WND, Breitbart, TownHall, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, Faux, Daily Caller, InfoWars, you are on notice.

But what IS yer problem is yer credibility.Let alone rationale.
Neither one could pass a smell test if gobs of just opened { jar }
limburger cheese was spread all over yer chest.For that cold.
What significance are links when they are dominated by hacks and
their plotting.Like Judge Judy is fond of saying in her courtroom.
If it doesn't make sense than it's probably not true.
Links don't make for truth.Nor do President's like Obama.
This entire Thread is an attempt to cajole truth because of
Links.It's merely a display of excuses.

" Any excuse will serve a tyrant. " -- Aesop
{ The Wolf and the Lamb }

 

Why does accuracy about facts scare you so?

Do you WANT to be affected by fake news like Pizzagate?

 

So why, exactly, did you start a fraudulent thread (providing that my guess is incorrect)?

 

You haven't exposed anything. But you have posted a lot of extremist gibberish and made a regular contribution of fake news, conspiracy theories, and made up nonsense.

And when you get exposed as a purveyor of this junk, you go right back to teh junkyard for more.

Right wingers love being lied to.

 

Huh??

 

I don't pay much attention to these sorts of sites now, and I won't be especially intrested in it when it does go online.

I've been following politics for more than half a century, and I read a wide variety of material from a wide variety of places.

I even tune Fox in pretty much every day to see what the Trumpian line is.

Fake news, has a very specific definition. It was used to describe the sudden epidemic of right wing and totally false front pretend legitimate websites, that appeared and disappeared like prarie dogs in the summer and fall of 2016. 90% of them were aimed straight at the right wing audience, and many parroted and amlified consparacy theories and discredited claims that had already been floating around in right wing media. Others createdus new ones. All of then were sucked up like catnip by the same useful idiots who think NewsMax and Gateway Pundit are news organizations, or take Limbaugh, Hammity and Levin seriously. And they all parroted this junk. It was all over this forum and promoted heavily by the right wingers on this forum, all of whom enthusiastically played useful idiots to the Russian campaign (and still are).

Of course, Trump expropriated the phrase and has tried to flip it to mean anything he doesn't like or that he thinks his audience ought not, or doesn't want to hear.

The decline in journalistic standards is non existant. The decline in quality of content is in inverse porportion to the increase in quantity. Cable TV is largely a waste as a real news source. Every day, all three of them only cover about ten stories. You can learn more watching 30 minutes of the News Hour on PBS than you can watching a full day of Fox or MSNBC.

As for asserting that news should "news sites exercised journalistic standards by always giving all side to an issue or story.", I strongly agree. But Ronald Reagan didn't. And thus, objective journalism became the "marketplace of ideas" where reality is priced according to how many people it appeals to.

Right wing media proves the point every day. The audience NEVER punishes Fox, Breitbart, or any of these other "news" organizations for making stories up, ginning up nonsense, and providing a constant stream of idiotic vitriol. We see that here every day. Every day, some right winger(s) post this garbage only to get repudiated and fact checked. And every day, they go right back to the same people who lied to them in the first place for even more.

A marketplace where infotainment has replaced information will never penalize bad journalism. Indeed it frequenly rewards it.

But the charge to the bottom of the quality and integrity barrel has always been led by the right wing. First it was disc jockeys pretending to be political experts for the entertainment of people who know very little about politics. Then it was the video version of the same thing, Fox News. Then right wing websites like NewsMax, Gateway Pundit, the Blaze, etc that peddled vitriol and lies on an almost constant basis.

They are useful only to the extent that it's notworthy to know what is being said, and who is doing the talking (or writing the checks. Right wingers usually go to lengths to conceal the latter.

 

Can you tell me where you get your reliable news from? Rachel Maddow? lol

 

"You can keep your doctor!"
"I will close G-bay!"
"I am not in the interest on spying on US civilians"

LOL. Right wingers are? You VOTED for a liar

 

I disagree. Most informed voters, regardless of political persuasion, will obtain their news from a variety of sources. While low information voters might only obtain their news from one of the right wing sites you noted or Salon or any other extreme political site, we (should, at least) consider mainstream media sources as free of political spin.

Obviously, they are not, and we can't. And a fake right wing news site gets just a fraction of views that the mainstream sites get. And when low information leftwing voters here still believe the original headline and are not aware of the correction on one of those mainstream sites, that does far more damage to our ability to have a political debate...

 

You're a Trump supporter...right?


Jeeze

 

Obama said those lies, not trump.

 

How many lies has Trump told?

Usually when we start pointing them out, the Trumpers just nod and say "Yea well those lies don't matter"

Are you denying his constant lying altogether?

 

So Trump shouldn't stoop as low as Obama?

Well I agree. Hopefully he doesn't.

 

If we're talking about lies...Trump is near the bottom of a bottomless pit and Obama is on the lip at the top

 

LOL.

How do you feel about Snowden?

 

Hey, I agree trump used the fake news moniker in his own self interests. No argument from me on that. I don't agree with much of how he behaves and his brain being disconnected from his mouth. These are personality flaws and flaws in character.

I have been bothered by the death of journalistic standards for years. It didn't just happen but has been around for a long time.

One thing that I have noticed for years is that MSM is very pro war. Who in MSM ever questions it anymore? I remember Cronkite doing that long ago in regards to the war in vietnam. Yet today our MSM has not seen a war we get involved in that does not send a tingle down their legs. Why is this? Any ideas, given that most americans are against it, and trump run on it and won? It helped to elect obama as well. And yet MSM never, or seldom ever question it. Is it because the corporations that own them want war? For profits? Or is it because MSM gives us the news that our elites want them to give us? So we get the views of the elites? In their own self interest?

 

I missed it

Do you have the link?

 

Both good things

That broke the monoply of liberal one-voice broadcasting

 

Soros will fund them if necessary

 

Or maybe Putin

 

If this site wants to actually debate things, then great! But I'm guessing it's just another lefty propaganda site that will say "blah blah is wrong!" and then hope that some dumbo with a hillary for prez sticker on his car bumper will believe them.

 

You got that right . They are out if control . And they would act the same exact way if Mike Pence was president , you better believe that .

 

Ditto bud .... Ditto.

 

Because we saw directly and Indirectly { as of the latest news of
Obama's weaponizing a Deep State } just how that drivel of yourn
operates.Like I say ... it's meant to cajole and at times soften.
But in the end it's an attempt towards Stalinism.
Like fattening up the calf before slaughter { veal }.

 

https://newsguardtechnologies.com/our-investors/