Why are links to breitbart/faux/drudge/politico allowed on DU?

[devilgrrl]

Seriously?

I've yet to see one story from anyone of those sources that didn't smell like bullshit. Yet people post their shit here constantly.

How many 'Glenn Greenwald outs Politico" threads does one have to start before people "get it"???

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/27/politico/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/03/politico/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/30/allen/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/17/politico/index.html

Then there's Breitbart.com run rightwing/libertarian asshat Andrew Breitbart. Check out these clips of him from 'Real Time' with Bill Maher. How many clues do you need to figure out this bozo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MFj45PnXx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUMy71Mj9Vo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3T2zgs7RaM

As for Faux News and Matt Drudge, what else needs to be said?

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[DS1]

1. Breitbart got his ass handed to him on Real Time

It was a thing of beauty

[devilgrrl]

4. Yeah it was.

That guy is one serious piece of work.

[baldguy]

2. b/c Leni Riefenstahl doesn't have a blog?

[geckosfeet]

3. Same reason people insist on linking to Free Republic.

[devilgrrl]

5. That's different in that people post links to there to make fun of them

I seriously doubt anyone here posted something from FR is a news story.

[geckosfeet]

9. Yeah. Most of the time.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. I don't see a problem in quoting right wing sources

As long as it's done within the context of "can you believe what these fucking idiots are saying now???"

[devilgrrl]

8. That I don't I mind because people usually state...

"can you believe what these fucking idiots are saying now???"

I'm fine with that.

[Fleshdancer]

7. I personally don't see any harm discussing an article or rumor...

one of the benefits of having a drudge rumor posted for example is that DUers who know about Matt Drudge instantly educate those who don't know anything about him. The biased and incorrect information is easily debunked and if we don't see it, then we can't effectively respond to it.

[devilgrrl]

10. You make a good point.

eom

[EFerrari]

11. Maybe warnings could be posted in those OPs for people who are

reading fast or as a reminder to consider the source. A lot of people do that already.

[Fleshdancer]

13. That's what I usually do...

I either write a small disclaimer or make a note of telling people when I'm unfamiliar with the source.

[liberalhistorian]

12. Yeah, 'cause let's just shut ourselves off totally

from everything we don't agree with. That's the ticket.

[devilgrrl]

15. Yeah! Posting absolute bullshit! That's the ticket!

:headbang:

[liberalhistorian]

19. You ever hear the phrase "know thy enemy?"

Apparently not.

[paulsby]

18. i agree

i make it a point to always read the national review and reason magazine, as well as the nation.

i don't care WHAT source you read, if you only read stuff from the left (or right) or libertarian angle, you are NOT getting the whole story.

period.

[RamboLiberal]

14. Cause I'd like to think we have freedom here on DU and don't censor

I hate thread police!

[devilgrrl]

16. Thread police?

:crazy:

[provis99]

17. Censorship on DU is perfectly acceptable.

This is a site for Democrats, and emphasizes liberal Democrats. I think right-wing bullshit should be censored from the site as often as the site owners and moderators want. Those who want right wing bullshit can check out a freeper-style site. The only right-wing links that should exist here is links that show the right-wing to be the fucktards that they are.

[RB TexLa]

20. Because the people who own DU allow them to be linked.

Simple, really.