http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/ex-writer-breitbart-broke-the-law.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
>A former Breitbart News writer alleged the site was acting as an illegal influence operation for its Washington DC landlord, an obscure Egyptian politician cited this week by a Capitol Hill media association that denied Breitbart press credentials.
>Two sources with direct knowledge, including one former Breitbart writer, say a reporter for the pro-Trump news organization was behind a complaint to the Department of Justice implicating then-chairman Steve Bannon and Moustafa El-Gindy, an Egyptian businessman and former legislator and the owner of Breitbart’s Washington office.
>Despite pleading ignorance on his tenants, El-Gindy has given interviews to Breitbart directly. A handful of stories in the two years before the complaint with DOJ was filed refer to him in positive terms, focusing mostly on opposition to Egypt’s Islamist political elements—and ignoring more controversial positions such as his outreach to the terrorist group Hamas and support for state censorship of blasphemy against Islam. One Breitbart story labeled him a “senior Egyptian statesman” who “has played a pivotal role in the revolutions against former President Hosni Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
>>126465
>posts article about sensationalist political news source breaking the law from a sensationalist political news source
Stop making me wish I wasn't a liberal.
Huma Abadin is a Saudi Arabian plant and Anthony Weiner is a pedophile. What's the deal with that?
>>126472
2x Obama voting democrat here. I agree with this person. If this is literally the only source it makes me question if it's even true.
>>127233
>2x Obama voting democrat here
Hahahahah
>>126465
>thedailybeast
infowars of the left
>>127411
I always thought occupydemocrats was the infowars of the left
Dailybeast is the breitbart of the left I think.
>>127414
Not even close. Breitbart is as big as MSNBC when you look at the numbers.
>>127428
>when you look at the numbers.
Why don't you look at blatantly false news stories? As in, Breitbart regularly publishes them without retraction or correction (e.g. the Berlin New Year's church fire, in contrast to any MSNBC article or story you might post that may have a single error pointed out after the fact).
Occupydems btw is a blog without original reporting or its own reporters, and simply editorializes, so it counts for nothing here, as does Infowars. Dailybeast also does retractions and corrections as needed -- that said, its reputation is justifiably shit for its short history, though that's explainable by fairly amateur reporters. Again, though, the difference between TDB and Breitbart is that TDB *retracted* its shit-based stories -- see WP -- whereas Breitbart has yet to do so.
>>127455
This is a damage control free board.
>>127458
What damage control? I'm just sick of the false dichotomies that people claim here -- it's bullshit. There is no comparison between an outlet that will acknowledge its own factual and methodological errors when they occur and one that does not.
If you can find a single exception -- one exception in a mainstream news outlet (in the past 50 years, or following its first 3 years) of an error that has not been responded to with a timely correction and/or retraction (and if not timely, a major shakedown), I will concede that that it is not mainstream or news.
>>127466
>If you can find a single exception -- one exception in a mainstream news outlet (in the past 50 years, or following its first 3 years) of an error that has not been responded to with a timely correction and/or retraction (and if not timely, a major shakedown), I will concede that that it is not mainstream or news.
>I'm just sick of the false dichotomies that people claim here
This an April fools joke, right? Because it's too obvious.
Or are you really that hopelessly disconnected?
>>127466
Don't fall for the trolls, Anon. This board is about the mainstream news sources you're citing. The other poster is just another /pol/tard drudgebot like the rest.
>>127472
>Don't fall for the trolls, Anon. This board is about the mainstream news sources you're citing. The other poster is just another /pol/tard drudgebot like the rest.
Does it get hard, being this delusional and having to constantly convince yourself everyone who disagrees with you is just a /pol/tard drudgebot trumpkin russianshill?
>>127469
Go ahead -- take the challenge. Or is it that you disagree with the premise -- if so, why?
>>127478
Not everyone I disagree with is like that. You're giving them too much credit. The /pol/tards stick out like sore thumbs.
>>127493
>Go ahead -- take the challenge.
No, it's fallacious prima facie.
>Or is it that you disagree with the premise -- if so, why?
Because it's a false dichotomy.
You cry about false dichotomies, and you present a challenge where either something is factually correct or it's not mainstream news, as if mainstream news is factually correct by definition.
The amount of corrections/redactions that have been put forth by mainstream news outlets recently, especially in regards to the Russian narrative, hasn't done anything to address the core narrative being a falsehood of it's own. For example, immediately after running an article about Flynn supposedly asking for immunity, despite no such request ever being made, HuffPo did issue a 'correction/retraction'- and then it and the other outlets still jumped onto the ricochet and still reported about the immunity deal and what it might mean.
This is what happens when the mainstream doesn't get it's way- it decides we live in a "post fact world" and continues pushing entertaining and emotionally validating propaganda for their own profit.
>>127494
>You're giving them too much credit. The /pol/tards stick out like sore thumbs.
Once again, not everyone who disagrees with you is a /pol/tard. They "stick out" because there are so many of them. There are so many of them because you're consistently wrong and people keep pointing this out. You'll notice the common denominator in all of this is you.
>>127497
>as if mainstream news is factually correct by definition.
Let me put it this way: if an outlet posts something that is factually misleading, methodologically improper, or outright wrong, and they *do not* post a correction/retraction, they can by no honest definition be considered news.
So while I can agree that in the fast-paced cycle on which online-only and cable news runs, there will be way too much getting through that is not fully vetted and thus needing correction later, and this is a serious problem in modern media (particularly if those corrections are not listed on the front page headlines), this is categorically different from not making corrections or retractions at all (or even in one single instance).
>>127504
>they can by no honest definition be considered news.
Sure they can. Where do you think the phrase "fake news" came from?
> this is categorically different from not making corrections or retractions at all
Also categorically different from making corrections or retractions and then continuing with the original narrative as presented before said corrections/retractions because you have a narrative to push.
Drop the attempts at false dichotomy, you're trying to outsmart yourself and are failing hard.
>>127499
Lol
>>127499
If it was just me and more than the same /pol/tards then you would be making sense, but since it isn't, it more comes of as you grasping at straws desperately trying to justify your /pol/tard position.
>>127520
>but i dont get it
Once again the problem here is you
You probably think if something is racist it is therefore false
>breaking the law
>more like breitbarting the law
>>127428
>Breitbart
>big
Sure. It’s run out of somebody’s house!
http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/breitbart-news-press-credentials/
>>126465
>The daily beast
Saged