There is no such thing as “Media Bias”. Big Media exists entirely to push a biased agenda. Just don’t read it or buy products you see on it!
KNOW YOUR NEWS SOURCE BIAS AND VOTER IMPRESSION RIGGING STANCES
(Please re-post on your blogs and in comments on Voat.Co and Reddit.com)
LEFT-WING PROPAGANDA : NEWS SITES THAT EXIST TO PROMOTE SILICON VALLEY AND HOLLYWOOD CAMPAIGN FINANCIERS
-
CNN
-
NBC/MSNBC
-
The New York Times
-
The Washington Post
-
The Los Angeles Times
-
Twitter
-
Google
-
Linkedin
-
Facebook
-
The New Yorker
-
Salon
-
Cracked
-
WIRED
-
Ars Technica
-
Vox
-
The Verge
-
TechCrunch
-
All Disney Properties
-
Gizmodo
-
Kotaku
-
All Sony Properties
-
LifeHacker
-
Jezebel
-
All William Hearst properties
-
San Jose Mercury News
-
Deadspin
-
Jalopnik
-
Reddit.com
-
The Daily Dot
-
The Huffington Post
-
San Francisco Chronicle
-
MediaMatters
-
Politico
-
PolitiFact
-
ValueWalk
-
New York Daily News
-
TIME
-
Newsweek
-
Snopes
-
Motley Fool
-
Think Progress
-
The Guardian
-
The Telegraph
RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA: NEWS SITES THAT EXIST TO PROMOTE EAST COAST AND SOUTHERN STATES CAMPAIGN FINANCIERS
-
Breitbart
-
The Washington Examiner
-
The Washington Times
-
The Daily Caller
-
The Daily Wire
-
Hot Air
-
The Gateway Pundit
-
True Pundit
-
The Conservative Treehouse
-
WND (WorldNetDaily)
-
Heat Street
-
Regated
-
TownHall
-
ZeroHedge
-
Danger and Play
-
The Dilbert Blog
-
Vox Popoli
-
Drudge Report
-
Age of Shitlords
-
Voat.co
-
The College Fix
-
Campus Reform
-
Gatestone Institute
-
Jihadi Watch
-
All FOX properties
-
TechDirt
-
The Register
-
Consumer Reports
-
The Wall Street Journal
-
The Consumerist
-
The Federalist
-
RealClearPolitics
-
The New York Post
-
The Observer
-
The Daily Mail
-
The Sun
-
The Daily Express/The Sunday Express
COMMENTS:
submitted ago by garryorlarry
With all this US election crap going on, are there ANY journalists exposing the lies and corruption? Isn’t there a journalistic code or something?
want to join the discussion? login or register in seconds.
sort by:
Sort: Top
[–] bfriend13 8 points (+8|-0) ago (edited ago)
On the Internet. Guys like Steve Sailer, Roosh, Chateau Heartiste, Instapundit, Vox Day, Mike Cernovich, etc.
[–] Chiefpacman 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
You seem to know what you’re talking about. Besides specific reporters, can you recommend a few news hubs?
A relative was asking me for a good outlet the other day, I didn’t know what to say other than view every piece of journalism with a large amount of salt.
Saw @frankenmine ‘s comment. Leaving his link here; answered my question kind of: https://voat.co/v/news/comments/1315115
[–] bfriend13 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Drudge Report is good. Instapundit is a news hub with a comment lead-in. And Voat, but you know that one. Gab and Twitter has good stuff if you follow the right people.
[–] pinkmagnet 2 points (+2|-0) ago
If you want some decent commentary check out Styxhexenhammer666.
[–] nadrewod 4 points (+4|-0) ago
In the alt-right websites. Breitbart, Drudge Report, InfoWars, places like those. You might occasionally see some “honest reporting” in the mainstream corporate media, but any story that makes life more difficult for the “Corporate” part of the “Corporate media” is going to be kicked down to a page near the back (if it is published at all), writers are being told to spend more time writing clickbait headlines rather than actually doing investigations, and whatever story the “corporate” people want to push is going to land on the front page with little to no fact-checking.
[–] Texas_Ranger -3 points (+0|-3) ago
Breitbart
It’s funny how kikebart got forced into the conservative scene. Jews own both that and RSBN. They just can’t resist the subversion.
[–] lemon11 12 points (+12|-0) ago
I judge people on their merits. Communists judge people as groups to be set against each other.
[–] Womb_Raider 0 points (+0|-0) ago
RSBN? Good to know that Breit is Jew-owned… do you know the name of the owner? I’m going to look further into this.
As long as they provide good journalism, I don’t give a damn who owns ’em.
