Recommended Blatantly Biased Sources

We all love reputable news sources, and I'd argue they should form the bulk of your news sources. But we share those on here every day, and biased sources are not inherently without merit. I want to know what unquestionably politically biased sources you recommend and why.

I'd recommend two, myself.

1) Fox News:

This one is the most important of the two because I usually disagree with it and I'm usually surrounded by people who agree with it.

I think it's important to listen to ideas that challenge your own thinking and offer perspective into the ideas owned by the company you keep.

Due to these reasons and geographic location, this forms the vast bulk of my biased news.

2) Norman Goldman:

This guy's politics are not uniquely better or worse than the rest of the pundits, but there are three reasons to tune in.

He understands how our electoral process causes parties/coalitions to form, combine, succeed, and die. If you want a good starting point to learn why the two party system exists and how platforms are pushed within it, you could do a lot worse.

Civics Hour. He has a segment in his show dedicated to exploring how the government functions and how that rrlates to current events. If you want to know why filibuster rules applied for that bill last month but not this one today or why this gerrymandered map was approved but that one wasn't, he's your man.

Senior Legal Analyst Hour. He's a former attorney, and if you want to understand whether Manafort has a legitimate shot at appealing his case (he does) or why certain evidence was thrown out during the Cohen investigation, he's particularly good in that area.

That's all I've got, but I'm interested in other recommendations (even if you only recommend them for entertainment value).

Fox News, Breitbart, Westmonster.

@mandzilla: Why?

On a side note, I haven't heard of westmonster before.

The Onion. Info Wars (does it count as a news source?)

Oh wait, you said blatantly biased, scratch The Onion then.

@horgen: "scratch the onion"

I see what you did there, you sly dog.

Fox News: This one really needs no introduction. Probably the most partisan and 'loose with the facts' major US news network I've ever seen. Not only have they managed to lower themselves to Trump state news status, they're also pretty much forming his arguments for him, and putting words in his mouth at this point. When he's on for an interview and says something batshit crazy, nobody will pick him up on it. Rather, the anchors will scramble to reinterpret his sentences for him. More often than not when Trump is ranting about something on Twitter, you can be sure that was a Fox News story the night before. I guess the biggest problem I have with Fox is that there's rarely any objectivity, too much flawed opinion input, and a seemingly fanatical support for the President. It comes across like he's the CEO of the network at times.

Breitbart: I hesitate to refer to this one as news. Basically just an ideologically driven alt-right tv show. They are so intellectually dishonest, it actually makes Fox News look legitimate. You need only look at the endless lists of false reportings and conspiracy theories to know their angle. Add to this the fact that unlike Fox which at least has Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, there are to my knowledge no redeeming personalities over at Breitbart. It's a real shame that they have a regional UK edition now.

Westmonster: Not surprised you haven't heard of it before, it's really not that notable. Basically a UK news website modelled after Breitbart, with the intention of circulating pro-brexit, alt-right content. Think stuff like anti-immigration, anti-EU, press being enemies of the people, pro-Trump, 'anti-establishment'. There's very selective reporting, and an impressive portfolio of inaccuracies, considering they haven't really been around for too long. So yeah, an anti-elite news source, founded by two elites; Nigel Farage and Arron Banks, in order to try and tap into the social media news scene.

Lmao breitbart these last few days has been a hoot.

Info wars.....the second people site it I cringe

Any youtube channel that caters to making straight white males feel better about themselves.

@mattbbpl: CNN, MSNBC , ABC , NY Times, Washout post , Buzzfeed (if that can even be called a newssource, it´s the infowars of the left.)

Buzzfeed is a news source...?

I know all those are leaning left, however isn't the difference between MSNBC and Washington Post rather significant?

Yes but not to Jacanuk.

Well, ask the ones using the pee tape if Buzzfeed is a news source.

And they are not just leaning left, they are so far gone on the left side that they lost every sense of objectivity and journalistic ethics, Cronkite is turning in his grave over how bad the news media has become.

Also, I could mention a lot more, but just look up the "United media front against Trump" to see which media is highly biased.

Personally never considered Buzzfeed to be a news source. Why I was surprised to see it mentioned.

As for "United media front against Trump", weren't it specified that that should be opinion pieces?

CNN, MSNBC, HuffPost to name a few. Trump tweeted about the white South African farmers that are being murdered and having their land taken( yes its actually happening) and the far left sources act like it's an imaginary conspiracy.

Link.............

