Breitbart is not a credible source

[gabosaurus]

Since the head of breitbart is a top member of Trump's paid campaign staff, how can anyone (well, anyone with common sense) expect releases from the breitbart site to be credible?
The answer is, they are not. It's artificially created news. Which, I realize, is what you guys prefer. But still. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

You stated as much in an earlier thread. I asked you then to prove that the actual story/video posted was wrong, or incorrect somehow. You ignored that question and then later on start a new thread questioning the source. I really don't care what the name of any of them are, only whether or not the news that I am reading and then posting is factual and correct - and they are. And you know that too - or you could prove the stories wrong instead of just whining.

Lets try this again, how about that? Since I literally just posted this a few minutes ago, and it's from Breitbart. You tell us all exactly what's wrong with this, and why we shouldn't trust this writing. Don't just whine and post this crap - show us - show us that they aren't credible.

----

Title: Hillary Clinton: Nasty Campaign Rhetoric ‘Breaks My Heart’

Story: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton explained to a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa that she was disturbed by all the negativity surrounding the election.

“It breaks my heart to see all the mean spirited, divisive, bigoted things that are being said in our country,” she said, placing her hand on her chest during a rally on Thursday afternoon.

Clinton opened up her rally proclaiming that she wanted her campaign to be “about something, not just against somebody” and tried to spark a positive tone in the rally.

“We can have our differences for heaven’s sakes, we’re Americans, that’s in our DNA,” she said, calling for everyone to “listen to one another” going forward.

Clinton warmly told the crowd long stories about her parents, but her attempt to signal a bright new future quickly turned nasty.

“He spends all of his time just dumping on America,” she said, referring to Trump

She repeatedly attacked Trump, accusing him of hurting workers, and suggested that the billionaire hadn’t been paying any taxes.

“You can see that we’ve been blessed,” she said. “We’re grateful for that but we’ve paid the highest marginal tax rates, and we are glad we could.”

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/29/hillary-clinton-nasty-campaign-rhetoric-breaks-heart/

[aboutime]

Since the head of breitbart is a top member of Trump's paid campaign staff, how can anyone (well, anyone with common sense) expect releases from the breitbart site to be credible?
The answer is, they are not. It's artificially created news. Which, I realize, is what you guys prefer. But still. :rolleyes:


Gabby. If what you insist is true. They are merely following YOUR lead. Which should be something you would be proud of here. Otherwise, you simply cannot stand to be told, or to hear the TRUTH.
You are absolutely the very LAST person here on DP to talk about Common Sense. So you are the artificial one here. Your hypocrisy is Showing Again. Your belief in MSNBC, and CNN outweigh your accusations.

[aboutime]

You stated as much in an earlier thread. I asked you then to prove that the actual story/video posted was wrong, or incorrect somehow. You ignored that question and then later on start a new thread questioning the source. I really don't care what the name of any of them are, only whether or not the news that I am reading and then posting is factual and correct - and they are. And you know that too - or you could prove the stories wrong instead of just whining.

Lets try this again, how about that? Since I literally just posted this a few minutes ago, and it's from Breitbart. You tell us all exactly what's wrong with this, and why we shouldn't trust this writing. Don't just whine and post this crap - show us - show us that they aren't credible.

----

Title: Hillary Clinton: Nasty Campaign Rhetoric ‘Breaks My Heart’

Story: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton explained to a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa that she was disturbed by all the negativity surrounding the election.

“It breaks my heart to see all the mean spirited, divisive, bigoted things that are being said in our country,” she said, placing her hand on her chest during a rally on Thursday afternoon.

Clinton opened up her rally proclaiming that she wanted her campaign to be “about something, not just against somebody” and tried to spark a positive tone in the rally.

“We can have our differences for heaven’s sakes, we’re Americans, that’s in our DNA,” she said, calling for everyone to “listen to one another” going forward.

Clinton warmly told the crowd long stories about her parents, but her attempt to signal a bright new future quickly turned nasty.

“He spends all of his time just dumping on America,” she said, referring to Trump

She repeatedly attacked Trump, accusing him of hurting workers, and suggested that the billionaire hadn’t been paying any taxes.

“You can see that we’ve been blessed,” she said. “We’re grateful for that but we’ve paid the highest marginal tax rates, and we are glad we could.”

