It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So you can't come up with a single left-wing site you would call at least as politically biased as say, The National Review or judicialwatch.org , which were on the list?
Where were CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and WaPo, not to mention a laundry list of additional MSM publications who have all consistently met 4 of the 5 criteria used to identify junk media? T
• Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.
• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.
• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.
• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently presentopinion and commentary essays as news.
• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts,branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: loam
Pointless arguing with someone who thinks anything they have read in the last two years from MSM even comes close to being unbiased or covers the truth.
The issue isn't bias, it's factuality. The right makes things up, the left, less so.
Who here has even visited or heard of any of these right-sites listed
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986
Who here has even visited or heard of any of these right-sites listed
Every single one of them has provided the basis for a thread here on ATS.
Did you even bother to read the five criteria of the study? Factuality and invention have nothing to do with any of the five.
Ask yourself, as you read those criteria, are they subjective? Can you quantify those characteristics and call it science?
Open your eyes. I'm not trying to make you trust right-wing sources. But what I'm trying to make you understand is that all of what you consume in media needs to be questioned, and regardless of the source.
We are all being consistently lied to and manipulated. Maybe you'll never bring yourself to understand that. Maybe you need to believe that your sources, whatever they might be, offer only the truth. Perhaps the real truth of that is too unsettling for you to handle.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz
Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz
Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.
Please elaborate.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wonder how many people here would want to silence sites that publish rhetoric.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Painterz
Sharing “junk news” is one thing, but being the useful idiot in a smear campaign is quite another.
Please elaborate.
It’s the “sourcing filter” in Chomsky’s propaganda model. Legit reporters and news sources sometimes receive their material from political influence machines, for instance Dana Millbank and Greg Sargent from the Washington Post colluding with the DNC to write hit pieces. Since they rarely reveal the political motives of their sources, the people who read them unwittingly and unknowingly spread information designed to smear another’s opponent.