@LJS9502_basic:

NYT as well

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/world/africa/trump-south-africa-white-farmers.amp.html

I'm asking for links supporting your position.

@LJS9502_basic: here ya go

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10013298

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/white-farmer-killed-every-five-days-south-africa-authorities-do-nothing-851470%3famp=1

I can post more if you need them.

I love the huffpost spin..

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/03/15/south-africas-white-genocide-these-are-the-facts_a_23386613/

" Yes white farmers are being murdered but no evidence its racially motivated"

Lmao! I can't make this shit up.

Neither did i, but some on the left do consider Buzzfeed an actual legit newsfeed, despite them being as accurate as Infowars.

Well, yes and no, the editorials written to unite the media was opinion pieces, but they showed the whole outlet´s stand. And what they didn´t see or want to see, is that their "united front" actually played right into Trump´s hand and like with Infowars, they just confirmed peoples and trumps conspiracies

It´s almost like the media is out to give Trump a much better mid-term than he could have hoped for.

@blackhairedhero: Are you not understanding me? I asked for a link to your stance. Not the opposite stance.

@LJS9502_basic: Stance on what? I thought you wanted me to show you links that it was happening. What are you asking for?

I'm asking you to back up your opinion.

Does anyone have any sources they recommend in spite of them being biased?

i recommend BBC ,AP , Reuters, NPR and the WSJ

Just about all outlets have some bias...........

@LJS9502_basic: Obviously. It's why the op uses the term "blatant".

From the left:

• Slate: One of my top 2 sites, biased or not, love the comments section.
• The Guardian: to bad they have drastically curtailed the articles open to comments.
• The Huffington Post: For the sensationalist headlines. Too bad they changed to Facebook for comments.
• The New Yorker: For the headlines/titles. In many ways pretentious, they limit the amount of articles you can read so I "save" them for the right time but that time usually never comes.
• The Nation: carbon copy of what I said for The New Yorker except the pretentiousness.
• Vox: I use it when I want something explained to me (with the leftward slant already accounted for).
• MotherJones: Mainly to see heads explode in the comments section.
• The Daily Beast: Mainly for the headlines.
• The New Republic: use it for short, summar-ish articles. Used to have a great comments section back in the day.
• The Young Turks: has gotten so bad, I basically only watch them when a negative situation arises for "progressives" just to see their heads explode.

From the right:

• National Review: Silly that you can't sort comments by "most like", just by oldest and newest, the ****?
• The American Conservative.
• Reason: Sort of, this is a libertarian site. Another site with a comment section you can't sort by "most like", how can sites be so stupid?
• Drudge Report: Mainly for the headlines.
• FoxNews: For the headlines.
• The Washington Times: Mainly for the headlines, ok comments section.

I think you do a disservice to yourself if when you are looking for websites that are contrarian to your own you choose the most outrageous, over the top websites instead of more measured but less "entertaining" sites.

@Master_Live:Thanks. Why the emphasis on article comments? I've habitually avoided them to this point.

I think you do a disservice to yourself if when you are looking for websites that are contrarian to your own

Why is that? I've always found it to be a good exercise to explicitly seek out opinions and viewpoints that differ from my own. Note that I'm not seeking out the most outrageous of these, but the most representative of the group (Fox is ubiquitous with the Republican party more so than any other outlet).

Fox News

Anything by Sinclair

Breitbart

The Young Turks

I mean most people are against Trump, so it makes sense a lot of media is against Trump. It's especially true since he seems to be unable to go a week without saying something profoundly stupid and wrong.

That's also not to discredit his legal troubles. but of course, a grand media conspiracy against his is MUCH more likely than people not accepting his unacceptable behavior. /s

Oh, I enjoy them so much. Specially smart, witty communities like the ones in Slate and The Guardian; I think they provide a window into a slice of younger, left wing internet savvy group that you might not encounter elsewhere.

Seeking those views have value, as you say, in that they might be representative of the thinking of a significant portion of the population; and I do this too.

But I guess my point is that is I wanted to know, for example, what is the conservative argument against "Medicare For All" I would tend to find a more intelligent, coherent, intellectually honest and challenging (to my own point of view) argument in National Review than in Fox News.

The Young Turks and Alex Jones

They are somewhat connected to each other. Maybe rivals or something. Its pretty funny how Cenk is called a buffalo by some people.

I like to watch interviews from the Hoover Institute. Disagree with the majority of what they say, but it's nice to know there are level-headed, intellectual conservatives out there. And no, PragerU does not fit that description.

@Master_Live: Hm, I'll pay more attention to them and see what I've been missing. Thanks for the insight.

