This is basically true

This is basically true

>Slate
>reputable
>CNN
>minimal partisan bias

only 4 more days until we find out

>not exclusively reading original sources and basing your opinions on historical precedent

>BBC
>MSNBC
>minimal partisan bias

Nope.

yeah, npr/pbs is surprisingly neutral. i always thought it was lefty shilling, especially since it's partially funded by the government

>Vox
>Complex

>Atlantic
>Complex

>slate
>Complex

>NBC
>ABC
>BBC
>NPR
>"great source of news"

>CNN is in the middle

>Huffington post
>Analytical

FAKE
NEWS

why are Sup Forumsyps so easy to b8?

back to your Sup Forums safe space fag

>has given 20 million people cheap healthcare, when healthcare can literally bankrupt you in the US
Is he /ourguy/?

Put CNN just a little more left

I'd love to read a news article about a murder, authored by the victim.

Trump can do it better

He just promised universal healthcare a couple days ago, something the Dems and Obama gave up on

Agree. But MSNBC is liberally biased man.

Not that its wrong bias exists everywhere.

Never gonna happen. Republicans go against social values.

...

socialist*
I was right in that they go against social values too though. kek

Da comrade. Vodka tonight?

Love the trumpcucks calling everything fake news.

What a bunch of assclowns.

>what are police reports
>what are crime statistics

>muh orange meme man

CNN YOU SAID CNN ?

I can tell you what they aren't.
Unbiased.

the GOP has to fall in line behind Trump now, to keep the people that voted him into office and power

how will it look if the Republican legislature stonewalls Trump the same way they did Obama?

Sup Forums is better than anything on this list

>Slate
Come on

This. Apparently reporting facts and the ramifications of said facts is "fake news". I wonder what they think about their corporate asshole hero now that he is "filling the swamp" rather than draining it lol.

As a Bong BBC is no longer;
1) impartial
2) reliable

During the Brexit vote and thr US elections they were not an impartial source of news and recently many of their pieces have been sensationalist or lacking in credibility opinion pieces.

I believe it is due to the people who have been hired recently, their age and political beliefs leak through turning what should be unbiased reports into opinion pieces.

>Apparently reporting facts
>reporting facts

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I know right.

That fucking Mango Mussolini is so thin skinned and calls any critics 'fake news' like his wifes tits are and these Trumpcucks eat that shit up.

The BBC puts out thinly-veiled diversity propaganda how is that centrist?

All I know about the BBC is that they're Corbyn-bashing elitists.

Brexit is retarded though. It's actually dumber than electing a childish, mediocre businessman reality star with no political experience as your leader.

Where do The Young Turks fall on this scale?

Fuark YASS dude. Me and my bros on Sup Forums were just talkin the other day about how much we hate that fucking sexist, gross cheeto hitler. Glad to see other boards agree, yo.

It would look pretty damn funny. It was interesting they stonewalled the public option and the ACA. Now they're going to pass "universal healthcare". Are we living in bizarro world?

they were pretty impartial for the referendum tbqh

not for the us elections though agreed

Why are little Drumpkins the easiest people to trigger? Did mummy breast feed them too long?

Pretty good, but Washington Post should be with CNN/Huffington post. Also, Fox and Huffington Post should not be on the same type of spot. Fox should be closer to Breitbart.

Spot on, lad. Just got done doing my daily reading of the Quran (Praise be to Allah) and ready to troll these fookin cunts, m8!!

the guardian and slate are not more complex than the nyt

the ft should be at the apex

Reality has a liberal bias.

Most people who voted for Trump didn't vote for him for healthcare reasons. Most of his voters don't give a damn if they have healthcare or not, given the applause he gets every time Trump vows to destroy Obamacare.

Has Trump or the GOP even devised a plan to replace it? If they haven't yet, I doubt they're gonna do it in the next 4 years.

how could one image be so wrong

all MSM is shit
Fox News-shit for republicans
MSNBC-shit for liberals
CNN-shit no one believes

Are you stupid? The republican and democratic parties have something called "loyalty". To the republicans Trump is a flip-flopper who doesn't play ball. So, why should they? Why play ball with an asshole who does shit ONLY for money? He isn't a politician, he isn't in it for the long haul, he just wants influence and the party (and constituents) be damned.

