Talk:Conservative news websites

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 22:04, 27 September 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search


In the criteria section, would it be too strict to add 'must have substantial self-developed content', so as not to include Drudge Report style Web sites? The main reason for asking is on my recent addition of to the list, and whether or not it should fit the requirements for a top 10 list. This isn't to say Drudge Report style websites are not worthy, but using this as a criteria would be to more specifically define the types of allowable Web sites to the list. DerekE 20:40, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

I don't mind an emphasis on self-developed content (after all, that's what we do here!), but I'd like this list to be from the visitor's perspective, as in what is most valuable to him or her. I wouldn't exclude the Drudge Report from relying on other content. It rises or falls in the ranking based on its substantive, educational and other types of value to users compared to other sites.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

Factual Accuracy

One important criterion missing from the list is "factual accuracy." Or as stated in the CP Manual of Style: "The party affiliation of a news source should be irrelevant. All that matters is whether the source has a record of telling the truth." There are both liberal and conservative sources which pursue a certain agenda so relentlessly that they get their facts wrong quite often or report breathlessly on "new developments" before there's been a chance to vet their accuracy. JDWpianist 07:35, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've added it, though examples of factual errors on the sites nominated seem rare or non-existent.--Andy Schlafly 08:05, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
Well, I'll leave those questions to people doing the ranking, although I seem to remember a few whoppers from some of the nominated sites, especially Newsmax and Red State. I don't have time to document these myself, but it's worth a thorough and fair evaluation from that perspective.
Cheers, JDWpianist 08:49, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

USA Today

Andy has added the USA Today as one of the best news sources. I do not believe that the leftist-owned-and-operated USA Today is one of the best news sources. I've been reading Conservapedia as a news source for quite some time, and I've always thought that Conservapedia's position on the USA Today was that it was liberal. I agree that the paper is a "liberal mouthpiece" as I've previously read on the Main Page of Conservapedia[1]. In August, when Andy announced that the USA Today cutting 9% of its staff was a sign that "the lamestream media is losing its power"[2], I rejoiced. Andy, could you please explain what has changed your opinion of the USA Today? KyleDD 23:51, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

The USA Today is better than the New York Times and most instruments of the lamestream media. The USA Today's reporting on the farcical rally Saturday was good, for example.--Andy Schlafly 00:41, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

WorldNetDaily Factual Accuracy

I agree that WND is generally a good alternative to the MSM, but I recently saw something that makes me question whether it deserves to be #1 on this list. The website's editor-in-chief admitted that his site publishes "some misinformation by columnists." I'm sure that the site that broke this news publishes plenty of misinformation of its own, but this is a direct quote. --AaronT 11:39, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

You didn't include the entire quote: "Admittedly, we publish some misinformation by columnists, as does your publication and every other journal that contains opinion." Looks refreshingly candid to me, and Farah might have added that many liberal opinion sites contain more misinformation than WorldNetDaily ever will.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
Yes, as I hinted at in my post above, I know there are plenty of liberal opinion sites that contain more misinformation. I am just questioning whether WND deserves to be the number one best news site after its owner freely admits to publishing misinformation. It's still a fine source of news, but I don't think it should be held to a relative standard (compared to those liberal opinion sites) when being judged on its factual accuracy. --AaronT 10:29, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
The candid admission by Farah enhances his credibility and that of WorldNetDaily. Isn't the finest attribute of a news source its candor?--Andy Schlafly 20:40, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

News sources

I think that Breitbart deserves to be higher in ranking. It's a good and comprehensive group of sites. I also think The Drudge Report needs to be on here. Jm920 00:32, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

I increased Breitbart's ranking per your suggestion. The Drudge Report is more a distributor of news than an original source.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 27 September 2011 (EDT)