vernon wrote:
Has a real conservative news station come on air?I watch fox business but I don't watch fox news much at all,I like Varney and Dobbs ,but it wont be long before they get them to. that murdock and soros need the same thing to get in a hole in the ground And take their seed with them.
Not that I am aware of, Vernon.. I go on line to a number of site suggested to me and read plenty to see which are non fake news... The biggest problem is the left knows we citizens are cutting them out so they are now doing the same BS online too!!!
You just have to get everything before you can believe any of it!!!
Here's an article that came out during debates.. You may find it of interest..
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/la-times-lists-several-reliable-conservative-outlets-fake-news-sites-avoidReliable conservative outlets like The Blaze, Breitbart, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, and RedState all made the list. Also making the cut is The Onion, a well-known and actual fake news site. So, you can see why Zimdars wanted the conservative outlets next to The Onion.
Here are the criteria the professor used to compile the list:
CATEGORY 1: Below is a list of fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits. These websites are categorized with the number 1 next to them.
CATEGORY 2: Some websites on this list may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, and they are marked with a 2.
CATEGORY 3: Other websites on this list sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions, and they are marked with a 3.clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions, and they are marked with a 3.
CATEGORY 4: Other sources on this list are purposefully fake with the intent of satire/comedy, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news. I’m including them here, for now, because 1.) they have the potential to perpetuate misinformation based on different audience (mis)interpretations and 2.) to make sure anyone who reads a story by The Onion, for example, understands its purpose. If you think this is unnecessary, please see Literally Unbelievable. <snip> plenty more to read, this just a bit of it..