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/29/hillary-clinton-nasty-campaign-rhetoric-breaks-heart/




jim. Isn't it interesting, and entertaining to see how desperate, and miserable gabby becomes when someone....anyone states the truth? Even better. Isn't it great that after hearing, or reading the TRUTH from Breitbart.....she is totally UNABLE to dispute, or disprove anything that was said???:laugh:

[jimnyc]

jim. Isn't it interesting, and entertaining to see how desperate, and miserable gabby becomes when someone....anyone states the truth? Even better. Isn't it great that after hearing, or reading the TRUTH from Breitbart.....she is totally UNABLE to dispute, or disprove anything that was said???:laugh:



I would go with the long term posts from any one media agency. I would even have no issue if she posted news articles from MSNBC all week long, so long as they are factual of course. There are various ways I see the news from any one site:

News: Like today's train crash for example. Simple plain reporting of the news, as up to date and accurate as possible. This should hopefully be as close to being the same across sites.

Commentary/opinion/pundits - Most sites also have them. Some suck and some are OK. And whether you like them or think they suck - the things stated, outside of rhetoric and such, should be backed up with facts.

Everyone ranks the news they get differently. But I guess Gabby is claiming that their news is somehow not "credible". I disagree with her. I think she left the prior thread purposely. I also think she'll fail to find anything now either. They are like any other site, where they report news, and factually I might add, and of course with an edge that leans right. They also offer commentary/pundits, and of course in that reading you will see that it obviously leans to the right.

Either way and anyway though, the "facts" offered are correct. Opinions are opinions and worth for what they are. They aren't different than any other site, and no less and no more credible that, MSNBC, for example.

[gabosaurus]

You are missing my point.
If someone from a legitimate news source (say a newspaper or TV station), joined a political campaign, they would have to give up their other position. Because of a conflict of interest.
Stephen Bannon, the chairman of breitbart, is now Trump's campaign manager. His internet service is now effectively the online voice of the Trump campaign. It also limits breitbart's releases to pro-Trump propaganda. He loses all credibility as a reliable source.

One of breitbart's latest pieces is an anti-Semitic attack on Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum.
How can Trump maintain his stance of supporting Israel when he allows his campaign manager to attack someone for being Jewish?


Hell hath no fury like a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/27/anne-applebaums-russian-style-disinformation-offensive-msm-vs-anti-globalist-right-will-people/

[jimnyc]

Oh boy. I see nothing wrong with their site, but you are free to ignore it. I always try and double up on the facts. If I ever saw them as "not credible", I would probably stop going there. But I've seen no change whatsoever this year.

[NightTrain]

You are missing my point.
If someone from a legitimate news source (say a newspaper or TV station), joined a political campaign, they would have to give up their other position. Because of a conflict of interest.
Stephen Bannon, the chairman of breitbart, is now Trump's campaign manager. His internet service is now effectively the online voice of the Trump campaign. It also limits breitbart's releases to pro-Trump propaganda. He loses all credibility as a reliable source.

One of breitbart's latest pieces is an anti-Semitic attack on Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum.
How can Trump maintain his stance of supporting Israel when he allows his campaign manager to attack someone for being Jewish?


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/27/anne-applebaums-russian-style-disinformation-offensive-msm-vs-anti-globalist-right-will-people/


So, he should quit his job when the election is less than 2 months away?

Makes sense.

[gabosaurus]

So, he should quit his job when the election is less than 2 months away?

Makes sense.

It's called "taking a leave of absence."
Even you know know that.


Oh boy. I see nothing wrong with their site, but you are free to ignore it. I always try and double up on the facts. If I ever saw them as "not credible", I would probably stop going there. But I've seen no change whatsoever this year.

You see nothing wrong with the head of a political website running the campaign of one of the candidates involved? :confused:

[jimnyc]

You see nothing wrong with the head of a political website running the campaign of one of the candidates involved? :confused:

What I care about is whether or not the news I am getting is "credible" and factual - and it is.

[gabosaurus]

What I care about is whether or not the news I am getting is "credible" and factual - and it is.

Yet you don't think the "mainstream media" is credible and factual? When they are not affiliated with either candidate?

[jimnyc]

Yet you don't think the "mainstream media" is credible and factual? When they are not affiliated with either candidate?

