neroden
Engineer
You should. They're extremely reliable about citations and sourcing. Extremely. Really all they do is go through and debunk blatant misinformation, of course; they don't break any actual news stories themselves. Columbia Journalism Review has been known to do the same thing. So has Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting; of the three of them, FAIR's the only one which is slightly unreliable.I automatically don't trust anything from Media Matters,
There's some real odd biases in the news media, including one where white male terrorists are *never* referred to as terrorists, but if they're Muslim, why then they're referred to as terrorists.
http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/can-white-people-be-terrorists/
Absolute nonsense; he's just cherry-picking.Over the past 10 years the Instapundit has had a game he calls "Name the Party!" The game is that if the politician caught in a lie or breaking a lie is a Republican, the party affiliation is in the headline or the first paragraph. If the offender is a Dem, the affiliation tends to be in a paragraph buried in the article. This isn't 100%, but it is frequent enough that it is not an accident.
I've got a much nastier collection of items where Fox News in particular, literally misidentifies the party of Republicans caught in serious scandals, pretending that they're Democrats. Doesn't seem to happen the other way around for some reason...
As for Breitbart, he's known for backing O'Keefe's ridiculous setup/entrapment operations where he attempts to goad people into saying things which sound bad when taken out of context (the people he's targeting are generally merely trying to be polite to the crazed weirdo). This is why he has a bad reputation.
Last edited by a moderator: