LessOutragePlz wrote: » I get a lot of my news from YouTube. I watch: Liberal Hivemind Steven Crowder Ben Shapiro Fleccas Talks Barely Informed with Elad Slightly Offens*ve The Hodgetwins Liberty Hangout
LessOutragePlz wrote: » I get a lot of my news from YouTube. I watch: Liberal Hivemind Steven Crowder Ben Shapiro Fleccas Talks Barely Informed with Elad Slightly Offens*ve The Hodgetwins Liberty Hangout Tim Pool Mark Dice
Tell me how wrote: » Man GTF They're about as Independent as Donalds Toupe. The Hodgetwins? Would that be their 'The Conservative Twins' Channel. Don't know how long you'll have been following them but they cottoned on to the market potential about 18 months ago and shifted their act to suit. Independent? :D:D:D
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Their independent because they aren't controlled by anyone and they report on news and current affairs in an unbiased manner. There is no outside influence on their reporting and there is no hidden agenda it's all facts and no bullshiit.
namloc1980 wrote: » It all makes sense now.
gmisk wrote: » Unbiased? Take one example, ben shapiro (the others are actually worse) you are honestly saying he reports with no agenda and it's all facts? He is literally one of the founders of dailywire... who are infamous for sharing stories that are unverified with a notoriously right wing angle. They are also well known for climate change denial stories and for using fake pages to boost their engagement. They are literally the opposite of what you claim.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if anyone actually does what he has suggested they do and if they will be tried and convicted of a crime.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Yeah has no agenda it's all facts no lies or bullshiit. The climate has always been changing so I don't believe in climate change. I've seen nothing that would make me doubt him or the daily wire as a reputable news source.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » More nonsense from you. Nobody is considered a criminal unless they have been convicted of a crime and all this mental gymnastics absurdity won't change that. I bet your philosophy would suddenly much different if it were Joe Biden that hadn't been convicted of a crime but yet was being called a criminal. The man is pretty damn close to being indicted in Ukraine; okay if we call him a criminal here? I bet you don't think so.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Yeah he has no agenda it's all facts no lies or bullshiit. The climate has always been changing so I don't believe in climate change. I've seen nothing that would make me doubt him or the daily wire as a reputable news source.
Leroy42 wrote: » LOP, may I suggest that you expand your channels to include some of those on the 'other' side.
gmisk wrote: » The dailywire.... owned by Forward Publishing LLC which is owned and managed by the billionaire Wilks Brothers who made their money through the fossil fuel industry with their company Frac Tech. The Wilks brothers who are also a part of the extreme Christian right who interpret the bible literally.... So you can't see why there would for example be any bias on dailywire when it comes to stories about climate change?....
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Yeah turns out their not unbiased they say as much on their website: "The Daily Wire does not claim to be without bias. We’re opinionated, we’re noisy, and we’re having a good time."https://www.dailywire.com/about As long as 90% is unbiased news I'm happy since we all have a little bit of inherent bias.
Hector Savage wrote: » I see the media are reporting that Trump is encouraging voter fraud .... a felony.Oh no wait, he's proving a point how unreliable the mail in voting system is ...
Hector Savage wrote: » I see the media are reporting that Trump is encouraging voter fraud .... a felony. Oh no wait, he's proving a point how unreliable the mail in voting system is ...
duploelabs wrote: » Where'd you get that 90% from?
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Myself?
duploelabs wrote: » So you don't know definitively that it's 90%, do you not realise how susceptible you are to being coerced?
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Of course it's a possibility but I believe that they are a trustworthy news source.
namloc1980 wrote: » How do you distinguish between the 90% that you say you trust as unbiased and the 10% of stories pushing a certain agenda?
Billy Mays wrote: » No wonder you swallow that "land of the free, home of the brave" bullsh!t if this is the sort of stuff you're watching
LessOutragePlz wrote: » See what other news sources are saying in relation to the event/story being reported and decide whether a bias may or may not exist.