I think the majority of the MSM is a bunch of hacks, yes. But still, with each story, no matter where I get it from, I would try and get some backup from it elsewhere to try and verify the story. I think many of them are legit when it comes to news stories, with a small slant. Where you see the huge slant is with commentary and pundit stories - and there you will also find them taking some liberties, and outright lies. And yes, some stations are worse in that regard.

[hjmick]

Just as credible as The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and on and on and on...

[Elessar]

I would go with the long term posts from any one media agency. I would even have no issue if she posted news articles from MSNBC all week long, so long as they are factual of course. There are various ways I see the news from any one site:

Either way and anyway though, the "facts" offered are correct. Opinions are opinions and worth for what they are. They aren't different than any other site, and no less and no more credible that, MSNBC, for example.


What I care about is whether or not the news I am getting is "credible" and factual - and it is.


Just as credible as The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and on and on and on...

What amuses me is that the left always insists, loudly, that what is written or spoken is gospel "Truth".
Most pundits of lesser level offer opinion only, hardly looking at both ends to speak fact.
The left is especially bad about this.

[aboutime]

gabby. Likewise, you see nothing wrong with George Soros (not an American)(who brags about owning the DNC, and many Democrat congress members)....paying almost a BILLION dollars, yet you complain about Breitbart employee's (American Citizens).

Once again. Your liberal leaning hypocrisy precedes you, and everything you lie about.

[SassyLady]

Since the head of breitbart is a top member of Trump's paid campaign staff, how can anyone (well, anyone with common sense) expect releases from the breitbart site to be credible?
The answer is, they are not. It's artificially created news. Which, I realize, is what you guys prefer. But still. :rolleyes:

There are no more credible or legitimate sources for news anywhere anymore.

Journalists have decided Americans are too stupid to hear the facts and make up their own mind so feel is their civic duty to enlighten us by putting their own spin on the facts .... or just blatantly leaving out key words that would clarify a situation.

[gabosaurus]

Factual or not, if you are Trump's campaign manager, you shouldn't be in the business of creating news. Your opinion is tainted.

[aboutime]

You are missing my point.
If someone from a legitimate news source (say a newspaper or TV station), joined a political campaign, they would have to give up their other position. Because of a conflict of interest.
Stephen Bannon, the chairman of breitbart, is now Trump's campaign manager. His internet service is now effectively the online voice of the Trump campaign. It also limits breitbart's releases to pro-Trump propaganda. He loses all credibility as a reliable source.

One of breitbart's latest pieces is an anti-Semitic attack on Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum.
How can Trump maintain his stance of supporting Israel when he allows his campaign manager to attack someone for being Jewish?


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/27/anne-applebaums-russian-style-disinformation-offensive-msm-vs-anti-globalist-right-will-people/
Okay gabby. You opened this can of worms. Tell us what is wrong with someone/anyone whom you do not like because you believe they are partisan....for REPORTING THE TRUTH?

Or, would you like to take the time here to PROVE...What Breitbart has reported is FALSE or LIES?

[SassyLady]

Factual or not, if you are Trump's campaign manager, you shouldn't be in the business of creating news. Your opinion is tainted.

Gabby.... as I mentioned before, no one's opinion is untainted .... on either side. Everyone at CNN, NYT, CBS, ABC, etc. is effectively a Clinton campaign spokesperson.

[gabosaurus]

Everyone at CNN, NYT, CBS, ABC, etc. is effectively a Clinton campaign spokesperson.

Are they on Clinton's paid staff?
Otherwise... massive extensive :rolleyes:

[aboutime]

Are they on Clinton's paid staff?
Otherwise... massive extensive :rolleyes:


gabby. No, they are all like you. Gullible, Easily-led, and convinced to always believe the constantly repeated LIBERAL LIES...you, and others have been bred to swear as facts.

[SassyLady]

Are they on Clinton's paid staff?
Otherwise... massive extensive :rolleyes:

As more emails come out I wouldn't be surprised if there is some type of compensation between journalists and Clinton campaign.

[Kathianne]

As more emails come out I wouldn't be surprised if there is some type of compensation between journalists and Clinton campaign.

It really is amazing. Not surprised at the collusion, just that it's actually coming out. Remember journolist?

[aboutime]

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/monica-lewinsky/