They're Lying To You

[annabenedetti]

ASB news is a source that neither Politifact nor Media Bias/Fact Check has been able to discredit.

So... you still don't know who it is. Nor do you have a link to mediabiasfactcheck to show they've reviewed them.

 

[Idolater]

So... you still don't know who it is. Nor do you have a link to mediabiasfactcheck to show they've reviewed them.

New York Times & Wall Street Journal, in no order, are the gold standards in America for news. One's Democrat and one's Republican, basically.

 

[Jefferson]

So... you still don't know who it is.

Point being? There are probably hundreds of sources that I'm not aware of. I come across new (to me) sources all the time. What's your point?

Nor do you have a link to mediabiasfactcheck to show they've reviewed them.

The reason why there is no link is probably because mediabiasfactcheck was unable to find anything to criticize ASB news about.

 

[ok doser]

They're lying to you, and they think that you're so stupid that they're not even trying hard to hide it

 

[marke]

Taking the focus off a war criminal to service hate of Biden and the soothing feeling that a belief in a controlled conspiracy can provide is a foolhardy stance. Putin and chaos are very real threats in this world.

The real threat to this world is the devil and his hateful inhuman one-world socialist agenda.

 

[marke]

If it's Gateway Pundit, it's likely fiction.

The Gateway Pundit - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

From the GP article: who, exactly, is ASB news? Their Twitter bio says they're the "#1 Source of Breaking Military News & Analysis on Russia." That's a big claim. Are they? Or are they Russian propaganda?

There is no evidence that Russia intends to provide better freedom and living conditions for Ukrainians than they are currently enjoying (however limited) under Ukraine's leadership.

 

[expos4ever]

The Gateway Pundit featured the editorial also. See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/wayne-root-red-pill-moment-russia-ukraine-war/

The Gateway Pundit? Come on, man. From wiikipedia:

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[31]

 

[Jefferson]

The Gateway Pundit? Come on, man. From wiikipedia:

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[31]

Wikipedia? Come on, man.​

Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’​

 

[Gary K]

Wikipedia? Come on, man.​

Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’​

It's only been like that for years now. It's no wonder exposed didn't know about it.

 

[ok doser]

It's only been like that for years now. It's no wonder exposed didn't know about it.

It's pretty good if you want to find out about rhinoceros or the history of Napster or information about movies. I use it for movies and actors all the time.

But topics of social justice import?

Expect it to be no better than public radio

 

[Gary K]

It's pretty good if you want to find out about rhinoceros or the history of Napster or information about movies. I use it for movies and actors all the time.

But topics of social justice import?

Expected it to be no better than public radio

If you want to use it like that that's your choice and I wouldn't condemn you for it. I use sources that many people condemn because they don't like the source. But when the information proves to be correct I'll accept it rather than just ignoring it because I don't agree with the researcher's politics.

For me it's the quality and truthfulness of the research that counts.

 

[Idolater]

If you want to use it like that that's your choice and I wouldn't condemn you for it. I use sources that many people condemn because they don't like the source. But when the information proves to be correct I'll accept it rather than just ignoring it because I don't agree with the researcher's politics.

For me it's the quality and truthfulness of the research that counts.

Then you should prefer the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

 

[Gary K]

Then you should prefer the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

LOL. I like neither of them. A news org has to honest to get any love from me.

 

[Gary K]

Then you should prefer the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

I do appreciate you saying what you believe is the "gold standard" for news orgs.

So here is what the NYT has done. When Stalin was starving Ukrainians to death by the millions in the Holodomor the NYT Moscow reporter, Walter Duranty, wrote article after article denying Stalin was doing anything of the kind. Another reporter from England, Malcom Muggerridge, a fledgling communist, went to the Ukraine and found the truth. He reported it and in the end was run out of journalism and had to move his family in with friends because of his financial issues of being without a job for so long.

Walter Duranty? He won a Pulitzer for his "reporting" which which was nothing more than slightly rewritten Kremlin press releases..

When the truth became common knowledge the NYT stood behind Duranty 100%. They did that for more than 50 years. Duranty's Pulitzer has never been withdrawn which shows incredible dishonesty by the Pulitzer org.

So that is the story of the "gold standard" of reporting. It maintained a shameful dishonesty for at least a half a century. And I'm supposed to like them and consider them the best news org in the US?

 

[Idolater]

I do appreciate you saying what you believe is the "gold standard" for news orgs.

So here is what the NYT has done. When Stalin was starving Ukrainians to death by the millions in the Holodomor the NYT Moscow reporter, Walter Duranty, wrote article after article denying Stalin was doing anything of the kind. Another reporter from England, Malcom Muggerridge, a fledgling communist, went to the Ukraine and found the truth. He reported it and in the end was run out of journalism and had to move his family in with friends because of his financial issues of being without a job for so long.

Walter Duranty? He won a Pulitzer for his "reporting" which which was nothing more than slightly rewritten Kremlin press releases..

When the truth became common knowledge the NYT stood behind Duranty 100%. They did that for more than 50 years. Duranty's Pulitzer has never been withdrawn which shows incredible dishonesty by the Pulitzer org.

So that is the story of the "gold standard" of reporting. It maintained a shameful dishonesty for at least a half a century. And I'm supposed to like them and consider them the best news org in the US?

I said "and".

 

[Gary K]

I said "and".

LOL. Your claim was that both were the "gold standard". Your "gold standard" is nothing but fools gold. And I don't think the WSJ is any more honest than the NYT.

 

[Idolater]

LOL. Your claim was that both were the "gold standard".

Yes. Together.

Your "gold standard" is nothing but fools gold. And I don't think the WSJ is any more honest than the NYT.

Of course you don't. Everybody sees the "news" "sources" that you and your anarchism prefers.