413 private links
Overall, we rate the Daily Signal, Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right. We also rate them Mostly Factual, rather than High, due to not aligning with the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change. //
Editorially, The Daily Signal consistently casts doubt on the role of humans in climate change with articles such as this: Climate Change Alarmism Is the World’s Leading Cause of Hot Gas. Further, all opinion pieces favor the right and denigrate the left. In general, story selection and editorials almost always favor the right, though, at times, The Daily Signal is critical of former President Donald Trump’s policies and actions.
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.
Overall, we rate AtlasIntel as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the right. We also rate them as a high factual pollster based on a 2.7-star rating in predictive polling.
TheBlaze
@theblaze
·
Follow
JD Vance nukes NYT reporter🔥
JD: "This is the New York Times, don't hold it against them."
NYT: "The paper of record, New York Times. What's something you're willing not to say to make a point?"
JD: "One thing I wouldn't be willing to say is that NYT is a respectable paper."
Last edited
6:32 PM · Sep 17, 2024 //
the media are hyper-focused on this story not out of any actual concern for the Haitian migrants and residents but because it reflects very poorly on the Biden-Harris administration and its dangerous amnesty policies. And because of that, the MSM's mission is to discredit Trump and Vance by trying to make them look like racists, all in order to deflect from the very real issues plaguing Springfield -- whether that includes cat-eating or not. //
The fact of the matter is that the more reporters demand Vance stop talking about the issues his consituents are bringing to his attention, the more he's going to expose the media for wanting to suppress those stories, which in turn will lead to questions from voters as to why they'd want to keep them under wraps.
The only thing that will be left to conclude will be that it's the media who looks worse here by trying to squelch the story, not Trump and Vance for bringing it up.
Media talking heads like former CNN and current News Nation correspondent Chris Cuomo, who were vociferous about how dangerous, stupid, and corrupt Donald Trump is, are now seeing him through new eyes after not one but two attempted assassinations.
I did not have that on my 2024 Bingo card.
On Monday, Cuomo did an 18-minute monologue about this change of perspective on the matters of this election and on Donald Trump. Cuomo talked about it being his mother's birthday and him asking her what she wants to see in the world. Mama Cuomo insisted that she wished people would come together. That family and community are the linchpins of our society. From there, Cuomo launched into what turned out to be an amazingly thoughtful treatise on what America could be, and what it will take to get there.
I don't know if enough of us believe that anymore. The unique truth about America is that she only works if we tap into our interconnectedness and "interdependentness." Those are big words indicating a simple idea: Here, we have to care about one another. It is our only bond. We don't have homogeneity, we don't have common heritage or even really culture. What we have and what has made our greatness so durable is our ability to combine to magnified effect. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
And the great news is, we have so much more potential in America than I see anywhere else.
Who red-pilled Chris Cuomo? Who knew Fredo could actually reason?
We are so desperate to drag ourselves away from greatness, from progress, from each other. That is what I see that really bothers me, and the reaction and lack of reaction to the second attempt on Trump in the last couple of months. Oh, but the guy didn't even shoot. What if it was your father? Or what if it was Kamala Harris? Or President Biden—God forbid. Do you think it would be almost a shoulder shrug and more talk about the Secret Service and allocation of funds than just how crazy it is that this is what's happening in our country? That reaction of, well, come on, don't make too much of it. He had an AK-47 pointed at him! The reaction is unacceptable, and it's the second time media and political players have gotten away with playing down what should be a cause for panic. //
But the sheer fact that this man who has spent countless hours and years on cable television bashing Donald Trump is now able to put himself in another man's shoes and reach out. "I'm not supporting Trump, I'm supporting us," is a profound statement and in a way, kind of mind-blowing.
BASH: You just said that you're creating a story.
VANCE: We ought to be talking about public policy. [09:15:05]
BASH: Sir, you just said that you're creating the story.
VANCE: What's that, Dana?
BASH: You just said that this is a story that you created...
VANCE: Yes.
BASH: So, the eating dogs and cats thing is not accurate.
