News, Newspapers, Websites, Radio, TV, and organizations that convey information the public.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Media Matters: the big lie -- it's a hit list for David Brock's political enemies, masquerading as a 501c.
They are violating the law by existing.
They threw a hit piece on Tucker Carlson over comments made on a Shock Jock radio show, that frankly, don't seem that bad... just stuff that would offend snowflakes (even with all the context stripped out). But it turns out their own comments are worse. https://www.dailywire.com/news/44602/leftist-who-initiated-boycott-tucker-past-comments-hank-berrien
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.
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.
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.
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.