PDA

View Full Version : 50 horrible sources to get your news



DiabloViejo
04-19-2012, 02:56 PM
50 horrible sources to get your news
Robert Sobel
Orlando Liberal Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/article/50-horrible-sources-to-get-your-news)

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/df/7e/df7e8c1b43bf60e549020f71570b0995.jpg

You often hear the term "liberal bias" when the radicals on the right try to demonize anyone who is willing to tell the truth. The real truth however, is that majority of the media (TV, radio, internet, print) is owned by big corporations who try to protect the radical conservative agenda. From big news outlets to small time blogs, there are many places that you want to avoid when trying to get good news and information. This is simply a counter to the claim by the radical right wing that all media is liberal. Here is a list, in no particular order, of 50 of the worst places you could go to get your news. A simple "copy and paste" into Google and you can see for yourself.

1. Fox News

2. Rush Limbaugh

3. Glenn Beck

4. Michael Savage

5. Alex Jones

6. The Heritage Foundation

7. The Wall Street Journal

8. Neal Boortz

9. Sean Hannity

10. Bill O'Reily

11. Rightwingnews.com

12. National Review

13. Mark Levin

14. The Weekly Standard

15. Washington Times

16. The American Conservative

17. The Drudge Report

18. The Cato Institute

19. Media Research Center

20. Townhall.com

21. Red State

22. Andew Breitbart's Big Government

23. The American Cause

24. Christian Coalition

25. The John Birch Society

26. Citizens United

27. Freedom Works

28. Tea Party Express

29. Tea Party Patriots

30. No Left Turns

31. News Busters

32. News Max

33. The New York Post

34. Conservative HQ

35. Sirius radio "Patriot"

36. Conservative American News

37. Conservative Daily News

38. Judicial Watch

39. The Source Daily

40. Republican National Committee

41. American Spectator

42, Reason Magazine

43. Where Freedom Rings

44. Conservapedia

45. The Right Side of the Web

46. CNS News

47. Michael Reagan

48. Family Research Council

49. Conservative Underground

50. Hugh Hewitt

Gayle in MD
04-20-2012, 01:34 AM
I'll go along with that list!

I only rely on the Weather Channel, lol, they are only wrong half the time /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

These days, even Network News is a joke. The right has taken over nearly all of the news media, including C-Span other than their live coverage of the government, and they schedule their other programming in favor of Republicans.

Network news is just as bad.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">REPORT: Broadcast News Networks Misrepresent Intelligence On Iranian Nuclear IssuesApril 18, 2012 7:00 am ET by Rob Savillo

Many in the media have long since repudiated their failures in the lead-up to the Iraq War, acknowledging that they were too quick to accept the false notion that Iraq possessed a sizable and dangerous cache of weapons of mass destruction. The question today is whether they have learned from those mistakes.

The media's self-reflection began as early as May of 2004, little more than a year after the conflict began, when The New York Times editorial board reflected on the paper's coverage of the war and stated that they "found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been." Top editors at the Times and The Washington Post subsequently acknowledged they had failed to push for front-page articles on "the flimsiness of the intelligence on W.M.D." The media's poor coverage has been noted by the Post's Walter Pincus, CNN's Howard Kurtz, CBS' Katie Couric, and many more.

But fast forward to today, and the media's coverage of Iran's nuclear program suggests that some outlets have not learned from Iraq reporting failures and risk repeating history. Media Matters reviewed transcripts of ABC's World News, CBS' Evening News, and NBC's Nightly News between November 8, 2011 and March 31, 2012. The examination reveals that once again the media is frequently misrepresenting the expert opinion of the intelligence community.

Two egregious misrepresentations in particular repeatedly came up in news reports on the Iranian nuclear program: suggesting that Iran will imminently obtain the bomb and suggesting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has major influence over the country's nuclear program.



</div></div>

This is an excellent article if you'd like to see the charts, and read the rest of it:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204170020

LWW
04-20-2012, 04:58 AM
Oddly, your list makes no mention of why these sources are unreliable ... and neither did you.

That being said ... what the article did show was a list of sources that the regime forbids it's minions to peruse.

That being said, you couldn't wait to prove your blind allegiance to the regime by regurgitating your spoon fed "OPINION" to the rest of the O-cult.

Your devotion has probably brought a tear to dear leader's eye.

Sev
04-20-2012, 03:35 PM
I like this one.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/7.123.1288802025!/image/2358286532.gif_gen/derivatives/default/2358286532.gif

Of course the antisemites might have a problem with it.

Soflasnapper
04-20-2012, 05:13 PM
Haaretz is the most left-wing (read: anti-Israeli government policies) paper in Israel, and the anti-anti-Semites have the biggest problem with it. Those who are critical of Israeli foreign policy, whether because of anti-Semitism or pro-Christianity or anti-tyranny or pro-international law, etc., find a welcome read in Haaretz. Most American Zionist Jews I know are taken aback that any American reads this paper, because it is most unfriendly to that ZOG element. (Actual quote: 'he [referring to me] reads Haaretz??!???!!! How does he know about that paper!???!?!?!')

DiabloViejo
04-21-2012, 07:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oddly, your list makes no mention of why these sources are unreliable ... and neither did you.

That being said ... what the article did show was a list of sources that the regime forbids it's minions to peruse.

That being said, you couldn't wait to prove your blind allegiance to the regime by regurgitating your spoon fed "OPINION" to the rest of the O-cult.

Your devotion has probably brought a tear to dear leader's eye. </div></div>

My response:

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m15gl9oj6F1qcnu5ro1_500.gif

pooltchr
04-21-2012, 08:42 PM
If all the media is so conservative, why do they go after the Republicans, and yet give Obama a pass on nearly every one of his gigantic political failures.

Steve

LWW
04-22-2012, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If all the media is so conservative, why do they go after the Republicans, and yet give Obama a pass on nearly every one of his gigantic political failures.

Steve </div></div>

You have to remember how the O-cult thinks.

If you agree with Bush just 1% then you are a right wing nut homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist sexist, misogynist, homicidal, suicidal, genocidal, dance recital pig dog in the minds of the moon at crazy left.

OTOH if you disagree with dear leader just 1% you are an enemy of the state.

The likes of this cabal we have here has zero tolerance for any dissent towards thir beloved dear leader or his fascist regime ... and none of them would dare peruse information that has not been approved for their consumption by their beloved state.