New hit list of alleged 'fake news' sites targets Drudge, WND

[rangerrebew]

New hit list of alleged 'fake news' sites targets Drudge, WND
Harvard University cites blacklist by Trump-basher specializing in 'fat studies'
Published: 14 hours ago
 

And now even Harvard University has reportedly linked to the assistant professor’s “huge list of fake news sites” in its new research guide, called “Fake News, Misinformation, and Propaganda.”

As WND reported, Merrimack College Assistant Professor Melissa Zimdars, a 30-something self-identified feminist and activist who has expressed great dislike for President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, has been behind the effort to target and discredit legitimate news organizations.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/new-hit-list-of-alleged-fake-news-sites-targets-drudge-wnd/#sXG9Sto0GVDuBL6P.99

[rangerrebew]

I know anything coming out of Harvard is fair and balanced.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

But this is from Wing Nut Daily to start with.

Anywho how can drudge be "fake news," he just compiles links?

[Wingnut]

But this is from Wing Nut Daily to start with.

@Idaho_Cowboy

Wait....what?   

[ABX]

WND makes sense, they've been as bad as InfoWars for a long time. At the very least, they deserve the 'misleading or clickbait' moniker for taking normal, mundane stories and twisting the headlines and lead to make it sound extreme.

Drudge is just an aggregator. Sometimes it makes its own versions of headlines a bit click-baity but for the most part, they don't produce their own content so they shouldn't be listed.

[ABX]

To add on to the previous post, WND just proved the Harvard list's point.

If you go to the Harvard list here:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53V_81ZyitM/mobilebasic

They did not list WND or Drudge as 'fake' like the WND article and headline claims. They have WND listed as clickbait, unreliable, and misleading.
They have Drudge listed as political and biased.

So WND, by lying and saying that Harvard listed it and Drudge as fake, when they didn't, pretty much made the point that at best, they are unreliable.

[ABX]

The Harvard list also seems to be pretty balanced as well. For example, they list liberal sites too like the Daily KOS as political and unreliable, Food Babe and gaia as junk science,

[jmyrlefuller]

Indeed, WND is tagged as "unreliable" (in the definition, that means it may or may not be true).

WND is unusual among the more widely known conservative sites. Most are tagged as "political, bias" (IOW they have a conservative lean but are in general following sound journalistic practices). WND's incessant whining about it is actually quite sad.

[truth_seeker]

Missing from this list are MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, CNN, HuffPo, RT, MotherJones and many others.

Where is the intellectual heft and honesty, from a leftist source classifying center-right sources to be biased?

Besides, this is wasting energy on an old paradigm. Media in general has been radically changed.

And both sides of the political spectrum are at fault, for ignoring old journalism practices. The olde establishment media has covered for the left for decades.

The right fought merely to be heard. So what if they have biased sources on the right?  That merely equalizes the volume knobs on the sets.

All of journalism is now crappy, biased, dishonest etc.

[ABX]

The other thing to note is this is based on an open-source list at Opensources.co. If one doesn't agree with something they see or feel specific websites are not listed, they can go to that site and submit a proposal or arguement for their case instead of whining.

Reading through the methodology though, it is pretty sound. It also matches up pretty well to the list we've been compiling here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,200208.0.html

[goatprairie]

The biggest fault of liberal media is not that what they've broadcast/printed has been lies....their biggest sin has always been the facts they've ignored. The alphabet networks simply don't report facts/stories that contradict the lib/leftist spin.  Go to Google to search some controversial issue or person,  and many times you'll have to go three or four pages or more before you can find  a dissenting or conservative slant on that particular issue or person.
The lib media over the last fifty-sixty years has simply ignored information/facts they've found uncomfortable  or opposing the standard lib line on things. Just look at global warming....if you're not on a conservative website you'll really have to hunt to find articles disagreeing with the lib message.