Websites people claim are reliable sources, but really aren't

Websites people claim are reliable sources, but really aren't.
>inb4 Sup Forums
>inb4 wikipedia

Other urls found in this thread:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/trump-says-number-illegal-immigrant-families-cross/
apnews.com/b84f780e95394ceca2abca221a3ebcc8
cnn.com/
skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/is-a-writer-named-lisa-holst-responsible-for-the-belief-that-everyone-eats-eight
motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Everyday Feminism,

My speech class professor

>encyclopedia dramatica
>reddit

Politifact is a big one.

Breitbart "News"
One America "News" Network
FOX "News"
InfoWars
WikiLeaks
GodlikeProductions forums

Literally the only outlets not afraid to shit on liberals. Get out, shill.

So basically, the news that makes you feel good = the truth, to you.

News that makes you feel bad = fake news
Get the fuck out

WikiLeaks has never been wrong.

FoxNews.Com
Breitbart.com
FreedomEagle2016.facebook.com

>WikiLeaks
Kike, Wikileaks has never released anything fake. They went to court over this and won the case.

It's true, wikileaks is the antithesis of fake news.

So basically, the news that makes you feel bad = don't read to you.

...

Everything mainstream. They're so rushed to shit out stories on the latest happenings that they believe it when we say Sam Hyde is behind a shooting or bombing

pic related

The Atlantic
The Washington Post
The Daily Beast
TMZ

Sorry all of these are obvious

>Breitbart
>Anything with "Patriot" in the name
>Anyone running pieces by "Project Veritas"
>Any outlet that called Obama a "communist"
>Any outlet that calls Trump a "fascist"
>Fox News
>MotherJones
>BBC
>Anyone that publishes Chomsky

How do you have the energy to shill like this? Do you wake up in the morning thinking "I'm a faggot, I need to be a faggot online too"?

>wikipedia
Wikipedia is only really good for scientific and scholar stuff, forget the rest, especially politics, its all liberal biased

"There are two ways to interpret the data — by calendar year (January 1 to December 31) and by fiscal year (October 1 to September 30).

And that makes all the difference.

By calendar year -- the way most people would interpret Trump’s comment -- he’s wrong. But by fiscal year, he’s right.

CBP’s has apprehended 29,682 family members from January to June 2016, records show. In all of 2015, CBP apprehended more family members, 53,840.

If he’s reading by fiscal year, as CBP reports it, then the numbers support his statement.

In fiscal year 2015 (Oct. 1, 2014-Sept. 30, 2015), there were 39,838 apprehensions.

So far from Oct. 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, there have been a total of 51,152 apprehensions.

Fiscal year 2016 includes three months -- October to December 2015 -- when there was a notable spike in apprehensions.

From October to December 2015, there were 21,470 apprehensions — 2.8 times higher than the same period in 2014 and 4.1 times higher than combined average for same months over the last four years (2012–15)."

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/trump-says-number-illegal-immigrant-families-cross/

wow that only took 10 minutes to verify you fucking retard

and trumplets wonder why they get made fun of

Is there like a big post exposing these two or something? Normally they always include links to external sources, I'm just wondering what I'm missing here. Have any real examples?

Nah Snopes is pretty on the money all the time

Fuck you both. Wikipedia has an obvious liberal bias and is literally curated by Israel.

>ITT: flat earthers, moon-hoaxers, holocaust deniers and other FACTS DON'T REAL-type retards

Proving my point, again and again and again.

I find it more annoying when people dismiss a link which has clear citations of sources even if there are other parts on the same link that are not sourced or wholly stupid.

>politifact

>They post sources
Go read up on how Snopes sources the bullshit they do. Then kindly kys and never come back newfag

For urban legends maybe, but for politics they're biased a wrong.

Are you that retarded for real or...?

No, they're also pretty right for that. Don't be a trumptard. Realise we need Trump to get shit done, but he's not "My god emperor xdxdxd MAGA".
If you think a politician lying is bad you're never going to get anything in life.

Read, american.

As in, when they make a claim about something, they'll hyperlink to an external source about that claim and not just expect you to accept it as fact. You're literally worse than Salon, so obviously you're not worth anything in this conversation.


Anyone else have any legitimate issues with Politifact or Snopes?

Answers in Genesis

RationalWiki

Associated press.

What is utterly disgusting is that they will change what they say and not report that it was an update. So now someone can go "you're photoshopping, that's a conspiracy theory fake news they always said it was partially true" apnews.com/b84f780e95394ceca2abca221a3ebcc8

Snopes is more reliable than most websites.

>le shilly shilly shill shills hills shill XDDD!!!!!!

56%, go home you're drunk

>Anyone that publishes Chomsky
That's basically everyone. He's very widely known and respected.

I can feel your retardation from here. Just fucking stop.

The bible XD

Look up "do we eat 8 spiders every year?" Attempt to verify their source. Get back to me when you do

Sup Forums.

You should probably contemplate kys newfag

NPR says you can always get the truth at Snopes.

