5 ms·

Breitbart is actually quite accurate, I'd say it's no more misleading than any other mainstream publication. I'd wager that most people here don't actually read

Breitbart is actually quite accurate, I'd say it's no more misleading than any other mainstream publication. I'd wager that most people here don't actually read the website yet hold strong opinions on its reporting, which in itself is sad. I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffPo article. What is the case is that very often Breitbart reports on things more mainstream sites refuse to report on. It's real diversity of perspective like this that's actually valuable in a free society. But Breitbart doesn't tow the ideological line, so it gets banned. When we ban websites like Breitbart we lose sources that examine sides of issues that often go unexamined, or issues that get ignored altogether.

imh 8y ago
It's one of many that were banned, across the ideological spectrum.
- YouOkOrNot 8y ago
  That's beside the point, Breitbart shouldn't be banned.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
e40 8y ago
I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffPo article. Whataboutism isn't a good argument.
orf 8y ago
> I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffPo article. Sure. > EU Cracks: Juncker Says Brexit Deal Close https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/06/eu-blinks-juncker-brexit-deal-close/ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/06/eu-blinks-juncke... It's certainly not the EU who are cracking under Brexit, Theresa May's government is. > Danish Minister Rejects EU Migrant Quotas Claiming ‘Too Few Contribute’ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-rejects-eu-migrant-quotas-claiming-too-few-contribute/ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-... The actual source (https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-danmark-tager-ikke-imod-kvoteflygtninge-i-aar/ https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-dan...) says it is the UN quotas it is stopping, not the EU ones as suggested in the title. The title is also misleading, "too few women contribute" is the quote. They only took in 500 refugees a year before that, something the writing definitely does not reflect, and will continue "throw open their borders" to refugees with disabilities. And hey, lets throw in a nice bit about rape statistics and putting asylum seekers on deserted islands. The less said about the comments, the better.
- leereeves 8y ago
  What's your source for the 500 refugees per year? I saw different: > The country registered 3,500 asylum seekers in 2017, according to the ministry, the lowest number since 2008. https://www.thelocal.dk/20181004/denmark-refuses-to-take-in-un-quota-refugees-in-2018 https://www.thelocal.dk/20181004/denmark-refuses-to-take-in-... As for the rest of your nitpicking, I'm sure you're aware we could do the same with the headlines from any media source. I once saw CNN publish essentially the same story with two opposing headlines: "NFL ratings are down again this season. Is it time to panic yet?", then "Trump says NFL ratings are 'way down.' That's not completely true"
  - orf 8y ago
    In the article I linked. > However, Inger Støjberg has broad support for the decision in the Folketing. All parties in the blue block and Social Democracy say no to take 500 quota refugees through the UN system, as it did before. These are the quota refugees. The ones the article is lambasting. Asylum seekers are different, technically a superset of refugees I guess. I'm glad you saw two contradictory headlines once (to nitpick: way down != down), I'm not sure how that refutes any of the many things wrong with the two articles I described above, found within 5 clicks on their website frontpage.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      That was just one example of thousands. Headlines are misleading more often than not, I find. The examples you gave from Breitbart don't come anywhere close to proving that it's worse than other media.
      - orf 8y ago
        And the zero examples you gave prove what exactly?
        YouOkOrNot 8y ago
        Anyone that's not ignorant of modern media knows it's true, that clickbaut headlines stretch and mangle the truth. Now, what you showed us with your Breitbart analysis is very minor and irrelevant to the basic thrust of the story. The full quote about migrants not contributing to their own upkeep is "there are still too many who do not support themselves. This applies especially to women, where too few contribute." "Do not support themselves" and "too few contribute" have the same meaning. So she is basically saying "too many don't support themselves. This is especially true for women". So Breitbart's headline is correct in saying too few support themselves. The meaning is the same. The way the author wrote the headline is standard journalistic license used by the NYT, WaPo, etc... The point is your evidence was not really an effective critique of Breitbart.

imh 8y ago

It's one of many that were banned, across the ideological spectrum.

YouOkOrNot 8y ago
That's beside the point, Breitbart shouldn't be banned.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

e40 8y ago

I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffPo article. Whataboutism isn't a good argument.

orf 8y ago

> I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffPo article. Sure. > EU Cracks: Juncker Says Brexit Deal Close https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/06/eu-blinks-juncker-brexit-deal-close/ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/06/eu-blinks-juncke... It's certainly not the EU who are cracking under Brexit, Theresa May's government is. > Danish Minister Rejects EU Migrant Quotas Claiming ‘Too Few Contribute’ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-rejects-eu-migrant-quotas-claiming-too-few-contribute/ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-... The actual source (https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-danmark-tager-ikke-imod-kvoteflygtninge-i-aar/ https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-dan...) says it is the UN quotas it is stopping, not the EU ones as suggested in the title. The title is also misleading, "too few women contribute" is the quote. They only took in 500 refugees a year before that, something the writing definitely does not reflect, and will continue "throw open their borders" to refugees with disabilities. And hey, lets throw in a nice bit about rape statistics and putting asylum seekers on deserted islands. The less said about the comments, the better.

leereeves 8y ago
What's your source for the 500 refugees per year? I saw different: > The country registered 3,500 asylum seekers in 2017, according to the ministry, the lowest number since 2008. https://www.thelocal.dk/20181004/denmark-refuses-to-take-in-un-quota-refugees-in-2018 https://www.thelocal.dk/20181004/denmark-refuses-to-take-in-... As for the rest of your nitpicking, I'm sure you're aware we could do the same with the headlines from any media source. I once saw CNN publish essentially the same story with two opposing headlines: "NFL ratings are down again this season. Is it time to panic yet?", then "Trump says NFL ratings are 'way down.' That's not completely true"
- orf 8y ago
  In the article I linked. > However, Inger Støjberg has broad support for the decision in the Folketing. All parties in the blue block and Social Democracy say no to take 500 quota refugees through the UN system, as it did before. These are the quota refugees. The ones the article is lambasting. Asylum seekers are different, technically a superset of refugees I guess. I'm glad you saw two contradictory headlines once (to nitpick: way down != down), I'm not sure how that refutes any of the many things wrong with the two articles I described above, found within 5 clicks on their website frontpage.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    That was just one example of thousands. Headlines are misleading more often than not, I find. The examples you gave from Breitbart don't come anywhere close to proving that it's worse than other media.
    - orf 8y ago
      And the zero examples you gave prove what exactly?
      - YouOkOrNot 8y ago
        Anyone that's not ignorant of modern media knows it's true, that clickbaut headlines stretch and mangle the truth. Now, what you showed us with your Breitbart analysis is very minor and irrelevant to the basic thrust of the story. The full quote about migrants not contributing to their own upkeep is "there are still too many who do not support themselves. This applies especially to women, where too few contribute." "Do not support themselves" and "too few contribute" have the same meaning. So she is basically saying "too many don't support themselves. This is especially true for women". So Breitbart's headline is correct in saying too few support themselves. The meaning is the same. The way the author wrote the headline is standard journalistic license used by the NYT, WaPo, etc... The point is your evidence was not really an effective critique of Breitbart.