Which news sources will be allowed after the 16th?

[panader0]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by treestar (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

I have seen people say "no right-wing sources". Okay. But I have also seen just about every source
be labeled that way. So in the interest of following the new rules, can anyone tell me what news
sources will be allowed? Thanks.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Questions like that were covered in the thread of the original announcement...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6548

[panader0]

3. The announcement says "right wing publications and pundits"

I would like a little more specificity. Which publications are considered right wing? As far as I know'
all of the media are owned by five corporations, all right-leaning.

[tabasco]

17. So true. The media is owned by plutocrats / republicans.

Any source from the U.S. mass media can be considered "right wing."

Maybe the BBC will be allowed.

[MineralMan]

2. There is no list. There never has been a list.

On the other hand, there are sites like breitbart and worldnetdaily and beyondtopsecret and others that everyone knows are right-wing bullshit websites.

There are many others, too. I think an informal mental list will be easy enough, since right-wing sites tend to post right-wing memes.

You'll know them when you see them, I'm sure.

[panader0]

4. Some. as you say, may be obvious. But, as I wrote above, I have seen

most every source criticized here. And all of the media are owned by conservatives.

[kadaholo]

5. Good Point!

[MineralMan]

6. As I said, you'll know right-wing garbage by what it says.

That's always been the case. I never have trouble identifying such content, anyhow.

If you're talking about what will stand or get hidden on DU, that's harder to define. However, the new way juries will function may make it less frequent that right-wing garbage stays visible. I hope so.

BTW, the most interesting thing about the change is that we won't be able to see what is in hidden posts after the change. If it's hidden, it's not going to be visible any longer. I like that.

[emulatorloo]

7. We share a similar view of for profit media. However I am sure we can agree that WND etc

are extreme right wing.

I doubt there will be a list, but I figure most people can spend 5 seconds or so examining the other articles on a site and figure out if it is right wing.

For example, one can take a look at the Breitbart home page and see what other articles are featured. Do most of the articles smear and lie about liberals/progressives? Yes. That would be a good clue.

Additionally there is Sourcewatch.com which tracks the most egregious of these sites.

[MFM008]

27. so your putting forth an argument

that none are trustworthy. That nothing any media says especially critical of HRC can be posted.
Its pretty common sense.........................

[NurseJackie]

8. I'll bet it won't take long to find out by trial and error...

... and error, and error, and error.

[panader0]

9. Ha ha ha ha ha ha --did I mention that you are so funny?

I want to avoid that error.

[NurseJackie]

10. :-D

[annavictorious]

34. Hmmm....maybe you should read rather than post for a while.

Listen and learn.

I do understand why you're concerned, though. It is puzzling why so many progressives are suddenly relying on the WSJ and Fox news for their talking points. If only there was an anti-Clinton echo chamber that masked its unforgiving authoritarianism in progressive trappings, one that people could cite without fear of being called out on the ridiculousness of their sources.

[panader0]

37. I don't need a three month newbie with five hides to tell me to "listen and learn".

In the old days, you would be outta here. And the WSJ? Wall Street? That's HRC country.
I'll be curious to see what sources the HRC folks use after the 16th, and will believe that
they will be allowed.

[wyldwolf]

11. Why don't we start with ones that are obviously right wing with obvious agendas

Town Hall
FOX
Hot Air
Daily Caller
Washing Times
Washington Free Beacon
Breitbart

... more - feel free to add to the list.

Being that I don't believe the OP's post is sincere (or he/she is a political virgin), sources like WAPO and TIME and LA Times and NY Times probably shouldn't be on the list just because they've printed things you don't like. However, each of these and other could very well publish editorial by right wing writers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I am a lapsed Baptist.

They used to teach us in Sunday School if we had to think about the morality of an action we shouldn't probably do it.

[panader0]

14. You're wrong about my OP being insincere. Or being a political virgin.

And your list is a beginning. But the quandary is like you said-"However, each of
these and other could very well publish editorial by right wing writers."
So-where does that leave us? If even "respected" publications like NYT, WAPO, etc. can be off bounds,
what can we quote?

[Stallion]

15. Any Link that Mentions the Apocalyse or Aliens on Front Page

nm

[TwilightZone]

30. Or Sean Hannity

[annavictorious]

35. Or fllies landing on Obama as proof that he is Beelzebub.

Or ones that cite winged creatures of any kind as portents of metaphysical meaning or proof of God's endorsement.

[TwilightZone]

21. The Blaze, Drudge, FACT, Judicial Watch

[-none]

13. It will depend wholly on who is posting the link.

That's how we will know if it is allowed or not.
If a Bernie supporter posts a link to whatever, it will be a link to a Right-wing site.
If a Hillary supporter posts the same link, they will use the same new rules to support their link as not Right-wing, that was used to hide the first post by a Bernie supporter, as being Right-wing.

The Golden Rule and all that.

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. ^This is the correct answer.

[tabasco]

18. Only happy news will be allowed, regardless of the source.

If Fox News has Hillary happy news, then it will be okay.

[annavictorious]

36. Or people can find the affirmation they need

by withdrawing from the reality-based world and finding a cozy corner in an echo chamber of like-minded progressive authoritarians like jackpine radicals.

See...there are lots of options for being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

[Adrahil]

19. I'd say do a little due diligence.

If you're gonna post something, check out the source. If it's got a history of trashing Democrats, especially from the right, then reconsider posting. It hasn't been much of an issue before.

[floppyboo]

20. No RT, at least not in LBN

I recently had a thread blocked there. I was told that Skinner has a no RT policy, but don't know if that extends to shows they carry like Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann or Lee Camp, which wouldn't be Breaking News in any case. I hope not. But it would be nice to know.

[Lord Magus]

22. The thing to remember is, sometimes a site itself isn't a right-wing source but the op-ed writer is.

Thoroughly mainstream outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post have some serious wingnuts among their editorial staff. So distinction absolutely has to be made between news articles and opinion pieces.

[itsrobert]

23. Jack Pine Radicals

comes to mind.

[panader0]

24. I used to consider DU to be a great source of news.

With the looming censorship--well, I'll have to wait and see.

[LWolf]

25. I don't know, but I'm going to guess.

After the 16th, any source that runs anything perceived to be "negative" connected to Clinton will be "right wing."

Especially left-wing sources.

[panader0]

26. I think you are correct.

[TwilightZone]

33. Hasn't been the case in 15 years, so I doubt they'll start now.

I don't think it's terribly out-of-line to expect people to vet their own sources, even the ones that profess to be left-wing.

[SidDithers]

29. Lots of them...

What you won't be able to do is blindly quote from the Daily Caller, or from The Washington Free Beacon etc.

You'll be responsible for the sources you bring to DU. It will be on you to figure out if the source is right-wing or not.

Sid

[panader0]

31. "Lots of them"

Okay--which ones? I want to know what sources I can cite without a hide, or being
accused of some dastardly deed.

[annavictorious]

38. Maybe you should do your own homework and stop stubbornly insisting that you are entitled

to have other people do it for you.

Figure it out for yourself. It will force you to become a better thinker.

People who can't distinguish between what's reliable and what's spew probably shouldn't be wasting other people's time with their, um, insightful commentary anyway.

[Vattel]

32. CNN and MSNBC

[treestar]

39. Locking, redirect to ATA