Remember when Snopes used to just be about urban legends

I remember way back in the day following RationalWiki because I found Conservapedia to be such an interesting site. RatWiki was created as alternative to Conservapedia, kind of monitored them and ridiculed them. I don't know why, but watching the going ons of a Christian fundamentalist wikipedia run by power hungry mods was what I did for entertainment for at least a year or two.

Honestly though wikipedia is pretty bad. If you're looking up something stupid like the national bird of wherever it's okay, but most of their history entries are trash. They'll drone on for multiple paragraphs without any sources. Even when there are sources, you can find other sources that contradict them. They're honestly as bad as snopes and a lot of their mods or editors or whatever you call them have been outed as communists.

>Chomsky
>respected

Nah. Chomsky's just another capitalist--just a shill scribbling for money. Most of his work is going to end up on the discard pile.

He's one of the most often cited authors today.

History in general is kind of like that though.

Conservapedia was so ideologically rigid that it was hilarious. THe Schlafly family has a serious mental health problem.

>newfag

The psycological projection of a 14 yr old

This. I've noticed a lot of the time the (((source))) either is completely irrelevant and doesn't even mention the claim or the link is simply 404.

literally this though
it's funny Sup Forums will defend these but they all have their left-wing counterparts which are all "Fake news" in Sup Forums's eyes. anything to the contrary makes u a shill. k
>Fox
Cnn
>Breitbart
Huffpo
>Infowars
The young turks
etc.

Sky is falling for 30 yrs

Obama's gonna snatch yer guns

Obama's gonna march us into FEMA camps

Obama's gonna install a Islam-Communist Cliphate

Jade-Helm is the start of martial law

Bill Gates is an eugenicist

The governement is controlling the weather
>But not Trump's

>Pizza-gate

Just a few off the top of my head but there's plenty more

>politicians are never pedophiles

obama tried to increase gun control dozens of times. they only failed because of NRA + conservatives.

>The governement is controlling the weather
>But not Trump's

I don't believe that but there's loads of evidence that there's lots of anti-Trumpers within the CIA and FBI. and there is basically no oversight or punishment to anything they do.

did anyone go to jail over giving mexican drug cartels loads of weaponry?

they have like 5 scientific sources retard

cnn.com/

no such thing as a reliable source these days.

?

See pic related

>Snopes is more reliable than most websites.

Many of their articles are speculative and have 0 sources.

>Article on event/practice.
>Editor claims it's not real based on circular reasoning.
>No sources.

>Obama tried
ALex Jones stated that his stellar
>anonymous sources high up in the government and law enforcement
confirmed that Obama was going to circumvent both houses and grab the guns

This is how Jones gets himself off the hook
He can claim that his sources got it wrong, even when those sources are his own imagination

>anti-Trumpers within the CIA and FBI
What has that got to do with controlling the weather?

>muh fast n furious
>CIA exporting guns is a new development

Commies are always delusional. There's no point in reasoning with them. They'll just claim that the facts aren't real.

The only people who listen to jonestein are t_d faggots. Now fuck off

Wikileaks has never once had to retract a story. This is something no other news source can claim.

Dumb faggot, he even admits it’s an act..

>wikileaks

And like a tool you believe it. Just because someone put some mla formatting at the bottom

>So how did this claim arise? In a 1993 PC Professional article, columnist Lisa Holst wrote about the ubiquitous lists of “facts” that were circulating via e-mail and how readily they were accepted as truthful by gullible recipients. To demonstrate her point, Holst offered her own made-up list of equally ridiculous “facts,” among which was the statistic cited above about the average person’s swallowing eight spiders per year, which she took from a collection of common misbeliefs printed in a 1954 book on insect folklore. In a delicious irony, Holst’s propagation of this false “fact” has spurred it into becoming one of the most widely-circulated bits of misinformation to be found on the Internet.

It turns out that's bullshit. 100%.

skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/is-a-writer-named-lisa-holst-responsible-for-the-belief-that-everyone-eats-eight

I generally have no use foe Mother Jones, but they ran a piece by an investigative reporter who went undercover as a guard ata privatised prison for several months that was just a great read.

motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer/

saged, you stupid nigger

bookmarked for future reading. Seems really interesting.

>Wikileaks
>recant

Russian hackist site

Cracked

Not that simple. It is a lot like Wikipedia. If I want to look up crocodiles, Wikipedia probably has a good thread on it. Now if I want to look up the so called syrian civil war, it is another issue altogether. Always read the talk pages. It will open your eyes.

Snopes are experts at framing a paradigm they are pushing, lying thru omitting, and other sneaky tricks. One of my favorites is when say somebody makes a statement that is 95 percent accurate, Snopes will either use the five percent incorrect info to call it a falsehood, or they will decontextualize it and then call it a falsehood thru willingly misrepresenting the info.

They are devilish bastards. Editors on Wikipedia do the same shit. They lean heavily neolib.

B-but wikipedia is very "balanced and Zionist in nature". What more do you want?

It's depressing how many here fall for kosher theater. Even wikileaks is kike trash, not for what it posts, but for what it does not.

>Shill Shillington meme

>Any source that disagrees with what I believe is automatically false