drudge is a news aggregator - they trust what he links to but not his site itself?
just an observation

Google News is as well. Not really sure the explanation there. I guess it's evaluating whether the trust the sources that are used by the aggregator.

I don't know anything about Drudge Report, never been there.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Dec 19 2016 07:57pm

Lol nvm I thought you were being serious. Just visited it and took a look at the headlines Not to mention the abysmal sites it links to. Shit tier maybe worse than Breitbart.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Dec 19 2016 08:01pm

he frequently links to all the msm sites along with their local affiliates
a lot of their traffic is attributable to him posting links
e: of course the headlines are sensationalist today - someone executed a foreign ambassador and some moron drove a truck into innocents

as for shit tier - he broke the Lewinsky scandal first.

This post was edited by excellence on Dec 19 2016 08:05pm

The choice of news to post and the headline titles are absurdly partisan. One of the top headlines is about Obama playing golf.

He links to many obscure and unreliable sources as well.

Not that there's never anything good there but to call it trustworthy would be a huge exaggeration.

Google News is an example of a trustworthy aggregator which posts mostly reliable news outlets without biased titles.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Dec 19 2016 08:17pm

this is why i prefer aggregators - good mix of sources and links.
reliable according to whom?
are these outlets like the Washington Compost which today I saw on its front page talking about faithless electors ousting Trump when (C)linton ended up with more lost EVs?

These are outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and BBC News that have a history of elite journalism and accuracy. Not gossip columns and pseudo-blogs like Drudge includes in it's sources.

What article are you referring to? I find it hard to believe they'd have predicted enough faithless electors to oust Trump when literally every other major news outlet explicitly said it's a long shot at best.

And yes I like aggregators as well, Google News is one of my go to sites for news as you are exposed to a wider number of sources.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Dec 19 2016 08:29pm

First: "quality news sources" LUL

Comedy shows, motherjones, slate, huffpo.. all solidly in the trusted category for both 'consistently' and 'mostly' liberal.

Its good to be skeptical even of the largest news outlets.
NYT deserves lots of scrutiny, despite you holding them in the highest regard.


You were just bashing other sources for partisanship and bias. Their^ content is also biased.
Any news reporting is inherently biased and the above sites tend to operate within a particular ideological sphere.
For example, The NYT literally endorsed Hillary(twice) and showed a consistent pattern of pro-hillary bias.

'Not gossip columns and pseudo-blogs'? Have you ever read the NYT?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 19 2016 08:57pm

front page of the actual paper, my company has it in the lobby along with everything else.
it wasnt "they will get enough" it was "last ditch efforts to oust Trump"

And that's not a significant news story on the day of electoral voting why?

It was pretty much the only thing worth talking about on the subject, whether there'd be more faithless electors than in the past. Hillary having faithless electors is irrelevant because she already lost.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Dec 19 2016 08:44pm