The Boston Globe was founded in 1872 was originally controlled by Irish Catholic interests before being sold to Charles H. Taylor, and then sold to The New York Times in 1993 for $1.1 billion. Where it subsequently lost 94% of its value, and was sold to John W. Henry (Red Sox Owner) for $70 million.
Rather than being a neutral Journalistic source, the former editorial page editor Renée Loth described The Globe as having "a long tradition of being a progressive institution, and especially on social issues", but did qualify it with "We are a lot more nuanced and subtle than that liberal stereotype does justice to". Yet, they endorsed Hillary Clinton, started a campaign against Trump for calling out bad journalism, and basically taking more than a few bad and far left positions. They descended from being a purveyor of news to progressive activism, and since progressives can't get what they want by telling the truth, they are not about one-side spin, lies of omission, and a series of embarrassing gaffe's that always lean to the far left.
Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence is another FakeNews organization that exists to invent false numbers to dupe the gullible rubes. A cursory look at their numbers, and they fall apart -- they aren't based on subjective murder rates, gun ownership rates, or anything that would lead to the conclusions they draw: it's about whether they like the gun policies -- then cooking the numbers to invent a correlation that doesn't exist.
In 1980 Ted Turner started CNN, and put his left center spin on "the news". His later marriage to Hanoi Jane Fonda didn't help perceptions, nor did the newsrooms agenda convey a fully objective tone. He wanted to be the 24 hour version of the same left of center news outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC. So it was founded on his flavor of bias, and went downhill. It wouldn't be quite so bad, if they were just honest about it: but the faux air of objectivity, and denial of any bias, makes it worse.
A far left blog founded in 2002 by Markos Moulitsas that eschews journalism for trolling and far left spin : the Kos comes from his first name. If there's a way to spin or twist the facts to make the left look good and the right look bad, the Kos is there. Like the Huffington Post, with even lower standards and a stronger agenda.
ESPN was told by common sense not to politicize sports, that they were just entertaining escapism. They chose to go the other way. Now they're damn near going bankrupt as viewership is way down, advertising is way down, and the trends for the future look way down. So what did we learn?
There's "facts" that people believe, but aren't. Worse are things that the Fact Checkers on the left have verified for people as true, that aren't true, or are completely biased or misleading. Most are sincerely mislead. The question is when confronted with facts do they argue to death using an appeal to authority fallacy ("but CNN says it's true"), or are they open-minded free thinkers that look at the new information and weigh it against the prior evidence? It's not wether they agree with me or not that changes who they are. (They might have valid reasons for still not agreeing). But it's their approach to new information that makes the difference between a conscious (self-aware) human, or a herd following collectivist.
The left loves to hate. And there's little they hate more than Fox News. Why? If you ask them it's because it's biased, sloppy, and sensationalizes headlines. All true, but MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC are all at least as bad in all those areas, so we know they lie (either to themselves or us) about the reason. And the real reason they hate it, is why it is so needed. While they are sometimes biased, they counter-balance virtually all the other stations which slant from hard to harder left. By itself, Fox News would mostly give you the right-slanted view of things. But there's no way a right wing person can ignore all the other left wing stations: so they get a balance from Fox News. While a left wing person can avoid Fox News, and get only the far left view of things (with caricatures mis-represented in those same sources). So with Fox News, the world is more balanced. Without it, it is more imbalanced. And since the truth is often towards the middle, Fox New's scarcity of opinion, is the exact diversity of though that is needed to get a deeper understanding of every issue.
Starting a section on MSNBC and their bias is like starting one on listing all the names in the Holocaust. This is a Sisyphusian task to try to create a comprehensive list -- so I won't do that. Heck, it'd be impossible to list all the failures of any on of their personalities alone (Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Mika, Maddow, and the other Hurricane Katrina's of journalistic ethics). So I'll just cherry pick, and offer a few nuggets, links to aggregate sources, greatest misses, and things that can point out the obvious to those capable of getting it.
I so dread starting an NPR section, because I listen to them a lot, and hear at least 2 or 3 fuck-ups per hour, unless it's a weekend or later at night, then it's more like 10. Thus, starting this section would be a full time job of correcting much of what they say about Conservatives, Libertarians, or anything but left leaning feel good stories.
I don't think much of New York Magazine. To be fair, I don't read it, because 90% of the time when I hear about it, it's being dumb, wrong, or partisan -- but that might be because I'm not their audience. They were one of the pioneers of the New Journalism, which is truthspeak for they threw objectivity and journalistic standards out the window, and replaced them with biased, opinionated, far left drivel.
A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors, as well as exposed confessions. They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to deceive, commit lies of omission, or present things in a biased way. (Never trusting their readership with the whole truth). More than that, some insist on idol worship for what they publish, and abject denial of their obvious and omitted bias: and that fuels the backlash against them.
The New Yorker was once a renowned for their fact checking and quality. Then David Remnick took over as Editor and they became the cheap partisan low-quality mock-worthy rag that they are today. This details just a small portion of that.
There are many good organizations, many bad organizations. I'm more likely to comment on organizations whose reputation doesn't match their reality. If I hear too much corporatism (corporate worship), whether that's a Union, University or "Non-partisan" organization... or too much corporate bashing (by the same folks that rationalize worse behavior of other companies), then I'm probably going to write something on it.
PBS news has two solutions to every problem: (1) "government failed to solve this, or made it worse: the solution is more government", or (2) "I know, let's pass a law/regulation/tax to fix it". When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And when you're subsidized by the Government, you're going to promote more Government.
