What do you read to catch up on world affairs?

What do you read to catch up on world affairs?

Other urls found in this thread:

snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/
lmgtfy.com/?q=number of businesses owned by trump
lmgtfy.com/?q=how many times has trump bankruptcy
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Anything but cnn or huff post

Now with MORE sources in hi-res

Washington post lol

>Wall street journal
You are joking. Why isn't that in the "liberal utter garbage" column.

OP here.

Conde Trash.

seriously the new yorkers isn't quite bottom left corner but its damn close. I read it every week from 2000-2008, got a subscription on amazon end of last year because it was 3 months for 5 bucks but the thing is unreadable. Even the fiction is trash now.

where would Russia Today and China Uncensored be

I read the Guardian but here in the U.K. I'd say it's more liberal than in the diagram.

It definitely leans left but it's good writing compared to a lot of other mainstream mags.

If Remnick and Franzen are connected to it then the writing cant be that terrible.

npr

>minimal partisan bias

Yet, the former CEO stated himself that it was very leftist.

>Not included Al Jazeera in in-depth category
Nigger what are you doing?

nobody cares about faggot right-wingers

you niggers claim to be the future but just whine all the time about the past

your section is empty and has been replaced with realistic pragmatists

>your ideology is bankrupt

fixed

Gugl

fixed

>CNN
>No bias
What a fucking joke.
Literally the clinton news network.

This is absurd.
Everything in "Minimal bias" needs to be shifted over to atleasy skews liberal. NPR, NBC, TIME, TNYT, and TWP need to be in hyper partisan liberal.

Bloomberg might be the fucking least lefty in that pile.

And the fact that they put the Daily mail, the washington times, the washington examiner, the weekly standard, and the national review, on the right is retarded. And Fox is being way overblown for partisanship. Fox lightly skews conservative.

...

non biased reviews of conservative actions tend to be negative
>Those fucking liberal cunts at those shit hole news sources
fuck off you unintelligible cuck

The New York Times only seems liberal because they dont kiss republican ass

>slate
>vox

complex and good.

fucking what

>CNN more trustworthy than fox

fake news.

based

>Infowars and Breitbart are analytical

You probably love RT

literally anything is more trustworthy than fox

you are fake news

>CNN
kek

Your right to live is fake news

If it's good enough for the president what else do you need?

>huffington post
kek

...

this was pretty good

Fuck the news, all of the outlets are run by j00z! I get all my news from Sup Forums and the daily stormer.

its so up its own ass.

all these rich liberals concentrated in rich liberal areas thinking the whole world is stupid for not being just like them, when that would be impossible, because not everyone can be a leech.

I've always thought about how dangerous it is that the president of the united states of america gets his news from the softest source imaginable

Could you ever see Trump reading The Economist?

> Daily Fail
> "still reputable"
> what the fuck am I reading

>vox, slate, the guardian being listed where they are

Well this info graphic is completely wrong

The guardian is waaaay more left that these charts would suggest. This shit is garbage and you need to stop propagating it.

infowars, rt, daily mail

infowars because despite what they tell you in the lamestream media, the frogs really are gay. also clearly the most entertaining news presenter

rt because they don't need to make shit up to make the west look bad. and they cover what the mainstream establishment media wont

daily mail because they cover everything, propaganda, wild conspiracy, celeb gossip, plausible conspiracy. no standards, judge for yourself whats real

if you think 6 major corporations (all bilderburg) running the media in america is credible then you've lost the plot. it's propaganda and you can fact check them, they take everything out of context

'I don't understand, or disagree with [thing], so [thing] is fake.'

Ah yes, that old one again..

Thatsbait.gif

>using facts and critical thinking as anti-trump

Super cold in St.Petersburg this time of year isnt it?

>npr
>Minimal partisan bias

Holy shit

Why does OP's picture look like a girl on all fours with head bent to touch the ground (observed from behind)?

Number of companies Trump owned ≠ Number of companies Trump managed.

Ynet news, Arutz Sheva and Jerusalem Post. Ironically, these channels are free of liberal bias and usually take an opposite stand to the j00 run media in the states despite also being run by j00z.

I wouldn't put Vox as an analytical news source, a lot of their articles are very basic or flat out opinion pieces.

Every news outlet in the gray middle circle needs to be put into "skews liberal" at the very least.

>CNN
>minimal partisan bias
>big ol’ nothing burger

oooooookay

lel

>new york times
>minimum partisan bias

KEK

> NPR skews slightly conservative
topkek

cite your sources or fuck off

snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/

All mainstream "news" is in reality propaganda. If you haven't figured this out by now it's because of instead informing yourself with the help of the internet and books you have been watching and reading said propaganda.

>he believes in a world where you can trust "fact-checkers" XD

>cites no sources
>claims victory

Sure is tarded out here today..

The "sources" are my own experience. Because iv'e grown beyond pointing to others for "proof". Maybe one day if you apply yourself you'll get there too.

>The "sources" are my own experience.
>literally citing your opinion as fact
are you literally retarded?

I use a bunch tbh; reuters, bloomberg, bbc -online, wall street journal and nytimes in paper.
I gave up on cnn once they started pushing buzzfeed quality shit on us. I'm progressive leaning sure- but that shit is fake news.

Why don't you spend half an hour on google and youtube and come back when youve convinced yourself snopes are totally trustworthy?

Iv'e already done the research years ago. Why should i spend time laying out some case against them when im already confident they are a bunch of shady cunts? Maybe instead of trusting in the era of propaganda you should learn to use your fucking brain.

thank god someone else thought this

>obvious shill is obvious
Facts are the only thing that matter, your opinion and beliefs have no value at all.

>facts
>critical thinking
You are incapable or are unwilling to provide/do either.

Graphic is not relevant without including The Drudge Report.

That means NPR is the asshole

but snopes provide facts right?

Why don't you /investigate/ that? Or do you want to be spoonfed. Getting really sick of these spoonfeed babies... YOURE ON THE FUCKING INTERNET!!! GOOGLE IS OVER THERE

NOW GO AND SEE IF SNOPES IS TRUSTWORTHY. BYE.

>GOOGLE IS OVER THERE

lmgtfy.com/?q=number of businesses owned by trump

number of businesses owned by trump: 500

lmgtfy.com/?q=how many times has trump bankruptcy

3 to 7 times depending on what sources

3 to 7 out of 500, that sounds like good fucking record to me
>YOUTUBE IS OVER THERE
you do something for a change

I go to Sup Forums Sup Forums and dismiss everything especially Sup Forums

see, i told you so