@LJS9502_basic: I did. I said they were bigot and posted a story as an example. What else would you like?

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS,NBC, Huffington Post, & Move On.Org

LOL. I don't think you watch/read any of their work.

Mostly just the Wall Street Journal. Sometimes I'll read columns from conservative writers in the Post, Times, or Trib, but I don't always make it all the way through. I was reading one by John Kass today, for instance, and even though I agreed with him I had to quit halfway through before my breakfast came back up. I used to read the occassional story from Reason, but then my feed would just become polluted with crap from them, so now I don't even bother.

I really don't see any value to most of the rest. A lot of people may watch Fox News, but I still don't see any point in watching it myself. You can understand the twisted mentality of its viewers fine without having to wade into their cesspool. It's not like if you did take the time to craft a reasonable argument that addressed their concerns it would have any effect on them anyway. They'd just be like "ha, screw the libs!" So screw them right back.

Also:

• New York Times
• Washington Post
• BBC
• AP
• Reuters
• NPR
• Slate
• Vox

Are not blatantly biased. Most of them are extremely centrist publications, a few are slant neutral, and a couple, despite having a reputation for being horribly slanted, actually do feature a wide range of viewpoints. Vox, for example, has at least a couple pretty conservative writers, and regularly features columns by and interviews with conservative thinkers. If Fox treated liberals like Vox treats conservatives then conservatives would be calling Fox part of the lamestream media.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/23/17772056/south-africa-trump-tweet-afriforum-white-farmers-violence

@theone86: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10013298

Sorry but I've been reading about this story for months. I've also watched several documentaries. It's sad that liberal medis is sweeping it under the rug.

Reading where, Stormfront?

@theone86: does my source look like it's from storm front? I guess the dozens of farmers that were interviewed were actors?

It's promoting a white hate conspiracy theory. By the article's own admission, and as thoroughly outlined in my article, there are no mass killings of white farmers taking place according to objective statistics. In fact, while attacks on white farmers have declined in recent years, murders of black citizens have increased (again, according to your own source). But white supremacists attempt to take the narrative away from the thousands of black murders and spotlight the less than hundred white murders because they're afraid that if people actually focus on the violence being committed against black South Africans it might humanize them. That's how white supremacy works.

I've thought about this for awhile and I cannot come up with a reason to recommend sources that are blatantly biased. There is bias in all sources but if it's blatant then you're veering into Fox News and that is not a good source for anyone to watch.............it doesn't deal in reality.

@theone86: White farmers make up 60% of the victims. Pretty insane when the white population in SA is pretty small about 8%. Other then that the crime in SA is black on black crime.

Quote from snopes:

"The AgriSA report did not account for the race of perpetrators or victims, and independent fact checking organization Africa Check reported that South African police don’t track crime statistics by race. Some 19,016 killings were recorded in South Africa between April 2016 to March 2017, an increase over the previous year’s"

Amazing liberal media is calling it false when apparently they don't track crime by race?

Perhaps not recommend to educate yourself on a topic, however to educate yourself on what others might be basing their opinions on.

LOL, snopes. So when your own sources say that there were fewer whites murdered by a factor of around 100 you throw them out the window and just go straight to unreliable sources? Gotcha. Oh, and you're playing the "black on black" crime card, please, tell me again how you're not a blatant racist, I could use a good chuckle. I offered up a verified source that said multiple independent investigations have found no pattern of mass race-based violence against South African whites.

They can have some value of both kinds. Although it takes some care to separate the wheat from the chaff.

@theone86: Your same source says " South African police don’t track crime statistics by race' that kinda kills your whole argument. I never argued more whites are murdered then blacks in SA overall when whites make up a mere 8% of the population. I argued that the vast majority of the farmers killed however are in fact white.

Lol the black on black crime card. I'm sorry facts hurt your feelings.

Do you know why the vast majority of farmers killed are white? Because whites own 72% of all farmland in South Africa. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah, it's because white colonizers violently seized South African land and then passed laws preventing black people from owning land. Step one: create a white monopoly of land ownership. Step two: complain when the majority of landowners killed are white. White supremacy at work.

@theone86: It wont be for long as they have seized the land from the white farm owners many without any compensation.

It's not working well for them though as the black farmers that have took the land are having issues sustaining it.

https://www.worldrelief.org/southern-africa-food-crisis/

Here's a place you can go to donate lmao!

So they take their land without compensation and murder them at an extremely high rate and when you call that out your a white supremacist?