5 ms·
Breitbart isn't a white nationalist news source. Bannon might be an asshole but I urge you to judge it by the content on the site. I don't agree with most of it
by ng12 10y ago
Breitbart isn't a white nationalist news source. Bannon might be an asshole but I urge you to judge it by the content on the site. I don't agree with most of it but I support their right to post truthful content and editorials as they wish.
- wlll 10y agoI have seen content from Breitbart, it's objectionable and dangerous propaganda IMO. I support their right to publish it, I don't support the idea of forcing people to do business with them.
- judah 10y agoThe same could certainly be said of left-wing news sources such as the New York Times.
- wlll 10y agoI really don't see the similarity (though I'm not familiar with the NYT, I assume it's a bit like The Guardian in the UK for this discussion). Can you give examples of fake news, or what I'd consider to be biased propaganda? (this last category I'd suggest something like climate change denial) in the NYT?
- striking 10y agoWhat about that time they lied about Iraq? http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-sti... Even just now the NYT decided they would "rededicate [themselves] to the fundamental mission of Times journalism" because of how greatly they messed up the election coverage. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reader... It doesn't matter what source you read from. The vast majority of news is bullshit, especially in today's day and age. It's not enough to say "oh, Fox News/MSNBC, it's obviously trash". Individually inspect articles for their truth. Look for the other side of every argument. Because brand loyalty is bullshit.
- wlll 10y agoThat's fair enough, though I don't see anything quite as "extreme" as the examples of breitbart articles (which as far as I'm aware they are standing by). Everyone has bias, and everyone lies, and sometimes people just make mistakes, but there is a scale to this that I personally see breitbart being further along than the NYT from the limited evidence I've seen overall.
- nailer 10y ago> though I'm not familiar with the NYT, I assume it's a bit like The Guardian in the UK Closest thing with the Graun would be the Duggan headline the PCC ruled misleading: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m...
- wlll 10y agoThat's a legit criticism, and likely shows a bias, though the paper did seem to acknowledge error, and the tone of the article was contrite, and lets face it, we're looking at a report of the paper's error in the paper itself.
- nailer 10y agoAll UK papers are obliged to acknowledge errors found by the PCC, and it's in their interest to maintain a good relationship with the PCC. I can remember seeing the headline and how it didn't match the finding in the article - which was that there was a gun in the car, hence the subject being armed - and thinking all someone who needs an excuse is going to do is read the headline, not buy the paper, and unleash more violence. The Guardian also kept saying reports that Duggan was a criminal were inaccurate as he had no record: he was a self confessed member of Star Gang and posed as such all over his Facebook. Either he was an adult human lying about being a member of a serious gang (which would have severe consequences) or he actually was involved in organised crime.
- wlll 10y agoI read the wikipedia article on the shooting (which admittedly may contain errors) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan It does seem like it's going to be hard to know what actually happened at the incident. The Guardian may have had a left/right bias here certainly, though it doesn't seem totally clear cut in this instance. It could as much be a case of "the reporting could have been more considered" rather than "deliberately misleading".
- tomp 10y agoMost articles about Russia. E.g. currently most MSM (edit: mainstram media) are on a propaganda roll regarding Mosul (Iraq/US) vs. Aleppo (Syria/Russia) reporting.
- wlll 10y agoCan you expand on that?
- tomp 10y agoMost Western media report on Mosul being infested by "ISIS" and being "liberated" by the Iraq/US coalition, whereas Aleppo is a stronghold of "resistance" and viciously "attacked" by the Syria/Russia coalition. Of course, no proofs are given of any way, and it blatantly ignores reports that in Syria, "rebels" and "ISIS" are mostly one and the same, with individual fighters simply fighting for whomever pays better at the moment.
- wlll 10y agoI try to maintain an open mind, and an air of distrust over things I read and things governments do. However Russia has form for brutality, wether they are liberating or conquering, or both. Russia might mean well (I don't believe they do, as with a lot of government actions), but I would tend to believe reports that whatever their motives they were going about it in an un-necessarily violent way.
- ant6n 10y agoWhen did NYT go from being 'intelectual' to being 'left-wing'. I guess next it'll be 'communist'.
- wlll 10y agoWhen the right wing got so right wing that anyone in any way intellectual would end up left of what they believed in perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Fascism Have we seen the start of this in the UK with Brexit, or "post-fact politics" too? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/michael-goves-guide-to-britains-greatest-enemy-the-experts/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/michael-goves-gui...
- sundaeofshock 10y ago> but I urge you to judge it by the content on the site Don't judge a content producer by the content it produces? What other criteria should I judge it by?
- vorotato 10y agoA quick search on the site for racial slurs will prooobably change your mind on that first point.
- ng12 10y agoNot sure what you're referring to. Link?
- tomp 10y agoI checked a few articles, the word "nigger" is either in the comments or in quotes. It's true, however, that they don't abbreviate it as "n-word" like most MSM. But we all know what "n-word" means, so I find that practice kind-of pointless anyways.
- burkaman 10y ago"We're the platform for the alt-right" - Steve Bannon, 2016 Let's see how they describe themselves. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-co... > There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. > Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic. > The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions. > For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. > Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration. > You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option. > The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. > In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction. It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged. > The really interesting members of the alt-right though, and the most numerous, are the natural conservatives. They are perhaps psychologically inclined to be unsettled by threats to western culture from mass immigration and maybe by non-straight relationships. Yet, unlike the 1488ers, the presence of such doesn’t send them into fits of rage. They want to build their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions. This is, by definition, white nationalism. If Breitbart is the platform of the alt-right, and this is the alt-right, then Breitbart is a white nationalist news source.