50 horrible sources to get your news

[babylonsister]

50 horrible sources to get your news

Robert Sobel
, Orlando Liberal Examiner
October 17, 2011


You often hear the term "liberal bias" when the radicals on the right try to demonize anyone who is willing to tell the truth. The real truth however, is that majority of the media (TV, radio, internet, print) is owned by big corporations who try to protect the radical conservative agenda. From big news outlets to small time blogs, there are many places that you want to avoid when trying to get good news and information. This is simply a counter to the claim by the radical right wing that all media is liberal. Here is a list, in no particular order, of 50 of the worst places you could go to get your news. A simple "copy and paste" into Google and you can see for yourself.

1. Fox News

2. Rush Limbaugh

3. Glenn Beck

4. Michael Savage

5. Alex Jones

6. The Heritage Foundation

7. The Wall Street Journal

43 more...

http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/50-of-the-worst-places-you-can-get-your-news

[leveymg]

1. 51. The Las Vegas Review-Journal

[LeftinOH]

2. World Net Daily....? Didn't see it on that list.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. The Daily Mail

(doesn't stop a lot of people here from using it as a source...

[babylonsister]

5. Good one, I agree. They make stuff up. And I like your quote. nt

[warrior1]

4. wow

I've never been to any of those places. Thank the dog.

[sofa king]

6. How is it that Facebook does not top that list?

That monstrosity is a miles-long virtual list of "stupid shit that people believe." And because the stupid shit always comes from people others know and trust, it gains purchase with many more people than merely the brownshirts.

Next spring is going to be a major pain in the ass for us when the Rove-bots spread their disinformation across the social media spectrum. Fox News is already as quaint as a Nazi Party lapel pin.

[northoftheborder]

7. I do not read or listen to any of those

[blogslut]

8. I like the list

But examiner.com should really be on it. The "reporters" are poor schlubs working a pennies-for-clicks racket and the accuracy of the reportage is spotty at best.