VANCE: We are creating -- we are -- Dana, it comes from firsthand accounts from my constituents.
I say that we're creating a story, meaning we're creating the American media focusing on it. I didn't create 20,000 illegal migrants coming into Springfield, thanks to Kamala Harris' policies. Her policies did that, but yes, we created the actual focus that allowed the American media to talk about this story and the suffering caused by Kamala Harris' policies.
HOST: But the rhetoric is on both sides, it's coming from the right, it's coming from the left
JENNINGS: The rhetoric, they have tried to kill this man twice. He got shot in the ear, and this guy was setting up shop outside of a golf course to try to kill him this weekend, and I know after something like this happens, it's very fashionable to, you know, talk about rhetoric on both sides.
Donald Trump is the target. He's the current target, and it's happening, and it's happening again, and I just, honestly, we have to have a conversation about elections. If you lose an election, the country is not going to come to an end, okay. What I want Democrats to do, honestly, is to say, it's okay. Like, if Donald Trump wins, democracy will not end, the constitution will not end, we're not going to live in a dictatorship, there will not be a bloodbath. All the things they say are totally fabricated to me, it would be a good day to stop doing that. //
JENNINGS: And I know everybody's talking today about all the rhetoric in this country and what are going to do to fix it going forward. It's too late. Folks, it's too late in my opinion because all of the rhetoric about Donald Trump over the last several years, that he's a threat to democracy, that the country will come to an end if he gets elected president again. You know, even over the weekend, we had people blaming him and JD Vance for a bomb threat in Springfield.
Well, if you have believed that over the weekend, then how could you not believe the rhetoric leading up to today is not somehow responsible that this man has now somehow survived two assassination attempts?
Following the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a common refrain from the left was that political violence is a "both sides" issue. MSNBC tried that line multiple times, as did some of the major newspapers, with the idea being that you can't call out Democrat rhetoric because Republican rhetoric has caused issues as well.
So what was the evidence for that equivocation being used as a way to deflect from someone trying to murder Trump again? CNN's Dana Bash provided a perfect example of it when she accused JD Vance of inciting "bomb threats" in Springfield, OH.
JD Vance to Dana Bash: "You accused me of causing a bomb threat. Doesn't that mean you should shut up about the residents of Springfield? Don't you realize you're engaged in basic propaganda to silence the concerns of American citizens?" pic.twitter.com/tYFvpZgVKJ
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) September 15, 2024
To be sure, the claim was dubious from the moment it left her mouth. //
Greg Price @greg_price11
·
Gov. Mike DeWine says that all of the bomb threats that were made against Springfield schools were hoaxes and came from overseas.
But we were reliably informed by the media that JD Vance's cat memes were responsible for this
4:29 PM · Sep 16, 2024.
https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1835777987754569960
NEW: ABC News Caught Grossly Deceptively Editing Kamala Harris' Disastrous Solo Interview – RedState
The above exchange can be seen online by going directly to ABC 6's website. Guess who didn't see it? That would be the network's television audience. According to Tom Elliott, who runs Grabien, a media service that archives news coverage, ABC 6 and Taff made an astonishingly dishonest edit to the interview before playing it on the nightly news.
Specifically, the above word salad was completely cut out of the interview, and instead, a later portion was spliced in. In the recording of the live broadcast, you can hear Taff ask the question posed in the above excerpt, yet the answer Harris is shown giving was not her actual answer in the interview.
Here is the comparison between the actual interview and what ABC 6 put on air.
Tom Elliott @tomselliott
·
Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but the rambling answer Kamala Harris gave last night on inflation is not what @6abc actually aired. Instead they edited her response so that it went straight to her "policies." Compare/contrast the two clips below
Embedded video
Embedded video
12:43 PM · Sep 14, 2024 //
Curtis Houck @CurtisHouck
·
.@6ABC and Brian Taff shilling for Kamala.
And btw WPVI isn't just the Philly ABC affiliate. It's an ABC-Disney owned-and-operated station. //
What Taff and his network did is not journalism. It's activism, and they had no excuse to mislead people by chopping up the interview in that way. Harris is a vapid empty suit, and voters deserve to know that.
