David Nakamura is as dishonest as they get. This hit piece on immigration restriction groups have nothing to do with the El Paso mass murderer. He notes that they were founded by a man who supported eugenics, but so was Planned Parenthood, an organization the Washington Post staunchly supports. He also cherry picks the statements made on immigration from the shooter's manifesto while ignoring statements that sound like they could have come from Elizabeth Warren. In fact, the shooter said he decided to go on his rampage after seeing all Democratic candidates raise their hands to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, so by Nakamura's logic they could be blamed on the killing.
Reuters "without evidence" writes biased story with no research to support its assertion and in contradiction to the huge amount of evidence documented in Congressional testimony and Project Veritas, which has statements and testimony from former employees (whistleblowers), secret tapings, and written documentation.
CNBC "writer" Jesse Pounds, without evidence, accuses President Trump of not having evidence that Google is biased. Videos and documents shared to Project Veritas, lengthy statements by former employees, an internal recording of Google CEO saddened over Hillary losing the 2016 election, biased search results, testimony before Congress of a professor (a Democrat) who has researched the internet for 30 years, and other examples too numerous to mention apparently aren't evidence to a lazy left-wing writer who did the minimal amount of research for his hit piece. Maybe his name should be Jesse "Without Evidence" Pound who works at C "Without Evidence" NBC.
Elise Sole sucks. She writes an unnecessary hit piece on someone who gave an opinion that isn't wrong so she can get more clicks. A very biased article that includes an "expert" from one side who gives out gaslighting nonsense as "fact." Elise Sole of Yahoo Lifestyle, you are a horrible, selfish, disgusting person. Shame on you.
Maybe because Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys aren't white-supremacist?
This isn't a news story from David Brennan, it's an opinion piece. Examples of how Brennan inserts his left-wing bias into the "article," in response to Kathy Zhu's question "Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks?" he wrote "Zhu did not provide any actual statistics or facts to back up her assertion." The issue isn't whether or not she provided the statistics as if she had them at her fingertips, but is the statement implied in her question true or not. As a "journalist" this should have been Brennan's job. If Brennan had done his job he could have discovered that blacks/African Americans represent 13% of the population, but FBI statistics from its Uniform Crime Reports showed that blacks account for 27.8% of total arrests (in 2014; other years show similar high percentages), and 51.3% of arrests for murder. These stats and many others are confirmed by the National Crime Victimization Surveys put out by the Department of Justice. When it comes to race of perpetrator, blacks commit 90% of homicides against other blacks. In other words, Kathy Zhu is factually correct.
Brennan claims Zhu contradicted herself on her story about refusing the hijab. How? She could have "politely declined" as she stated while the Muslim woman could have ignored her refusal and persisted in trying to force her to wear the hijab. Brennan should take a logic class and study up on what constitutes an actual contradiction, then he could follow up on straw man fallacies and how to avoid making them.
He quotes Zhu asking a question asking if MWA advocates for the punishment of women who refuse to wear a hijab, then writes "she did not provide any evidence." Uh, she asked a question, and one does not need to provide evidence within questions. Besides that, if the MWA is calling her refusal to wear a hijab "Islamophobic," then that COULD be considered EVIDENCE that they are advocating for the punishment of women who refuse to wear hijabs. Public shaming and slander are forms of social punishment.
Brennan ends by falsely claiming -- without evidence -- that Robby Starbuck "incorrectly interpreted the incident," and Joy Villa "also misread the situation" by "falsely claiming Zhu had been blocked from competing because the [sic] was a conservative." In fact, Zhu's comments are common among conservatives and are neither racist nor Islamophobic, and she was fired for them. He could have also investigated to see if contestants who made liberal political statements on social media kept their jobs, but that would have required actual journalism.
The problem with this article by Hannah Knowles is that it is biased by omission. It leaves out the fact that the terrorist Willem Van Spronsen was a Far-Left activist and member of Antifa. He was an anarchist, but the ignorant reader would know none of those facts by reading this article. Undoubtedly if Van Spronsen was on the right Hannah Knowles would have mentioned it several times in the article.
Vox.com definitely does not handle the difference between opinion and news responsibly and NewsGuard should give it a negative mark. Its articles are not only biased but contain loaded questions. Yes, it has some pieces that go counter to its left-wing POV, but those are relatively few and far between. Many of its writers target perceived enemies and attribute to them the worst possible motives rather than taking a neutral or nuanced perspective. It also engages in censorship campaigns against these perceived enemies, so does not approach anything near being responsible.
Jared Holt is a far-left "journalist" who writes material that is provably false and obviously went through no fact-checking. This hit piece on Eion Lenihan is nothing less than a smear campaign by mislabeling him "far-right" and an example of psychological projection -- falsely claiming that someone else is doing what you yourself is doing. So we may ask, why is CJR laundering Jared Holt?
Maybe an attorney or two will contact Ian Sherr over tortious interference for ruining the livelihood of several YouTubers. By the way, SJW does not mean "diversity," so one of the central points of this screed is blatantly false.