1
37

[–] Hilarious_Exception 1 points 37 points (+38|-1) ago 

I don't know if Breitbart is corrupt, but it's definitely ideological. It doesn't often report dings against conservative or libertarian ideology.

1
12

[–] Teeder 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

There is a danger to this becoming a hugbox. I can say, living in Canada, that CBC.ca is brutal when it comes to feminist or minority news. Meaning they push as far left as Huffington Post in that area, but they also have great news when they just report the news. Same as all of the MSM, except maybe CNN. They're just bad. While I walk on the right side of history which is how I explain my political leanings to my son, there are some absolutely facepalm things that go on there as well and ignoring those which you generally do when you only read the news from conservative sites is not how we fix anything.

0
10

[–] 0x4F 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

He's not saying to block CBC, he's saying view the article through archive.is proxy and don't give them any traffic.

1
4

[–] voltagegate 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Nobody is saying don't read other sites. That's literally the entire point of archive. We can still look at other perspectives without contributing to cancer metastasis through clicks and ad revenue.

0
2

[–] Teeder 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

And just to add, being insane doesn't mean you're corrupt. Some of these sites employ people that really do believe everything they write. It's a sickness that hopefully comes with some medication, a punch in the face, and prison time, but a sickness all the same

4
31

[–] Ghetto_Shitlord 4 points 31 points (+35|-4) ago 

Funny how only right leaning sites are considered "not corrupt"

2
17

[–] frankenmine [S] 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago 

Several sound sites are apolitical. But the corrupt ones are all cultural Marxist. There is no bigger corrupting influence than that.

5
10

[–] Ghetto_Shitlord 5 points 10 points (+15|-5) ago 

Whty do the politics matter, corrupt is corrupt, whether it's left or right. That does not change because of the politics.

4
16

[–] Ghetto_Shitlord 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago 

Breitbart considered uncorrupt, this list has no merit.

1
11

[–] the-gerbil-in-my-bum 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago  (edited ago)

lolno, breitbart is right wing talmudism- it should be held to just as much scrutiny as CNN, Faux, etc.

do not fall into the "i like it therefore its valid news" trap

0
0

[–] MiauFrito 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] Warnos44 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Not defending whether or not Breitbart is reputable but... With the numbers of crimes from Muslim refugees, wouldn't it be ODD to not report Jewish hate crime being on the rise? In the US alone they're the #1 for crimes perpetuated against for hate. They also report on the other crimes, not like they're only reporting the Jewish stuff.

1
14

[–] Spark_Plugg 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

Lol The daily mail is a trusted source?

0
5

[–] anglosaxon 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The Sun is a trusted source.

1
0

[–] frankenmine [S] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

1
13

[–] Professor_de_la_Paz 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

I would move the Daily Mail and World Nut Daily onto the Corrupt Sources list, if it were mine.

0
5

[–] Rask-II 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Daily Caller/Mail are full of smut. I second that.

2
5

[–] frankenmine [S] 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, most of its pieces are lurid, but it doesn't lie, and it occasionally covers serious issues. For example, it uncovered the SJW hoax against scientist Tim Hunt. WND stands for WorldNetDaily, not World News Daily. Will clarify.

3
9

[–] MediumBlargh 3 points 9 points (+12|-3) ago  (edited ago)

This list is terrible has a lot of problems. It would be better listed as "Left/SJW corrupted media" and "Not Left/SJW corrupted media(but might be full of shit or corrupted by other things)". WND and Conservative Treehouse will pickup any badly sourced POS story that aligns with their own rightwing ideas and redo it without fact-checking. Consumer Reports has had a history of taking payoffs. ZeroHedge consists of 75% quoting other peoples work with added Chicken Little comments(they do post the occasional gem, but it's impossible to find because everyone except for a few sponsors posts with the same name). Reason is often good, but also to toe the line with the corporatist faction of libertarians, because they get a lot of their budget from them. Vox Popoli, Dilbert Blog are straight up blogs, not news. Daily Mail, the Sun, etc, are tabloid rags, yeah, they'll report on stuff other people won't, but that doesn't make them reliable. Business insider is pay-to-play. Washington Examiner, NYPost, Washington Times are controlled by GOP boosters. Probably a lot more problems with this list, but I'll just leave it at that.

Edited at 21:53 GMT, 4/10/2016

0
0

[–] 16537862569 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Am curious about your recommendations for ethical news sources

1
0

[–] frankenmine [S] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Feel free to cite specific instances of corruption and I'll review them.

0
3

[–] MediumBlargh 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I don't think they're all corrupt, but I don't think it makes sense to lump them all together as "sound" sources. Thanks for an openminded reply, if I have enough time I'll try to dig up some things.

1
8

[–] mqrmqr 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Can we just not have "hugbox approved" sources? Trust nothing because of its website. Any of these sites will sell out to anyone for enough $$$.

1
0

[–] frankenmine [S] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

If you see evidence of corruption in an approved source, let me know.

3
8

[–] piratse 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago  (edited ago)

ANY site/source that heavily leans one way is corrupt. Just because you happen to agree with them doesn't make them not corrupt. Corrupt takes many forms. Some are financially corrupt, some politically, some ideologically. And many are all. There are quite of few of your "sound sources" that are "corrupt" just not in the context of government interference. CORRUPT: having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

2
4

[–] frankenmine [S] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Cite actual evidence of corruption and I'll review it.

3
5

[–] piratse 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

You want me to take all the super conservative sites you listed, link you to biased articles, and let you review them for little ol me? All so we can update your personal list? I would be SO happy to do all of that for you.

load more comments ▼ (33 remaining)