The problem with all the mockery was that Trump's claim was true, as evidenced by an article from CNN of all places, that had been published the day before the debate, and which detailed Harris' answers to a 2019 ACLU questionnaire: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/08/Harris-ACLU-Candidate-Questionnaire.pdf //
To make matters worse, Free Beacon reporter Joe Gabriel Simonson added on Twitter that "In a subsequent exchange, Glasser’s editor said the New Yorker does not 'see a need to issue a correction.'"
there's a new debate hoax raging. It centers on Trump's comments about threatening "Abdul," who he cited as a Taliban leader he negotiated with in 2020. The mention sent the fingers of journalists everywhere scurrying on keyboards. Multiple major news outlets, including The Hill and Forbes, wrote mocking headlines and suggested it was "unclear" who Trump was referring to because he's just so darn stupid.
“I got involved. And Abdul is the head of the Taliban. He is still the head of the Taliban,” Trump said. “And I told Abdul, ‘Don’t do it anymore. You do it anymore, you’re going to have problems.’ And he said, ‘Why do you send me a picture of my house?’ I said, ‘You’re going to have to figure that out, Abdul.’ And for 18 months we had nobody killed.”
It’s not clear who Trump was referring to.
Hibatullah Akhundzada is the Taliban’s leader, having been in charge since 2016.
It wasn't unclear, though. I know that because if you read the very same articles I linked above, both go on to explain exactly who Trump was talking about.
Abdul Ghani Baradar is not an obscure figure. He is the co-founder of the Taliban and currently serves as the terrorist government's "prime minister." He was also the lead negotiator and head of policy during the 2020 negotiations. So who is dumber? Trump for citing "Abdul," or the know-nothing journalists who couldn't be bothered to use Google for two minutes? //
RedDog_FLA
an hour ago
This is Golden:
Cable news is filled with over-credentialed mediocrities with the common sense of a lima bean.
That tells everything. //
anon-dion
25 minutes ago
It doesn't matter Journalists can't seem to do their job anymore. Used to be an investigative reporter would run down all the fact and report the results without bias. Now only a handful do. I can think of Catherine Harris, Glen Greenwald, and Matt Tiabi. Everyone else is just trying to score points and get clicks. A sign of a dying media is the need for sensationalism and yellow journalist tactics. //
Arik
27 minutes ago
Wait a minute. Did Kamala mean MANDATORY transgender surgeries for illegals in prison???
Puts a whole new light on it. 😁 //
Rogue Rose
23 minutes ago
Their endless lies are exhausting
KJSpeed Rogue Rose
4 minutes ago
I concur. Kind of like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. They're trying to push us to the point that we challenge everything they say as a lie, then they spin it as "those right-wing MAGA nuts are trying to say that everything we tell you is a lie. Don't believe them!" John and Jane Doe begin to think the liars are telling the truth and everyone that disagrees with them is a liar. Right before the wolf eats them.
Scott Adams
@scottadamsshow
·
Follow
Megyn Kelly went off on the ABC Debate moderators obvious bias and blames their boss and Kamala’s closest friend for over 30 years, Dana Walden, who also just so happens to run ABC News as co-chairwoman at woke Disney. Kamala’s best friend is the moderators boss!
7:17 AM · Sep 11, 2024 //
etba_ss Orwell was right
20 minutes ago
So why did Trump not know this and publicize it ahead of the debate? Obviously, his staff should have known and told him. They should know everything about Harris and anyone she's ever dealt with on any level.
"I think that it's important for journalists to actually get on the ground and uncover this stuff for themselves," he said. "When you have a lot of people saying, “my pets are being abducted” or “geese at the city pond are being abducted and slaughtered right in front of us, this is crazy stuff."
