Jump to content

User:Valjean/Paucity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

This is for a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

The problem: There is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources that are trustworthy and usable. A few possibly good ones are mentioned in the hatted "Good and bad sources table" below.

Please name more right-wing sources that can be trusted. A test is their position on the myriad false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, especially his Big Lie of a stolen election. Are they honest about these things? If not, they are not RS and should be downgraded or deprecated.

If there is something in the hatted areas below you want to discuss, then please quote it and use that here. We need to keep the discussion in this one thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


More about this problem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The paucity of reliable right-wing sources is a problem. This is part of the reason we frequently receive accusations of a left-wing bias in articles. Documenting the bias in a source is proper and compliant with NPOV, but it would be nice if we had more right-wing sources that were reliable and usable.

The accusation reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable. Some are named in the hatted table below.

It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert) and that "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" (Paul Krugman). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.

For more about this, see Trump's effect on the Overton window of media coverage

Good and bad sources table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The groupings below are based on the "Media Bias Chart" from Ad Fontes Media. "(RM)" means controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Generally good sources
Left Skews left Middle Skews right
The New Yorker The Guardian Reuters The Wall Street Journal (RM)
Vox The Washington Post Associated Press The Christian Science Monitor
The Atlantic The New York Times BBC Foreign Policy
The Nation NPR ABC News The Economist
Vanity Fair PBS NBC News Time magazine
The Hill
(depending on author)
Politico CBS News The Fiscal Times
MSNBC Axios Bloomberg News National Review
Mother Jones CNN USA Today The Dispatch
The Daily Beast The Week
Bad, unreliable sources
Hyper-Partisan Left Skews right Strong right Hyper-Partisan Right
(some Russian disinfo)
Russian disinfo
Bipartisan Report New York Post (RM)
Fox News (RM)
The Federalist RT
Occupy Democrats WSJ editorial board One America News Sputnik
Daily Kos The Daily Wire Drudge Report Zero Hedge
AlterNet The Daily Caller Breitbart News
MintPress News The American Spectator Newsmax
Palmer Report Daily Mail InfoWars
Patribotics Townhall
The Grayzone
(some Russian disinfo)
RedState
The Western Journal
Blaze Media
The Gateway Pundit
WorldNetDaily
LifeZette
The Epoch Times

See also: Currently deprecated sources