This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
bijouxbroussard · F
I read several, and I try to check who is behind them and what their agenda is, when one clearly exists. Some of the international sources report facts with less of a slant. Others have a pro-or anti- USA slant, depending on their relationship with us, so I keep that in mind.
Ya know, despite all the doom and gloom and "fake news" claims from everywhere, I do like the fact that we can get different points of view more easily. When I was a kid, there were 3 networks, all of whom were pretty much saying the same thing.
The internet is a mixed bag, for sure, but the "good old days" weren't as good as we might like to think they were.
The internet is a mixed bag, for sure, but the "good old days" weren't as good as we might like to think they were.
bijouxbroussard · F
@Misty71: True. One site I avoid is Breitbart.com because they are run by alt-right pundits. Their namesake, the late Andrew Breitbart, was guilty of posting that edited video of Shirley Sherrod, former director of Agriculture and lobbying to get her fired. He was found out, though. Sherrod settled her libel suit with his widow. And last fall the site reported about a protest right after the election in San Francisco where they claimed there was "mass rioting and looting". Surprised me, because I was there and it didn't happen. But if I hadn't been, I might've believed them. So that told me that the site was continuing its founder's policy of dishonesty and race-baiting.
@bijouxbroussard: I went to Breitbart once and felt like I needed to wash my phone afterwards. Yet, I can sort of see where it's not as simple as, say, Fox's tabloid approach. Bannon seems to have a genuine sinister agenda. If I wasn't living through it, I'd almost love to see a movie about all this and the strange bedfellows its creating and how they must be squirming at times.