As far as news sources go, how much do you faggots trust Breitbart?

As far as news sources go, how much do you faggots trust Breitbart?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/shared?ci=E5fDGWREvU4
dailycaller.com/2017/01/19/journalists-apologize-for-spreading-bogus-new-york-times-story-about-rick-perry/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

no more than I trust fox, cnn or nbc

This, I find some good and bad points, but it is mostly just entertainment.

you can trust them into clickbaiting you to go to their shitty site

This.

You need to understand where they're coming from. Everything will be exaggerated and sensational, and obviously "from the right," but their real enemy is the MS Press, not any political party. It just so happens that the mainstream press are basically the worst people in America atm. So their point of view winds up lining up with the truth a lot. Worth a read.

On the technical side, it is the worst designed, slow, ad ridden, shitstain of a shit designed to wring every fucking penny out of your visit. Pisses me off everytime I go.

No one "trusts" any news source anymore, you just quote the motherfuckers who hate the same shit you do.

It's pure horseshit as a news source. The closest we have to impartial news today is PBS and Al-Jazeera.

Sometimes puts out some very good information that other outlets wouldn't although it is fantasticism bullshit a lot of the time and propaganda for the right to combat the left

Not at all.

it's slanted of course but they don't pull shit out their ass. it's real as any other news outlet, end of the day.

Pretentious fucks in the editorial dept, though, i tell you that. I do freelance work and have a bloody long resume and offered to do some free shit on the side for them and they rejected me for inexperience.

Reports on Soros so it isn't that bad

That's no lie. I watched PBS news the other night, and it was like seeing into another dimension.

Sounds like the ol' times at Gawker

NBC news is generally nonpartison.

Call them niggers and they'll hire you

About as much as

They are legit. Not mainstream, so no fake news there.

Sup Forums keeps being right so..

I trust a wet fart more than I do breitbart

it ok i suppose

No more than I trust CNN, Huffpost, or any other fake news.

This is the right wing huffing post. Garbage journalism for ignorant people

same level as aljazeera and russia today

/thread

Once you add bias to news, it stops being news and becomes an opinion.

andrew breitbart would be against the current state of his former company

as much as I'll trust RT, FOX or CNN, that means 0 trust.

>not watching c-span
and i mean orig cspan not that bs liberal cspan 3 shit

I dont' take anything at face value from any news anything. THEY'RE ALL FAKE NEWS. IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO REPORT NEWS TO YOU ITS BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGENDA. STAY WOKE

>the mainstream press are basically the worst people in America atm. So their point of view winds up lining up with the truth a lot
Being opposite of bad doesn't mean its good faggot, it just a different kind of bad.

Puts al jazeera and RT is the same catagory. One is a worl reknowned and respected news outlet. The other(Russian Times) is the propaganda outlet for Putin. I see this on Sup Forums and the_donald often. Face it, gents. The Russians are here and they are stupid.

Why does no one understand the difference between fake news, selective coverage, sensationalist news and objective news?

Fake news is objectively false and aimed at supporting or detracting from a specific person or group and almost always originates from sites like sketchyasfuck.ru/IfIClickThisLinkIWillGetAVirus, but is sometimes mistakenly picked up by mainstream media, who nearly always prints/publishes a retraction eventually.

Sensationalist news and selective coverage are not objectively false, but often stretch the truth. They cover only certain stories and frame them to make a person or group look good or bad.

Objective journalism is verifiably true and not framed to support or detract from anyone. PBS and maybe Al Jazeera are the closest things to this.

Breitbart falls into the extreme end of sensationalist/ selective coverage. They stretch the truth in any way they can to support the alt-right, and you will never find an article there that would make that movement or any people within it look bad.

Bottom line: Watch PBS. Breitbart uses the same framing and sensationalizing that the mainstream media just, just to a higher degree and in support of a different cause.

This x10.
Even if you use a news client that grabs articles and puts them in reader mode, they make you open a mini browser to read them so they can show you all their ads and bullshit.
My least favorite thing ever are sites that break up short content into mutiple pages so you're exposed to the maximum ads.

Breitbart is the kind of site with articles at the bottom about Obama's refinance program or how seniors are saving X% on insurance with this one weird trick

0

...

>al jazeera
>world renowned

i bet you are one of those dumb asses still spurting "NORTH KOREA BEST KOREA huehuehue"

ITT. The far, far left part of the bell curve for IQ talks about Brietbart.

>butthurt cheeto lover.html

...

we get it. you hate kikes

>It's biased, but it's not left-wing bias, so I like it!

Zero, always cross reference and look into the information they present, l have to say a lot of the time it is real, although given a little twist to suit their agenda

LOL

But it's true. He gave what 250 million to palestine days before he left office?

Theyre factual but only cover stories that are good for Trump

Trips doesn't lie.

That is in addition to the billions we have to Israel Question mark?

You want real news? PBS, CSPAN, BBC. If you want your bias to be confirmed, read Breitbart or anything other propagandist source you want.

and don't support Israel is ''anti-semitism''?

I agree, uncut cocks are fucking weird looking.

