The most popular conservative news websites

[_EAllusion]

Frank Luntz published an article on aggregating the website ranking methodologies of Alexa, Similarweb, and Quantcast to determine the most popular conservative news websites, apparently being generous with "news." This looks only websites that are primarily online entities, so it excludes sources like Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. The top 10 are:

Drudge Report
Breitbart*
The Daily Caller
Zero Hedge
The Daily Wire
The Blaze
The Week
Washington Examiner
Gateway Pundit
WorldNet Daily (WND)

https://pjmedia.com/trending/50-top-con ... s-in-2017/

This article is getting heavy circulation in liberal media because it's a way of lording superiority over conservative culture. However, that shouldn't be the primary takeaway here even if you are a liberal. This is actually quite disturbing and is yet another data point in there being a large number of conservatives in America being in an alternative reality bubble that has information sources that are profoundly dishonest, conspiratorial, and/or outright crazy. That's dangerous, not an opportunity to get a brief hit of feeling good about oneself.

[_Uncle Ed]

Really one-sided point of view, there, EAllusion. As if the conservative point of view holds some kind of patent on propaganda inside "the bubble". Differing world views produce opposed propaganda, because the definition of "differing world views" is: holding differing agendas to promote or even force a desired society.

Using the Gov't to control your agenda is a mandated strategy of both sides. No difference in that; the only difference being methodology. And neither side holds with the methodology of the other.

Transparency is not equal, however. In my experience, "conservative" websites that assert that they are news sources promote dialogue by including reader forums to comment on, with a minimal amount of policing/monitoring. "Liberal" websites (egregiously CNN) either do not include comment forums at all or heavily regulate them.

So where is this "bubble" of which you speak?

[_EAllusion]

Really one-sided point of view, there, EAllusion. As if the conservative point of view holds some kind of patent on propaganda inside "the bubble". Differing world views produce opposed propaganda, because the definition of "differing world views" is: holding differing agendas to promote or even force a desired society.

Using the Gov't to control your agenda is a mandated strategy of both sides. No difference in that; the only difference being methodology. And neither side holds with the methodology of the other.

Transparency is not equal, however. In my experience, "conservative" websites that assert that they are news sources promote dialogue by including reader forums to comment on, with a minimal amount of policing/monitoring. "Liberal" websites (egregiously CNN) either do not include comment forums at all or heavily regulate them.

So where is this "bubble" of which you speak?

Unfortunately, yes, popular conservative sources - see this list - are much worse about being propagandist than liberal equivalents. CNN isn't a liberal source, but calling "The Week" conservative was a reach too, so I guess we'll call that even.

Regarding the bubble, here's research indicating quite plainly that conservative online media exists within a largely self-contained bubble in a way that is not true of non-conservatives:

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/po ... ia-habits/

Here's making it even more plain:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/ ... mediacloud

Conservatives are disproportionately likely to cloister inside a local information bubble (an " insulated right-wing media ecosystem" in the words of the Harvard study), one that is relatively extreme at that, in comparison to non-conservatives. This is an asymmetrical phenomenon. This, again in the words of the Harvard study, makes people who participate in it "susceptible to sustained network propaganda and disinformation."

[_EAllusion]

The Havard study is absolutely fascinating if you ever get time to read it. They're able to establish with a high degree of confidence that the right-wing media ecosystem that is dominated by propaganda, disinformation, conspiratorial thinking is able to wield disproportionate influence on mainstream media coverage.

This is because mainstream sources are heavily biased to report what their sense of "both sides" is as a proxy for fairness. Because the right-wing media ecosystem dominates conservative thought even though it is lacking in scruples, they become representative of the "conservative" side and are able to inject their narratives into national coverage effectively. On the left, there's still a cultural commitment to impartiality and accuracy of media sources that prevent their propagandistic equivalents from receiving the same kind of amplification. The result is you end up liberal-friendly journalism having to aspire to be relatively accurate while conservative-friendly journalism can be wall-to-wall crazy. Because of the bias towards equal-sharing of perspective, you end up with a heavy right-wing pull on media narrative. And this helps explain why the 2016 election coverage was so warped.

[_Bach]

It’s good to be king here eh?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey EA!

The Daily Wire

Yeah - I really like Ben Shapiro.
His recent testimony before Congress (Constitutional topics, free speech, etc) is worth a listen MO.

by the way - If you are interested in getting a glimpse into what is happening on our college campuses across this great country, take a look at what happens when a public college campus tries to have a conservative, like Shapiro, come and speak.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_EAllusion]

Hey EA!

The Daily Wire

Yeah - I really like Ben Shapiro.
His recent testimony before Congress (Constitutional topics, free speech, etc) is worth a listen MO.

by the way - If you are interested in getting a glimpse into what is happening on our college campuses across this great country, take a look at what happens when a public college campus tries to have a conservative, like Shapiro, come and speak.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I'm a fan of FIRE (though their new website design is an eyesore) and find campus attacks on free speech appalling.

That said, there is a strain of thought that treats this as the most significant threat to free speech in the US, which is endlessly bizarre. 2017 saw a half dozen Republican legislatures try to make running over protesters with cars effectively legal. A similar number tried to legally curtail the teaching of cultural studies in public universities. Conservative speakers invited to campuses to troll leftists and getting no-platformed is about a million miles away from that in terms of seriousness, but notice what gets more press attention?

Rounding back into the thread topic, it turns out large numbers of conservatives are getting their news from sources that will decry Shapiro getting no-platformed but won't cover or will celebrate efforts to curtail speech from the right. This creates a distorted picture.

[_Kevin Graham]

Hey EAllusion!

The Daily Wire

Yeah - I really like Ben Shapiro.
His recent testimony before Congress (Constitutional topics, free speech, etc) is worth a listen MO.

by the way - If you are interested in getting a glimpse into what is happening on our college campuses across this great country, take a look at what happens when a public college campus tries to have a conservative, like Shapiro, come and speak.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Why should campuses feel obligated to let idiots like Shapiro speak? These are institutions of higher learning, not pulpits for fringe political propaganda. Shapiro's only interest in speaking to these schools is so he can have another talking point for his dumb show, badmouthing the students as liberal drones who hate the Constitution or whatever.

This is like expecting Baptist Churches to let Liberal guests speak whenever they want to, otherwise they're just against free speech.

[_EAllusion]

Why should campuses feel obligated to let idiots like Shapiro speak? These are institutions of higher learning, not pulpits for fringe political propaganda.

This is like expecting Baptist Churches to let Liberal guests speak whenever they want to, otherwise they're just against free speech.

Conservative speakers aren't being invited by the Universities. They are being invited by student groups who have an equal right to invite their speakers even if those speakers hold reprehensible or dubious viewpoints. It's the same principle behind accommodating both Satanists and Christians in Holiday displays outside of City Hall. Either everyone is allowed access to the facilities or no one should be.

[_Kevin Graham]

Then no one should be. I'd hate to find out my kids were attending a school that allowed such people to preach. It defeats the purpose of sending them there to get an education.