List of evidence that supports the popular opinion that PolitiFact is biased partisan hackery. Worse than that, they act like angry grade schoolers when caught, which is fairly often. So there are basically two camps: those that think PolitiFact is non-partisan, and those who know what's going on in the world.
Politico started when left-of-center John F. Harris, and the slightly less left-of-center Jim VandeHei (who left to found Axios in disgust, and penned a FU I'm outta here letter), got funding for a DC tabloid journalism (rumor mongering) on the DC set. Sort of what HuffingtonPost was to Hollywood, but only for DC, if HuffPo had even lower ethical and journalistic standards. The point isn't that I dislike Politico -- its looser quality controls allows for some people to get a voice that they wouldn't have elsewhere. So to me, it's like reddit or twitchy -- sure most articles are full of shit, but they allow both sides turds, and you can find some treasures in the sewage, if you are willing to wade long enough.
Rolling Stone is an American monthly magazine that was founding in the late 60's San Francisco, and focused on music and pop-culture. But like many in entertainment, they forgot their goal is to entertain, become full of themselves and try to be more "relevant" -- and since that's not their core competency, they usually screw it up. Which is a shame, because we need shallow tripe and escapism, without SJW's trying to take everything over and make it important. Especially when they have a history of being not very good at their core competency (covering the music scene).
Skeptical Science is a FakeScience site created by not-a-scientists John Cook. It seems like his name is missing an 'r' somewhere. He created his site not to inform people, but to misinform them. You can tell by things he does on it: like omitting facts that he finds inconvenient, or censoring famous Climate Scientists that he disagrees with. It's fine that he has an advocacy site -- it's wrong that he plays it off as a Science site. Science is always about facts and skepticism.
All sources have a bias, and all make mistakes. I don't care that Snopes was created by California couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, who decided to covert alt.folklore.urban newsgroup into a website. Despite a cabal of liberal editors, most of Snopes isn't that bad. But mostly fair, isn't completely fair -- and they have plenty of bias, un-corrected errors, and unfair interpretations. Each article deserves separate scrutiny/skepticism, with many falling far below journalistic standards. So despite their voracity supported by partisans and rubes, Snopes is far from the paragon of objectivity that some pretend. This article offers a small sampling of errors and bias.
The Atlantic is a far-left Newspaper (not by ideology, just by bias), that occasionally lets a good article or two through, and even rarely has some diversity of thought. I had some hope when they hired the prolific conservative intellectual, Kevin Williamson, away from the National Review. But like so often happens in sheep flocks, they got nervous when someone unlike them came in, that the editors actually had to defend their position -- not because Kevin is a bomb-thrower, but because the snowflakes on staff, didn't want "one of them" in their clique. Then, less than a week in, he fired Kevin after his first article. Not because of its contents, but because of the content of his character: scrupulous, intellectual, and individualist (instead of collectivist progressive). Oh, and he committed a thought crime of saying abortion is a bad thing.
Time Magazine was once a respected publication, but like all things: liberals ruined it. Once they took over, they destroyed "journalism" and replaced it with propaganda. So while good articles occasionally get through their editorial bias, it's strictly by accident, and usually not touching anything vaguely political.
Vice is a hard left outlet, that exists to twist every news story from a hard left PoV. Like the worst of WaPo, HuffPo and a basement blogger, all screaming against the injustices of the anyone with a clue. Other than the bad journalism, they were created as a pump-and-dump scam, that seems to have been successful -- sensationalism sells, and this was dot-com version of website replacing the old stodgy ink-stained fingers, with younger and hipper writing (ignore the quality beneath SuperMarket tabloids): it's clickbait journalism Pied Piper, only instead of leading the rats out of the sewer, it lead the other so-called jouranlistic institutions down into them.
A once great paper, now a liberal fake news rag that looks more like Bezos Blog (or the DNC's blog) than an objective Newspaper. To be fair, WaPo was always walking in the Grey Lady's (NYT's) shadow, and Jeff Bezos acquisition didn't change much... now that the NYT in the mud, it's no surprise that WaPo is crawling in the sewer. Here is a partial list of falsehoods, embarrassments, and mistakes.
Do I like Wikileaks? Not really. Do I respect them? Yes. Am I happy they exist? Mixed. I think they've done a service by exposing some bad things in the western countries (especially focused on the USA). They've also gotten good people killed, and harmed western (freedom's) interests. So they're a cost and consequence of being an open, diverse and free society. China/Russia/Saudi Arabia/and so on, are more closed, have more tolerance towards oppression of speech, a more cliquish culture, and people know that leaking there means their death (or ruination). Whereas the west it's a gamble towards attention, book deals and possible fortune or at least being provided for (Chelsea Manning, Eric Snowden). This means that Wikileaks and institutions like them will always do more harm to open countries (and their interests) than more closed ones, that behave worse and need this kind of thing the most. So they can be a force for evil and good at the same time.
Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good, or at least good enough. Most of their lies and bias are lies and bias of omission. (What they say isn't usually wrong, but what they don't say might completely change the context). So they are a pretty good reference. But don't let that lull you into an "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Celebrity" fallacy. Science is skepticism. Wikipedia is hegemony. Wikipedia has millions of articles, across hundreds of thousands of topics -- and each topic is a community (clique) of editors, and herd-think rules most of them. Some areas a fine. But if one clique is bad, that whole area can be bad; they won't allow counter-factual that disagree with their agenda. And there are bad (biased) areas of wikipedia. Especially in History, Science, Politics, and anything that's controversial. And everything can be political and controversial to folks that focus on any topic.