Anybody who backed him is a retard and it's coming to bite them in the ass (unless they are rich and will benefit from his policies themselves). Trump wanted the presidency not because he cares or wants better things for the american people (and especially those poorfag midwesterners who backed him). He wanted to be POTUS because it would make him even richer. He's like US currency, only worth as much as people have faith in him. And he is certaintly more well known than ever before, which is primarily how he gets money. And the influence that the presidency brings means he can dictate economic policies that will make him richer.

If you hated lobbyists, and backed Trump, you're a cuck. Hell, he's basically putting lobbyists in positions of power. He's putting in corporate assholes who gave him money. He's putting people in clear conflict-of-interest positions, and yet faggots still support him.

DUDE

>implying i like having to pay a penalty for not having insurance when i sit in my house 24/7

>Turn on Fox News
>expect what liberals keep stereotyping Fox News as

>It's a report on a bill about illegal immigration or government spending or something
>Host calmly chats with two other political commentators
>"What do you think about this bill?"
>"I think this bill is good because [Reason X], but it has drawbacks, like [Reason Y]".
>"Interesting. What do you think, other commentator?"
>"I think this is a bad decision for Congress to make. In addition to the benefits, we need to consider drawbacks like [Reason Z]."
>"Also a good point. You both make interesting arguments. Thank you for your time. Coming up next, the weather."

>Check out "redeye"
>Armond White is making fun of movies

I don't get it.
I thought this was the supposed brainwashing boogeyman that you keep claiming is destroying America. Why is it that outside of O'Riley and the other shows that are clearly marked as opinion-pieces like a Talk Show, that 90% of the channel calm and reasonable discussion among various guests and commentators? They had a fucking two-hour biography on President Kennedy the other day.
You really think that's somehow worse than literally editing a phone call to make it sound more "racist"?

Anyways what are some other decent news channels or even series like old Vice that get a lot of hate, but aren't all that bad?

>The Economist
>skews Conservative

HAH

My main problem is they no longer write about just the facts anymore. Anything the write on politics is spun.

If they just reported what was happening in one piece and had an interview with an "expert" who imparts his view as a separate report it'd be better.

I believe the BBC should be a place people can go to read news that presents the current affairs implicitly and credibly and it's definitely not in that place at the moment.

Brexit was proof to a lot of people from.a lot of different backgrounds that politicians will lie to you on both sides to influence a result and I hope the main thing the public take away is to be more skeptical with politicians promises when voting in the future.
Whilst it's not as bad in other countries, people's voting beliefs are often dogmatic "my dad/mum voted xxx, so I have to!" and I hope this changes that. This is especially the case with the lower classes, their parents generation more than likely voted against their best interests.

It's only wrong if you're a contrarian child or a Sup Forumsfaggot (which are basically the same at this point).

Only good thing to come from Trump's presidency is Sup Forums will go back to how it was when I first started back in '08, and better music. Everything else is fucked, worse than when Reagan was president. If I didn't have my greencard I'd fucking leave for the next 4 years.

>The Economist
>right wing in any way

As a subscriber, the fuck are you going on about?

Wow. There it is. There is the greatest bait known to man. Even as someone aware of your intentions, I can't help but feel the hopelessness that most newfags would feels when encountering such bait in the wild. There is a desire to respond to this with vitrol, yet I've seen this before. What an incredible piece of bait, I mean that. I believe that whoever wrote this originally is either a master philosopher, or if not, should promptly become one.

The feigning of ignorance, the false story, the intentional tone of the piece; it's all there. I know it's been posted before, but I want to sincerely thank you for posting this once again. Some will say OC is all the rage, but when you strike gold like the writer of this bait, why create anything else? Why try, knowing you will fail to match the quality of this post?

Thank you.

>thinking anything in the middle is partisan
>thinking the Economist is conservative

J U S T