information on Fukushima issues specifically, and nuclear issues generally.

  30. March 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    The Huffington Post would certainly make my list. They have a nasty habit of promoting pseudoscience and woo. It is true, of course, that not all writers are guilty. Still, the problem with their promotion of this garbage has been sufficiently pervasive for a long enough period of time that I won’t link to them.

  31. Chris Howard
    March 29, 2014 at 8:42 AM

    Are we sure that skeptical lemur is saying “STAAP, I don’t want to hear anymore.”?

    Because it looks like he might be saying “STAAP. Hammer time !”

    What’s our operational definition for “news site”?

  32. Sam
    March 29, 2014 at 11:07 AM

    Wellnessmama.com

  33. Chris
    March 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM

    Anything written by Christina England, who claims to be a journalist and gets published on various websites:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/27/here-we-go-again-blaming-shaken-baby-syndrome-on-vaccines/

    I see she writes for this “news” blog (munging URL): dub dub dub dot greenmedinfo dot com/

    And is on Gary Null’s Progressive Radio Network: http://prn.fm/

    Then there is also the LibertyBeacon: dub dub dub dot thelibertybeacon dot com

    Another radio station: truthfrequencyradio dot com

    and finally, Health Impact News: healthimpactnews dot com

    There is so much dreck out there, just by searching for this one woman’s horribly bad “articles” on vaccines.

  34. Irna
    March 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM

    I may have missed it, but I don’t think that the “World News Daily Report” http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/ has been mentioned. Unlike Weekly World News and other satirical news sites, they don’t have any disclaimer, and some of their news have been disseminated far and large, like recently the news about the supposed Attila’s grave.
    There is also the European Union Times http://www.eutimes.net/ which has nothing to do with the European Union!

  35. lawn
    March 29, 2014 at 5:26 PM

    OneNewsNow.com
    Drudge Report

  36. oLO
    March 29, 2014 at 6:33 PM

    Although I emphasize with Sharon, who probably has to repeatedly work against a number of these sources, who ever considered these outlets “News” in the first place, will keep returning to similar places for “information”
    A great number of people desire affirmation much more so than information.Alex Jones and the likes are not popular for their newsworthy qualities, they are popular for being loud and out there until the critical mass for web-viralism has been reached. Adverts supporting click-bait will add to the amount of “fantastic headlines”.
    On top of that ,I doubt anyone regularly attending this here website or similarly (sane) web-outlets would be in need of a BS-source list.
    @Alpharalpha RT.com is a russian mirror image of Fox-News- let´s list them as what they are:” special interest mouthpieces”

  37. One Eyed Jack
    March 29, 2014 at 11:12 PM

    Fox News. How can Fox News not be on this list?

    • March 30, 2014 at 9:16 AM

      Because they do have legitimate stories, just with a spin. This is for news souces that promote pseudoscience and nonsense almost ALL the time.

  38. John
    March 30, 2014 at 9:15 PM

    Great idea Sharon.
    Seriously any Murdoch press should be on this list. I’d call spin just as damaging as fake news. and its is ALL the time.
    yes, there are the, occasional, legitimate news stories but they are rare and are spun into political lies 90% of the time.
    The more pressure placed on them the better.
    Maybe (even more work for you though) A ‘probably doubtful’ list?

    as well as (if not on the list already)
    http://avn.org.au/ (anti vax. Australia)

  39. Owen Broadhurst
    April 3, 2014 at 12:31 PM

    Good to see Whale.to, Veterans Today, and Press.tv noted in other comments.

    Those should be avoided. Also, these others are quite questionable to say the least:

    Salem-News.com
    GlobalResearch.ca
    Rense.com
    GodlikeProductions.com
    AboveTopSecret.com

Comments are closed.