From here on out, Breitbart is not a welcome link on this site, though they are not alone, there are several others that sold out for money as well.
Read this article and you'll see the issue.
Then, lets start a list of all the sites that went to the dark side for the leftists.

According to four sources with knowledge of the situation, editors and writers at the outlet have privately complained since at least last year that the company's top management was allowing Trump to turn Breitbart into his own fan website — using it to hype his political prospects and attack his enemies. One current editor called the water-carrying "despicable" and "embarrassing," and said he was told by an executive last year that the company had a financial arrangement with Trump. A second Breitbart staffer said he had heard a similar description of the site's relationship with the billionaire but didn't know the details; and a third source at the company said he knew of several instances when managers had overruled editors at Trump's behest. Additionally, a conservative communications operative who works closely with Breitbart described conversations in which "multiple writers and editors" said Trump was paying for the ability to shape coverage, and added that one staffer claimed to have seen documentation of the "pay for play."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckayc...

Thanks for posting that Solar. I'm hoping that administration adds to it as the occasion arises.

Quote from: tac on January 22, 2016, 09:12:49 AM
Thanks for posting that Solar. I'm hoping that administration adds to it as the occasion arises.

If you know of other sites that sold out the Conservative movement for the Establishment, post it, I'll start a list of sites to avoid, should people want to.

Conservative tree house went full blown Establishment the same time breitbart sold out.

I've never heard of that site.

Quote from: tac on January 22, 2016, 09:32:08 AM
I've never heard of that site.

Pretty much a Breitbart clone.

National Review?
Weekly Standard?

Good to know I'm not losing my mind. I was wondering if I was accidentally deleting posts where I was arguing with Trumpsters, so many of my posts kept disappearing. And I was starting to see stuff Breibart never allowed before. They have always been anti PC; but anti PC differs from openly racist, and sometimes it seemed like I had accidentally tried to post on Storm Front.

Quote from: Justaguy on January 22, 2016, 10:06:41 AM
National Review?
Weekly Standard?

Weekly Standard has never been conservative. Neo-Con, but certainly not conservative. I believe the same can be said, as well, for The National Review.

Quote from: Justaguy on January 22, 2016, 10:06:41 AM
National Review?
Weekly Standard?

Sad but true. In my mind they're a given, much like FOX, NBC, ABC, but like CBS, they too can have good content from time to time, because they know it's important not to alienate yourself from your audience.
It's the ones like conservative tree house, Breitbart that just a month ago were solid Conservative, that have literally sold out and gone full court press to the left that I want to expose.

You know, after I left, it occurred to me.

That Breitbart isn't the only alleged news source we've seen doing that lately.

Rolling Stone gave El Chapo, final say over what went into their article/interview on him.

Just as Breitbart is allowing Trump to "pay" them to do now.

That's the real problem here is that there are no journalistic ethics anymore.

Whether it's Dan Rather and Rathergate, or Brian Williams lying about taking fire with our troops, or Rolling Stone and Breitbart allowing the subject of the article, to pay them to have final editing oversight on an article.

It's unethical and an abuse of the public trust.

Remember in our nation, being a reporter is not the same as being a truck driver or a clerk at the store.

It is not just another job. We afford reporters and news organizations access to area's the general public isn't allowed too enter. IE: the WH, crime scenes etc...

And we afford them certain, specific to that profession, Constitutional protections and freedoms well. Because as news organizations they're supposedly serving a public interest.

Because of that, I say, any "news organization" which does these kinds of things, should lose more than just their standing and credentials as a news organization here at Conservative Political Forum.

They should lose their press credentials as well. And every last one of the Constitutional protections, and freedoms we afford to real journalists.

Quote from: Solar on January 22, 2016, 12:27:50 PM
Sad but true. In my mind they're a given, much like FOX, NBC, ABC,
but like CBS, they too can have good content from time to time,
because they know it's important not to alienate yourself from your audience.
It's the ones like conservative tree house, Breitbart
that just a month ago were solid Conservative,
that have literally sold out and gone full court press to the left that I want to expose.