"This town has been ravaged by 20,000 migrants coming in, health care costs are up, housing costs are up," he continued. "Communicable diseases like HIV and TB have skyrocketed in this small Ohio town. This is what Kamala Harris's border policies have done. And I think it's interesting Kaitlan, that the media didn't care about the carnage wrought by these policies until we turned it into a meme about cats and that speaks to the media's failure to care about what's going on in these communities. If we have to meme about it to get the media to care, we're going to keep on doing it because the media could, should care about what's going on."
Collins tried to defend the media, saying they do care which is why the mainstream media is covering these stories, to which Vance noted it was only because of cat memes, and nobody would care about this story if the memes weren't doing damage to the Democrats." //
"Kaitlan, it's a totally fair point, but nobody's calling my office and saying that they saw Bigfoot," said Vance. "What they're calling and saying is we're seeing migrants kidnap our dogs and cats and city officials aren't doing anything about it. Now again, I have a responsibility as a United States Senator. I think the media has a responsibility as an institution that cares about truth, to actually take people seriously when they say their lives have been ruined by this migrant crisis and again, if every single thing that the media says about this story is false, the verifiable facts are that this community has had their lives destroyed by 20,000 migrants coming in and uprooting life."
Why would the debate moderators ask about Democrats inciting a would-be assassin when they can just keep recycling the lie that Trump incited a violent mob? //
Imagine refusing to ask the current vice president whether she regrets any of her hateful anti-Trump rhetoric and the Biden administration’s weaponization of the federal government against Trump that may have inspired an armed nutbag to fire at his head, but asking the former president whether he regrets “anything about what [he] did on” Jan. 6, 2021, even after he explicitly told his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” (Which David Muir lied about, by the way.) You don’t hate the media enough.
As Trump said at the debate, he “probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me. They talk about democracy. I’m a threat to democracy. They’re the threat to democracy.” Correct. And the moment Trump brought up that uncomfy assassination topic, Muir pivoted because, you know, the moderators “ha[d] a lot to get to.” //
If the debate did nothing else, it reminded us of their true colors. They aren’t biased. They don’t have a slant. ABC News and CNN and NBC and all the rest of the establishment media don’t “lean left.”
They are propagandists. They live and die for the regime. They are wholly and completely corrupt, a hostile force that exists to accrue power for Democrats.
On Friday, Axios finally noticed that Harris has been purposely avoiding them.
With 60 days left in the race, and at the very moment she's presenting a different ideology than four years ago, Vice President Kamala Harris isn't getting subjected to the media scrutiny typical for a presidential nominee.
Why it matters: Harris is copying President Biden's self-protection media strategy — duck tough interviews and limit improvisational moments. //
I'm not sure what's more frustrating. That Kamala Harris doesn't even have an official policy platform yet and early voting is already starting, or that the supposed news outlets are trying to play the victim in the face of that. If only there was a massive "fourth estate" with enormous, worldwide influence that could report honestly on Harris and pressure her into doing interviews and press conferences.
If you are to believe Axios' framing, they and other mainstream news sources are helpless. There's just nothing they can do. //
Do you know what the press could do if they want to make Harris speak clearly and publicly about her policy positions? They could stop publishing anonymous sources like the one cited above. Every single time an anonymous "aide" is allowed to change a Harris position with no further details or explanation, her campaign is given every incentive to continue hiding the candidate behind a teleprompter.
Republicans, you’re not going to best the anchor on the facts, because the anchors aren’t conceding any facts. The best you can do is beat them into submission. //
A conversation of “Yes, she was,” “No, she wasn’t” is useless and a wasted opportunity. Instead, there are two options for taking advantage of these little shows:
One is to force the trifling anchor to fully expose himself as a Democrat surrogate by demanding he explain and defend his counterpoint.
Senator Tom Cotton did this expertly in a recent interview with ABC’s Jonathan “Milhouse” Karl. When Karl attempted to run interference for Kamala by insisting Kamala no longer supports every godawful policy she professed to support and even aided in implementing as vice president, Cotton challenged Karl to show his math. “How do you know that’s not her position?” said Cotton in a way that kind of turns me on. “How do you know that’s not her position? She has not said that. She has not said that. She has not said that.” //
Karl went on to say on behalf of the Kamala campaign that the vice president is “clearly making an effort to move to the middle,” revealing whom he supports in this race and whom he believes needs help across the finish line.
