I guess Cracked.com is now part of "the conspiracy..."

[Archae]

Article about the most deadly city on earth. (According to the author)

Caracas, Venezuela.

http://www.cracked.com/article_21948_5-ways-life-different-in-worlds-deadliest-city.html

[Fred Sanders]

1. An opinion from a source called "Cracked" is sure to be accurate and reliable with no hidden agendas.

[Orrex]

3. That's simply an ad hominem

Their articles are actually quite well-written, with extensive citation and links to supporting documentation.

You could as readily dismiss the value of The Daily Show simply because that program is funny and has a generally left-leaning bias.

[nomorenomore08]

34. +1

[DetlefK]

4. Their forum consists entirely of dick-jokes, but they have high standards for their articles.

The footnotes get left out in the final version, but up to there everything has to be properly sourced. (And No, wikipedia is not an accepted source.)

[Fred Sanders]

10. Their forum consists entirely of.....but the rest is serious stuff worthy of instant trust...got it.

[Atman]

11. Their forum is written by readers, not their writing staff.

Kind of like blaming every lame comment posted at DU on Skinner and Elad. Crack writers don't post on the forums, the idiot dick-joke tellers do.

[Initech]

30. Cracked has the absolute worst forums on the internet.

Really - I was a member and they treated me extremely rudely. Even the moderators were complete dicks to me, and I want nothing to do with that site anymore. I'll read the articles but I won't click on the sponsored links or contribute to the site in any way.

[DetlefK]

33. I once had a philosophical/logical question.

I had no interest of getting dragged into another believer-atheist-flamewar on DU, so I decided on another forum.
I thought "Well, those professional contributors at Cracked are thoughtful and eloquent, no matter their fixation on cultural discussions. I should get a second opinion from them."
I made an account.
I asked my question.
The responses were 80% dick-jokes and 20% "dunno".
I went to the xkcd-forum and asked my question there.
They were condescending but at least they gave me several good answers that allowed me to settle the topic.

[Atman]

8. Cracked used to be a Mad Magazine knock-off. Not anymore.

They have surprisingly in-depth political commentary, and some very informative content. They aren't the "Cracked" that was around when we were kids. Enlighten yourself, and ignore the stupid commentary on their message boards.

[Fred Sanders]

9. The thing is it is difficult to trust any Gatekeeper of Truth when there are so many gates.

[11 Bravo]

13. Well, there's always RT.

That has always been my go-to source for clear, un-varnished truth. (Oops, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.)

[Fred Sanders]

16. Some folks full stop, full truth is whatever the American media tells them is the truth. Simplistic Black hat/ white hat.

Sad.

[11 Bravo]

17. Agreed, but I'm not one of them. That doesn't change ...

my opinion that RT is pure, unadulterated, state mandated (not sponsored) bullshit.

[Fred Sanders]

18. CNN hosted a man who called Putin "the head of a corrupt regime that will kill and eliminate all opponents"

That kind of fair and balanced media?

Until I see any media anywhere in the world say the same about Obama, other than RW domestic media.....,can you imagine?

RT is a punter compared to RW media in America, far more dangerous to America than RT..so where should the focus on media logically be?

This personalization over policy is evil, it is Two Armed Camp thinking that is dangerous if swallowed whole.

[11 Bravo]

19. OK, now I know what you think of much of the American media. So ...

do you believe that RT is a reputable news source?

[Fred Sanders]

20. Do you think CNN is? You first....please take your time and elaborate.

[11 Bravo]

24. Sorry, Sparky, but that ain't how it works.

The person who poses the first question gets the first response. Your ploy would get you laughed out of any semi-serious middle school debate.
So, what's it going to be? You show me yours, and then I'll show you mine.

[Fred Sanders]

25. Welcome to Full Ignore....27.

[11 Bravo]

26. Cool. Maybe you should change your sig line from ...

"The Grumpy Pundit" to "Na Na Na Na Na … I can't hear you!"
(And was I on "partial" ignore previously?)

[Orrex]

2. They are also scandalously unenthusiastic about homeopathy and crank pseudomedicine

But I repeat myself.

[arcane1]

5. Which conspiracy is that?

[ND-Dem]

6. and yet, cracked writes nothing about our ally, honduras.

For the third year running, San Pedro Sula, a city of some 720,000 people in northern Honduras is thought to be the most dangerous city in the world with 187 murders per 100,000 inhabitants per annum (187 HTIs*).

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=worlds+most+dangerous+city

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Unnecessarily combative intro. Are you looking for a fight?

That said, the headline about the "most deadly city on earth," is contradicted by the first sentence of the story, which calls it "one of the deadliest city's on earth." I guess nuance doesn't fit in click-bait headlines.

Also, it's a rough neighborhood. Here's a recent list of the world's most violent cities, ranked by homicides per 100,000:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2014-11#1-san-pedro-sula-honduras-had-18714-homicides-per-100000-residents-50

You see several other Venezuelan cities, as well as about a dozen Brazilian ones, a bunch of Colombian ones, several Mexican ones, several in the US, and Kingston, Jamaica. For perspective, there is that.

[Orrex]

12. Perhaps you should take that up with the author of the article

The one who's lived in Caracas for many years.

I'm sure that he'd love to debate the comparative lethality of the world's deadliest cities as it pertains to your distaste for hyperbole.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. I referred to the baiting comment from Archae.

"I guess Cracked.com is now part of 'the conspiracy.'"

These lists of violent cities are easily found, and it's pretty common knowledge that Caracas ranks right up there. Along with a whole lot of other Latin American cities not governed by socialists.

Carry on.

[Orrex]

15. I know. And I was referring to this:

That said, the headline about the "most deadly city on earth," is contradicted by the first sentence of the story, which calls it "one of the deadliest city's on earth." I guess nuance doesn't fit in click-bait headlines.

That's the part you should take up with the author of the article.

As for Archae's comment, I took it as straight-up snark, rather than baiting. YMMV.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Snark done well is never confused with baiting.

You know it is snark.

[Orrex]

28. True, but much of the burden is on the reader.

[Comrade Grumpy]

22. I probably need to take it up with the headline writer.

"One of the deadliest" is just not as concise or zingy as "most deadly."

[Fred Sanders]

23. It is the "Fox O'Reilly Defence"... The truth is in the ballpark of what was written or said. Good enough.

[Orrex]

29. The truth is that the headline is incidental to the content of the article

Evoking O'Reilly and focusing on the headline and ignoring the article suggests that the reader didn't actually read it, that he didn't understand it, or that he can't comment intelligently upon its point.

It's also possible that the reader doesn't care enough to comment on the article's point, but then one wonders why the reader is making such a big deal about the headline.

[Orrex]

27. You're also focusing on arguably the least important element of the article

You're quibbling over "click bait" and Archae's tone while ignoring the entirety of the article itself.

Why?

[cemaphonic]

31. The headlines aren't written by the authors

and often kinda miss the point of the articles.

[frankfacts]

32. Editorially, it's rightwing/libby