Harvard Publishes List of ‘Fake News’ Sites, Targets Conservatives
“fake or discredited sources”
Legal Insurrection isn’t on the list but many other good sites such as the Washington Examiner were unfairly cited.
From Campus Reform:
Harvard pushes list calling conservative websites ‘fake news’
Harvard University recently created a research guide on “fake news” that identifies dozens of respectable conservative websites as “unreliable” or simply “fake” while rating many of their liberal counterparts as “credible.”
Harvard’s new research guide, called “Fake News, Misinformation, and Propaganda,” encourages students to acquaint themselves with a “huge list of fake news sites,” many of which are legitimately deceptive, but others of which are merely conservative or libertarian-leaning.
The Daily Caller, for instance, is labeled as being “political,” “clickbait,” and having “bias,” whereas The Daily Kos is labeled as “political” “clickbait,” yet is considered “credible.”
Several other influential conservative outlets are included on the list of potentially fake or discredited sources, such as Independent Journal Review, Newsmax, Conservative Review, and The Washington Free Beacon, though none of their liberal counterparts, like Vox, Slate, or Buzzfeed, are on the list.
In fact, the word “conservative” appears 19 times on the list while the term “liberal” appears only 4 times.
According to a post in the School Library Journal, the document was created by Melissa Zimdars, an assistant professor of Communication and Media at Merrimack College.
Harvard’s guidelines on fake news also recommend that students download browser plug-ins that theoretically detect websites that “may not be a reliable source,” flagging well-known outlets like The Drudge Report, Breitbart, The Daily Signal, and even calling LifeSite News “clickbait.”
See the full list here.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Okay, they label Drudge Report and CNSnews as political and bias, but do not list either Salon.com or Slate? Yeah, this is an unbiased list. /s
What about the New York Times? If you have the same writer write a story about Trump being wiretapped January 20 and write the opposite 2 months later without a retraction, but changing the original article, would qualify them as a biased fake news site. That this scandalous behavior by the progressive anointed paper of record not being covered by the rest of the mainstream media makes them biased fake news sites.
More east coast crap.
Their goal is to keep young leftists angry and uneducated. Angry young leftists tend to be irrational and violent so at least they’re sabotaging their own cause.
The list is remarkable in that they just add evidence to the viciousness and intolerance of the far-radical-left.
Now maybe it’s me, but I see the reporters from OANN in the WH briefing room, but according to these commies they’re ‘unknown’ as is Jared Kushner’s Observer.com.
So, if you are anything but a far left outfit (fake or not) you’re OK, everyone else is listed, just to try and taint you by being on the list, not even as ‘fake’ but as ‘unknown’ (come on!) or ‘political’ (isn’t that why we’re all here). Methinks the list will soon be a badge of honor!
Did someone say Harvard used to be a University? Wow!
Well when a “new outlet” can’t even correctly report on a simple spreadsheet why should we be concerned? Daily Kos is labeled as “unreliable”. And I know the author of this post probably has no idea what MLA format is…but when something is quoted that means verbatim and exactly. The use of the work “credible” (to quote your site) is not even referenced in the document.
dailykos.com political clickbait unreliable
The Daily Caller, for instance, is labeled as being “political,” “clickbait,” and having “bias,” whereas The Daily Kos is labeled as “political” “clickbait,” yet is considered “credible.”