Difference between revisions of "Talk:Top Conservative news websites"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(the USA Today is arguably a member of the lamestream media)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
::Cheers, [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:49, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
 
::Cheers, [[User:JDWpianist|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[http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/February_2010#February_16]. 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"[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=814130&oldid=814101], I rejoiced. Andy, could you please explain what has changed your opinion of the USA Today? [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:51, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 03:51, November 1, 2010

Criteria

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 catholicedition.com 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)