[–] isikhequanimity 1 points (+1|-0) ago
Love James, can’t stand his little side kick
[–] sweetholymosiah 1 points (+1|-0) ago
Amy goodman, now retired bill moyers, Glenn greenwald
[–] pissed 1 points (+1|-0) ago
IMO there are no unbiased news services so you have to find the least biased and figure things out for yourself. In other words you have to ‘think’ and be able to cut through the bullshit (a talent most people don’t have).
The No Agenda show, very popular podcast pointing out the corrupt media, if that’s what you mean.
[–] elgindelta 0 points (+0|-0) ago
Brian Williams? Last I heard he was interviewing his future self about winning the Pulitzer and Nobel in the same future year. And Chris Hanson, had an unfortunate run in with shrek so, hes not catching any predators anytime soon
The most devastating tactic for the 2016 elecion is to Tweet the location of CNN news van’s or a Clinton rally, sports event, etc. and then get everybody to stand in the background and yell: “FU CNN” or “Clinton Rapist” so it gets on camera.
Hot Topics:
As Mexican Univision buys Gawker Media to use it as a GOP character assassination tool against any anti-immigration people, Carlos goes all in.
NY Times Hides Ties to Mexican Billionaire In More Than 50% of Stories
By Alatheia Nielsen |
The New York Times’ largest stakeholder is the 4th richest man in the world — Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim — but readers might not know that because it’s news the Times often considers unfit to print.
Slim owns the Mexican telephone monopoly, America Movil (which reportedly cost Mexicans an extra $13 billion a year), and has donated to The Clinton Foundation. He’s been criticized as a “crony capitalist.” Slim is also the largest stakeholder in The New York Times Company, with a 16.8 percent shareholding. But The Times failed to disclose his ties in 53 percent of their stories about him in the eight years since he invested in the company.
The Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics code states that journalists should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.” Yet the Times failed to live up to those guidelines. Fifty-four of the 102 stories about Slim between his initial 2008 investment and October 2016 did not disclose his connection.
The Times included disclosures even less often in 2015, the year Slim became the largest Times Company shareholder. That year, the Times did not acknowledge his ownership stake in 77.8 percent of stories (7 out of 9 stories).
Whether or not Slim’s stake in the Times impacted its coverage of him, the relationship is still a “perceived” and “unavoidable” conflict of interest which should be disclosed as a matter of good ethics.
Slim began investing in The Gray Lady in September 2008, according to Forbes, when he purchased a 6.4 percent stake (9.1 million shares) in the Times Company. Less than five months later, Slim lent the Times $250 million, with a steep interest rate of 14 percent, The Washington Post reported.
The loan, which the Times repaid three years early, gave Slim options to increase his stake in the company to 16.8 percent — he did that in January 2015. The acquisition made Slim the largest individual Times stakeholder, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Even when the paper disclosed Slim’s stakeholdings, their amount of information varied dramatically — from “Mr. Slim is the second-largest shareholder in The New York Times Co,” (Dec. 4, 2011) to “Mr. Slim holds a minority stake in The New York Times Company,” (May 19, 2013).
While both were true, they sent vastly different messages to readers.
In March 2013, Paul Gregory, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of economics at University of Houston, criticized the Times for not exposing that “Carlos Slim is a crony capitalist.”
In April 2013, the Times said “crony capitalism” was an obstacle in Mexico, causing Mexicans to “pay much more for goods and services like phone calls, medicines and airfares.” But the phrase didn’t show up in any of the other 102 stories.
While the Times admitted multiple times in stories that Slim’s phone company was a monopoly the paper didn’t spell out how it impacted Mexico until August 2016.
“His [Slim’s] monopoly was so dominant that it cost Mexicans an extra $13 billion a year between 2005 and 2009, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,” The Times finally said in the Aug. 10 article, “Mexico’s Richest Man Confronts a New Foe: The State That Helped Make Him Rich.”
Despite Slim’s critical view of philanthropy (In 2007, Slim said he thought businessmen could do more good than philanthropists, who give money away “like Santa Claus”), Free Beacon discovered he donated to The Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has faced ongoing criticism for accepting donations from countries that kill and imprison gay people. Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has also been accused of giving Clinton Foundation donors special treatment while she was secretary of state.
Methodology: MRC Business searched for all mentions of “Carlos Slim” in New York Times newspaper articles published between Sept. 1, 2008 and Oct. 1, 2016. Stories that did not include a significant mention of Slim were excluded (like a list of dinner guests from March 2016, and a February 2014 article noting a Mexican artist’s newest art installation was next to a museum owned by Slim). The remaining 102 stories were analyzed to see if the Times acknowledged Slim’s shareholder status.
<
p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>
