Breitbart editors tell staffers to stop writing stories critical

>Bannon resigned from Breitbart News in November and has insisted he no longer has any editorial involvement with the website.

>However, a person familiar with the matter told Business Insider in March that Bannon had instructed Matthew Boyle, the website's Washington editor, to stop publishing articles critical of Priebus, who reports said had been feuding with Bannon. Alex Marlow, the website's editor-in-chief, also told NBC News in March that Bannon reached out to him "every so often."

>Kushner is viewed by some of Trump's more hardline supporters as a Democrat who doesn't share their worldview. Administration officials, for instance, told The Daily Beast last week that Bannon had referred to Kushner as a "globalist" and a "cuck," a slur frequently used by members of the so-called alt-right movement.

>After this story's publication, Chad Wilkinson, a spokesman for Breitbart News, told Business Insider it was "an absurd suggestion that Breitbart would muzzle critical coverage of any senior White House official."

Breitbart? More like Cuckedbart.

>>130936
Breitbart is not a news source, it's a spin machine and alt-right clickbait generator. Don't most people realize this?

I think it says a lot that they're not particularly concerned with appearing unobjective. A lot of Trump supporters aren't being duped by instances of lack of objectivity from news sources from the right; they know a lot of it is fake and don't care much as long as it's more convincing to fence-sitters.

>Sources say

Sure

>>131058
>muh anonymous sources
This is a real shitty meme that Trump came up with. Journalists' sources speaking on condition of anonymity has been an extremely common occurrence since forever, and insinuating that an unnamed (not anonymous - the journalists know where the info is coming from!) source means the story is fabricated is disingenuous.
If all sources were named, there would only be positive stories in the papers.

But I think most people pushing this idea really know all that but justify their willful misrepresentation of journalistic standards with "it's OK because it helps us MAGA :^)" and "muh dog emperor".

>>131058
They don't cite anonymous sources anywhere in the article.

>>131069
Well an unnamed source need not be completely anonymous, but it's logical that a journalist might not want to compromise their information plants
I suppose it's concievable the story were fabricated from whole cloth, but some news organizations rely on maintaining a degree of credibility to keep a readership and while people should judge the quality of sources for themselves, it would not surprise me if this particular story were true.

>>131073
That was my point.
Actual journalism, not just reporting tidbits handed out by the subjects you cover, lives and dies with anonymous sources. No one wants to risk their job to get an unpleasant truth about their place of work out in the open. Nobody wants to risk criminal prosecution for reporting some classified bullshit documenting clear abuses by the government.

Good example for this is the Flynn case. It's seems to me rather obvious that the people who leaked that information were facing a hard choice and came to the conclusion that Flynn was pretty much a danger to the country and that leaking the contents (and existence) of his communications with Kislyak was doing less harm to the US than letting Trump get away with keeping him on despite knowing what he'd done.
But of course rabid dogs like Trey Gowdy must draw the conclusion that these people were acting out of pure disdain for their country. I wonder whether he actually believes those things or if he's doing this shit just for political reasons.

>>131046
Neither does the Daily Kos, you libtard.

>>131085
Nobody pretends like DailyKos is a valid news source like they do with Breitbart.

>>131090
You don't get any actual news from there, you get hot opinions and outrage.

"news"
"editors"

>>131183
To entice you to click on their link so they make a lot of money with adsense.

>>131046
it's one of the largest newsources in America right now, they get shared/pushed on facebook and twitter like crazy. It's one of the winners of the social media wars. You should be taking Breitbart very seriously, because further smearing of their name is a war we have to fight so people dont keep trusting it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-breitbart-shows-up-in-google-top-stories-2017-3

>>131058
And what are your sources, punk? You a journalist? If you want to live in the void of newslessness go right ahead but leave us out of it.

>>131223
Don't fool yourself. They aren't a news source any more than Huffpost is. They take whatever the AP reports and spin it for the right wing just like Arianna spins it for the left.

>>131213
No, more often than not it's opinion.

>>131225
The line between news and opinion has been so blurred by yellow journalism and small click sites/blogs it is hard to claim any news is wholly objective. Even if the big media outlets mostly avoid it they still interject their views and slant into every story, albeit unintentionally.

>>131080
I don't think you require much convincing to be retarded, bootlicker