At that point, Republicans, you can proceed to acknowledge that the anchor is here to assist Kamala, nothing more, and you can continue to make the points you want.
The second option is to aggressively confront every rebuttal sputtered by the anchor because the media collectively and individually have proven themselves to be irredeemable liars and fiends. Say so. They deserve it. The voters are on your side when you do. //
Why are you defending her?
Why are you speaking for her?
Why are you letting Kamala and the Democrats dictate your coverage?
Why are you trying to debate on their behalf?
If you want a debate, host one and demand that she be here to answer for herself, rather than you answering for her.
Why are you repeating her campaign’s lies, which you know are false, and which you refuse to “fact-check”?
Why do you apologize for her campaigners’ lies when they’re not here and then get snippy with me for rebutting them, even though I did you the courtesy of showing up while they refuse to answer your calls?
That news headline about presidential candidate Kamala Harris on your Google search results? It may have been written by her campaign.
Harris' team has been launching sponsored posts on Google that link to real news content from various publishers but feature customized headlines and descriptions crafted by her campaign, a practice experts and Google called "common." One sponsored ad that links to NPR’s website features the headline “Harris will Lower Health Costs.” Another that links to the Associated Press reads “VP Harris’s Economic Vision - Lower Costs and Higher Wages.” The advertisements were first reported by Axios.
While these sponsored posts have been used by other campaigns and comply with Google’s policies, some marketing experts worry they could fuel misinformation and distrust in the media. //
Google's ad transparency center shows a number of other publishers featured in Harris ads, including Reuters, Time, CNN, AP, the Independent, the Guardian and USA TODAY.
"We were not aware the Harris campaign was using our content in this manner,” said Lark-Marie Anton, spokesperson for USA TODAY parent company Gannett. “As a news organization, we are committed to ensuring that our stories are shared appropriately, adhering to the highest standards of integrity and accuracy." //
The Harris campaign declined to comment for this story. Donald Trump's campaign did not return a request for comment, but Google's ad transparency center did not show these types of ads from the former president's campaign. //
But even with a sponsored tag, the ads present a “significant ethical concern,” according to Colin Campbell, associate professor of marketing at the University of San Diego.
He said this is especially true when consumers fail to differentiate online ads.
“Many consumers might form opinions based solely on the altered headlines, without ever reading the actual articles,” Campbell said. “Even those who click through and read the articles may feel misled when they notice the discrepancy between the headline and the content, further eroding trust in the media.”
Journalist Olivia Nuzzi blew the lid off that narrative with a July 4 report titled “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden” with the subheading, “The president’s mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters.” She's not known as a right-leaning author, and didn’t write this for RedState or any other conservative outlet—she penned it for New York Magazine, hardly a bastion of right-wing journalists.
But now she’s paying the price, according to Semaphore: //
“When I write something that agitates the right, I am accused of being a liberal activist. When I write something that agitates the left, I am accused of being a conservative activist. The difference is that mainstream media organizations tend to ignore bad-faith campaigns against reporters led by the right,” she observed.
She appears to be on the phone because she has an earbud in her ear and a long very visible wire to the phone. She waves quickly and dismissively at the press and then heads up into the plane. As she climbs the steps into the plane, she puts the phone to her ear.
It's actually that last part I find especially funny. Some people questioned whether people really use wired earbuds anymore. But if they were working and you were really on the phone with someone, why would you then need to put the phone to your ear? If she's actually talking on the phone at the top of the steps, why is the phone away from her mouth? It's like she was doubling down on the "I am on the phone" message to the media, sorry I'm just too busy to take any questions. //
mopani
a few minutes ago
She's not trying to avoid the press, she's giving the press plausible deniability for why they don't hound her for answers. Don't a bunch of them fly with her on the same plane? The whole charade is for the rubes, not the press corpse.