Let the triggering begin: Breitbart among Top 10 Publishers

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/breitbart/statements/?list=speaker

 

A ranking of news sources based on likes and shares says nothing about them as a source of legitimate journalism.

 

It's absolutely for the worse.

Many people's level of nuance on politics/government are at meme level such as the President's understanding, Thank social media for that.

 

You literally just did the same thing by picking the most innocuous lie on that page.

 

Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/breitbart-fake-news-alex-marlow/


And this fake news checker:

Breitbart uses sensational emotionally loaded language in their headlines such as “Obama Loses 2 Million+ Followers During Twitter Fake Account Purge.” They utilize sources such as tabloid entertainment magazine Variety, and credible sources such as Bloomberg. as well as factually mixed sources such as the Daily Mail. Under the Big Hollywood section they publish tabloid stories such as “Fashion Notes: Melania Trump is Posh and Proper for Final Day in England” utilizing fashion sources such as farfetch.com

In general, the majority of published stories favor the right and are highly pro-Trump in tone and story selection.

A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN Fact Checkers. Here are just a few of many as an example:

• Breitbart Duped by Fake News (Again) (False)
• Following Joe Kennedy’s speech, Breitbart says Fall River, Mass. not built by immigrants (False)
• Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim (Pants on Fire)
• Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri? (False)
• Trump’s ISIS Conspiracy Theory (False)

Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias and publication of numerous false claims. (M. Huitsing 7/14/2018)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

 

threadstarter is the only one who seems triggered here.

not surprising coming from someone who says that fox news is "leftist", breitbart is the only reliable source of news and people who actually pay attention to the news have no lives or full-time jobs. he has also repeatedly used the word "slavish" to describe people who follow the news and current events.

he also seems to hold breitbart to a lower standard of accuracy than all other media. one incorrect story from a news outlet means everything else they say is fake, but breitbart can push lie after lie...fake story after fake story...and he claims that they are the only one who is not biased.

but in the past you have said breitbart is the only reliable source of news. i dont think you understand the difference b/t news vs opinion.

every single other media outlet you criticize and dismiss has a better track record than breitbart, yet you want to claim that they are all biased liars and breitbart is not.

 

How do you feel about Infowars as a news source?

 

AP News just simply reports the news, no bias or opinion in it.

So, if that graph is opinion based, then everything is. You have no right to call out anyone for their news sources. If someone says they only read Huffington Post and watch MSNBC for their news then it may as well be just as credible as Breitbart. Which has been caught, as others pointed out, as fabricating and lying.

 

Popularity does not equal accuracy, or factual. Just because several people like to use this source to reinforce their own echo chamber, it doesn't make it right.

Of course the above might be difficult to distinguish for a Trump supporter.

 

It is science, not opinion. If you would read the text accompanying the chart you would learn that the product isn't some cute graphics some dude cutely composed, but a thorough and time-intensive examination of the articles from the listed news sources, fact-checked. Dude gathered the data, assessed the validity on a sentence-by-sentence basis, and tabulated the results. This is empirical science. Not opinion.

Wrong. There are observable facts. There is corroborated testimony. There is measureable phenomena. There are direct quotes of the statements of officials, scholars, etc.--people informed or responsible for execution or oversight.

Again, "credible" per the chart we are discussing has been assessed from exhaustive fact checking of multitudinous articles. You act as though anything less than 100% accuracy equals 100% unreliability. The chart isn't a straight line. It clearly indicates a spectrum. Your Jason Blair is ONE incident of error from, as you say, a decade ago. You're pinning your argument on that?

And again, you assert your opinion carries any kind of weight against an exhaustive clinical measure of source accuracy. Ludicrous.

When one person posts unsubstantiated opinion as if it carries weight against fact, and in response, any number of people respond with fact-based correction, that is not an echo chamber. That is a number of informed people calling out error.

 

Haha please provide empirical evidence of any time that I have been "triggered" in here. I'd like to think that I keep things pretty civil, I am genuinely interested in trying to understand the other side better.

But I do understand that saying "triggered" and "snowflake" is a popular defense mechanism. I'm not offended in the least.

 

Triggering? smh I feel sorry for OP. I'm a conservative for the record.

 

Pretty much eveyone's reaction was "It's a facebook ranking".