>(((((((((())))))))))

BBC hires based on skin color, just like any "tolerant liberals" would.

100%

Israel has one of the top intelligence agencies in the world. We benefit from there abilities. At least we're seeing something from our investment.

What the fuck do the mudslimes in Palestine offer us?

It is basically the right version of a late night left comedy show. Entertainment, not really news. Both are selective about what they show so they can say the other side is sooooo wacky.

>ITT: Anons who have never read Breitbart discuss Breitbart

>big black cock news
What else do you expect

If they are so smart, they don't need our Shekels, save shitholes in USA first then Tel Aviv/Jerusalem

We help fund their intelligence community, we reap the benefits of more intelligence gathering. Stuxnet was either American or Israeli. That's fucking huge. What don't you understand about this?

as much as I trust mother jones and huffpo

except instead of left bias, they willfully fabricate entire stories and false conflicts devoid of any legit basis in reality. they have a paint by numbers approach to exploiting the psychology of fear to form a reader base.

Israel is like the 51st state of the 'murica

they also pretend to be news, where as the late night shows are OBVIOUSLY entertainment genre.

Breitbart tell truth

Only for the retards.

Holy fuck this

yea some of us have the ability to separate what the world owed(es) the jews after ww2, and the reality of what has been a shit history of human rights violations.

without being an extreme anti-zionist edgelord like many users here.

Bannon pls go

>unlike the left

CNN ran the story about Trump taking the MLK bust out of the oval office 3,700 times before they realized it was unsubstantiated. That was two weeks ago. But whatever helps push the "racist" narrative, right?

its not the same level of shit on both sides tho. we all should have the skills to differentiate the overly optimistic/sure biasing left media does from the inflated fearmongering, amazingly strong will to ignore reality, and out-right fabrication of stories and citations.

...

That's why the GOP always wants to defund PBS so badly.

>implying the left-wing MSM doesn't use inflated fearmongering every single day

Have you ever watched more than 20 minutes of CNN or MSNBC?

Keith olberman
Rachel maddow
Don Lemon

I could go on and on. In short, get real.

>minor bullshit story that shouldnt be headline news anyway
VS
covering up the makings of an unconstitutional splintering of offices and borderline coup wrapped up in an illegal and unmediated financial fiasco.

If you actually read breitbart you're a retard and large part of the problem with this country

tbh, no, not in the last 10 years. as far as news that i dont read, i pretty much only listen to npr..

This is best take down of Breitbart.

youtube.com/shared?ci=E5fDGWREvU4

Breitbart is one of the only honest news sources. #MAGA

You clearly can't look at this from an objective POV.

It's not even a debate after the campaign. How crazy and willing to do anything to force their agenda the left is. Even after the election they've been caught fabricating stories and YOU could say it's a "minor bullshit" story, but we both know what the goal was in the end.

You'll also have to explain wtf you're talking about after VS, because I'm speaking rationally not going off on a conspiracy theory.

John approves.

>
>its not the same level of shit on both sides tho.
It absolutely is.

Each side worships some religion and only reports on what sports their religious bullshit. For the right, it's Christianity. For the left, it's socialism.

0% it's the right wing version of shit like HuffPo or Slate.

Real news is BBC, Reuters, NY Times, PBS, The Economist

You're a faggot.

>NY Times

fuckin kek

Link me a bad article. I'll wait.

More then I trust an anonymous user of $chans Sup Forums board.

What about The Gardian?

Don't bother. It's all part of their effort to discredit respected news sources, so idiots turn to places like Breitbart to get indoctrinated with propaganda.

I t goes like this in terms of trust

bathroom stall sharpie gossip>infowars>breitbart

In short i dont listen to that shit, i do know this one autistic sounding guy who is always reading it. Hes weird.

Still better than breitbart

New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was investigated in 2003 for inventing numerous reports. He was especially prone to inventing news reports supposedly filed from other cities, while he was in fact working from his apartment in Brooklyn. The scandal that ultimately prompted his resignation involved accusations of plagiarism in a story he filed about the family of a soldier missing in Iraq.

Nice link you have there

dailycaller.com/2017/01/19/journalists-apologize-for-spreading-bogus-new-york-times-story-about-rick-perry/

You can keep your head in the sand if you want with your little liberal circlejerk. Notice I didn't say anything about the other outlets, NYT is well known to be a POS.

dailycaller lololol

You're implying they keep up fake stories after they're called out on them so there would still be an active link? Get real, pal. Even CNN is THAT stupid.

CNN and The Young Turks are among the only trustworthy sources.

tyt is a load of dogmatic horse shit

How trustworthy are tyt's sources on the Armenian genocide?

The New York Times reports Perry had no clue the energy secretary is in charge of safeguarding the nuclear arsenal when he accepted the nomination for the position in Donald Trump’s administration. Massive flaws in the reporting quickly became clear, however, as the sole source for the story told The Daily Caller his words were taken out of context, and journalists quickly dug up a statement from Perry on his nomination that explicitly mentions the nuclear arsenal.

I mean, you look kind of dumb laughing at the dailycaller when the news outlet you're trying to defend got debunked by that very same company.