Post: #26

One source not mentioned is The Intercept. There was one article I knew it was wrongly portrayed but overall, a decent news website.

Post: #27

Damn us Red Pillagers think so much alike.
I got 99% of my news from RoK, RVF and Mike Cernovich.
The other 1% I get from Sean Hannity.

I know, Sean Hannity is a part of the "Mainstream Media"
but in his defense, he has supported and endorsed Donald Trump from Day 1.
Sean Hannity is also obsessed with and trains MMA like 7 days a week.
This is a dude that my gut tells me I can trust.

Post: #28

I have to second opinions here on Wall Street Journal. One of the very few large news outlets to give Trump a fair coverage. They do cover the entire ideological spectrum. I follow Jonathan Haidt's philosophy that both liberals and conservatives are needed for a balanced society (though admittedly the left has gone off a cliff). The WSJ allows me to read liberal pieces without over-the-top propaganda infused. Always good to know what the other side is thinking. Never a good idea to only listen/read to what is effectively an echo chamber of thoughts and ideas.

Post: #29

(11-01-2016 08:06 PM)younggun Wrote:  While I appreciate all they've done for the Trump campaign, I can't take Infowars and Breitbart seriously as legitimate news sources. This isn't an attack on the right wing, I despise CNN, NBC etc as well as the rags like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed.

Neutrality is key. Wall Street Journal puts out stuff I don't agree with but it doesn't read like propaganda. It's based in fact for the most part. Infowars and Breitbart read like propaganda.

I get it, we need people like Alex Jones to combat the media machine on the left. But I'd rather my news sources stayed non-partisan.

Infowars lacks professionalism, a lot of that boils down to Alex Jones' personality, but they present facts that the WSJ or other professional media outlets won't touch due to their ideological blind spot or outright self-censorship.

Post: #30

Wikileaks' twitter account