That's why I wouldn't advocate an outright ban of any website.
A "consider the source" warning should be adequate
to make people aware of questionable content.

Also, sometimes one has to quote a source to expose some bad thing it's doing.

Quote from: daidalos on January 22, 2016, 05:06:20 PM
And we afford them certain, specific to that profession, Constitutional protections and freedoms well. Because as news organizations they're supposedly serving a public interest.

Because of that, I say, any "news organization" which does these kinds of things, should lose more than just their standing and credentials as a news organization here at Conservative Political Forum.

They should lose their press credentials as well. And every last one of the Constitutional protections, and freedoms we afford to real journalists.

What Constitutional protection does an "official" news organization have
that does not apply to every citizen?

Quote from: je_freedom on January 22, 2016, 06:27:04 PM
That's why I wouldn't advocate an outright ban of any website.
A "consider the source" warning should be adequate
to make people aware of questionable content.

Also, sometimes one has to quote a source to expose some bad thing it's doing.

What Constitutional protection does an "official" news organization have
that does not apply to every citizen?

A free press is specifically stated in the Constitution as a protected entity. No other  business in the United States is by name named in the Constitution.

As for examples of where the press can go that you cannot.

Crime Scenes.

A white house press briefing.

Certain places in the capital building.

Warzones.

Just a few examples.

Quote from: je_freedom on January 22, 2016, 06:27:04 PM
That's why I wouldn't advocate an outright ban of any website.
A "consider the source" warning should be adequate
to make people aware of questionable content.

Also, sometimes one has to quote a source to expose some bad thing it's doing.

What Constitutional protection does an "official" news organization have
that does not apply to every citizen?

No. Sites like Breitbart and the tree house seldom if ever have original content.
My point was, and always has been, to always use the original source, especially where those two in-particular are concerned.

Yes, the ban will remain in effect indefinitely and will be expanding as the need grows. We're at war for our very survival in this country as a free nation.

And please don't double quote in a single post, always one quote per post.
Thanks.

Quote from: daidalos on January 22, 2016, 05:06:20 PM
You know, after I left, it occurred to me.

That Breitbart isn't the only alleged news source we've seen doing that lately.

Rolling Stone gave El Chapo, final say over what went into their article/interview on him.

Just as Breitbart is allowing Trump to "pay" them to do now.

That's the real problem here is that there are no journalistic ethics anymore.

Whether it's Dan Rather and Rathergate, or Brian Williams lying about taking fire with our troops, or Rolling Stone and Breitbart allowing the subject of the article, to pay them to have final editing oversight on an article.

It's unethical and an abuse of the public trust.

Remember in our nation, being a reporter is not the same as being a truck driver or a clerk at the store.

It is not just another job. We afford reporters and news organizations access to area's the general public isn't allowed too enter. IE: the WH, crime scenes etc...

And we afford them certain, specific to that profession, Constitutional protections and freedoms well. Because as news organizations they're supposedly serving a public interest.

Because of that, I say, any "news organization" which does these kinds of things, should lose more than just their standing and credentials as a news organization here at Conservative Political Forum.

They should lose their press credentials as well. And every last one of the Constitutional protections, and freedoms we afford to real journalists.

I was a practicing journalist for roughly a decade and agree with the principle, although "credentials" is and always will be a shaky premise. Just because they won't issue you a press card does not mean you can't practice journalism. Two splendid local examples in Detroit are MotorCityMuckraker.com and DeadlineDetroit.com --- both doing better jobs at showing the true condition of the world's largest unflushed toilet.

Also at issue here is the matter of opinion creeping into news pieces. Journalistic ethics begins when the pencil comes down to strike that crap from whatever the story is about. The narcissistic Crybaby Kidz of today are terribly loathe to self-edit.

I know you can't find a single news source anymore that tells you the facts, and lets you make up your own damned mind.

It's always, always, filled with the authors own biased opinions.

And some of em are pretty slick at sticking what is their own biased opinion, into an article, making it appear as if it's part of the facts.

It should be noted however, that while it's typical of libbers to do this. It happens on the other side of the aisle too. Just look no further than some of the Trump coverage to see that.