![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/poynter-book-burning-pexels-640x480.jpg\")
<\/a>Pexels, Merrimack.edu; Edit: BNN<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n
by John Nolte
\nBREITBART.com<\/p>\n
Poynter Institute claims on its \u201cAbout<\/a>\u201d page that \u201cit champions freedom of expression.\u201d And yet, on another page, Poynter published a list of 515 media sites, including Breitbart News, that it wants blacklisted and shut down.<\/h3>\nPoynter calls this list<\/a> an \u201cindex of unreliable news sites\u201d and is openly calling for advertisers to stop sponsoring these sites, to pull their sponsorship, to put these sites out of business.<\/p>\nIf that\u2019s not a blacklist, tell me what is [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n
Advertisers don\u2019t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging \u2014 but too often, they have little choice in the matter.<\/p>\n
Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.<\/p>\n
Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThis is straight-up McCarthyism. This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s\u2019 blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable<\/em>, and unapproved<\/em> opinions.<\/p>\nAnd what\u2019s more, the lion\u2019s share of the list cites a single source \u2014 \u201cOpenSources,\u201d a list curated by a single Assistant Professor<\/a> from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars (pictured). She is the author of academic papers such as \u201cWatching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the \u2018Obesity Epidemic\u2019\u201d and \u201cHaving It Both Ways: \u2018Two and a Half Men,\u2019 \u2018Entourage\u2019 and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.\u201d<\/p>\nWhat is Zimdars\u2019s methodology? Can\u2019t say, exactly, as the OpenSources official site is totally blank.<\/a> About two years ago, she gave an interview where she said that one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is \u201chate\u201d<\/a> \u2014 that is, she still believes<\/a> the far-left<\/a> SPLC is a credible organization<\/a> whose \u201chate\u201d labels<\/a> should get you kicked out of public discourse.<\/p>\nThose of you who suddenly approve of blacklisting will argue, \u201cHey, this is how democracy works! A private company has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want!\u201d<\/p>\n
Well, how the hell do you think the 1950s\u2019 blacklist worked? That was nothing more than private companies (movie studios, advertising sponsors) and private individuals (studio heads, producers) deciding all on their own whom they did and did not want to do business with.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, we rightly look back on this dark era with disgust, as an un-American era where people were persecuted and silenced (by private corporations and private individuals) for holding ideas and opinions the powerful establishment did not want shared or discussed.<\/p>\n
And now, the 1950s\u2019 blacklist has returned with a vengeance because the establishment media are fighting for advertising dollars and have lost their moral authority and ability to influence public opinion due to outlets like this one and the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner<\/em>, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax<\/em>, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report \u2014 all of which are on Poynter\u2019s blacklist \u2014 exposing their lies and biases, and\u2026<\/p>\nJust as the blacklisters did during the McCarthy era, they are trying to silence us by targeting our advertising sponsors.<\/p>\n
Sure, just as some of those people targeted in the 1950s were actual communists looking to do our country harm, there are some legitimate bad faith players on Poynter\u2019s blacklist. But here\u2019s where Poynter\u2019s blacklist gets especially sinister\u2026<\/p>\n
There is no one on Poynter\u2019s list of \u201cunreliable news outlets\u201d responsible for spreading the biggest, most irresponsible and dangerous lies of the last half-decade \u2014 lies that have caused race riots and destroyed innocent lives.<\/p>\n
In other words, the outlets Poynter does not want blacklisted are every bit as revealing as those Poynter does want blacklisted.<\/p>\n
There is simply no question that for over five years, CNN, the New York Times<\/em>, the Washington Post<\/em>, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico<\/em>, BuzzFeed, etc., have relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day\u2026<\/p>\n\n- The Trayvon Martin Hoax<\/li>\n
- The Hands Up, Don\u2019t Shoot Hoax<\/li>\n
- Donald Trump Can\u2019t Win<\/li>\n
- The Russia Collusion Hoax<\/li>\n
- The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax<\/li>\n
- The Covington High School Boys Hoax<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
And yet, every outlet I listed above that are<\/em> part of Poynter\u2019s blacklist either got these stories 100 percent correct, as Breitbart News did, or was at least skeptical of them.<\/p>\nBut we are the ones these so-called \u201cchampions of free expression\u201d are openly calling to be blacklisted, not those who have relentlessly and deliberately lied to the public for more than a half-decade.<\/p>\n
Which proves this is not a blacklist targeting the unreliable, but a blacklist targeting those who hold ideas the un-American Poynter finds inappropriate and unacceptable.<\/p>\n
How else to explain why Poynter wants the Media Research Center blacklisted for bias but not Media Matters?<\/p>\n
The Poynter Institute is nothing less than a non-profit version of Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, and Big Brother.<\/p>\n
If that\u2019s not a blacklist, tell me what is [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n
Advertisers don\u2019t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging \u2014 but too often, they have little choice in the matter.<\/p>\n
Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.<\/p>\n
Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is straight-up McCarthyism. This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s\u2019 blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable<\/em>, and unapproved<\/em> opinions.<\/p>\n
And what\u2019s more, the lion\u2019s share of the list cites a single source \u2014 \u201cOpenSources,\u201d a list curated by a single Assistant Professor<\/a> from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars (pictured). She is the author of academic papers such as \u201cWatching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the \u2018Obesity Epidemic\u2019\u201d and \u201cHaving It Both Ways: \u2018Two and a Half Men,\u2019 \u2018Entourage\u2019 and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.\u201d<\/p>\n
What is Zimdars\u2019s methodology? Can\u2019t say, exactly, as the OpenSources official site is totally blank.<\/a> About two years ago, she gave an interview where she said that one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is \u201chate\u201d<\/a> \u2014 that is, she still believes<\/a> the far-left<\/a> SPLC is a credible organization<\/a> whose \u201chate\u201d labels<\/a> should get you kicked out of public discourse.<\/p>\n
Those of you who suddenly approve of blacklisting will argue, \u201cHey, this is how democracy works! A private company has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want!\u201d<\/p>\n
Well, how the hell do you think the 1950s\u2019 blacklist worked? That was nothing more than private companies (movie studios, advertising sponsors) and private individuals (studio heads, producers) deciding all on their own whom they did and did not want to do business with.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, we rightly look back on this dark era with disgust, as an un-American era where people were persecuted and silenced (by private corporations and private individuals) for holding ideas and opinions the powerful establishment did not want shared or discussed.<\/p>\n
And now, the 1950s\u2019 blacklist has returned with a vengeance because the establishment media are fighting for advertising dollars and have lost their moral authority and ability to influence public opinion due to outlets like this one and the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner<\/em>, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax<\/em>, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report \u2014 all of which are on Poynter\u2019s blacklist \u2014 exposing their lies and biases, and\u2026<\/p>\n
Just as the blacklisters did during the McCarthy era, they are trying to silence us by targeting our advertising sponsors.<\/p>\n
Sure, just as some of those people targeted in the 1950s were actual communists looking to do our country harm, there are some legitimate bad faith players on Poynter\u2019s blacklist. But here\u2019s where Poynter\u2019s blacklist gets especially sinister\u2026<\/p>\n
There is no one on Poynter\u2019s list of \u201cunreliable news outlets\u201d responsible for spreading the biggest, most irresponsible and dangerous lies of the last half-decade \u2014 lies that have caused race riots and destroyed innocent lives.<\/p>\n
In other words, the outlets Poynter does not want blacklisted are every bit as revealing as those Poynter does want blacklisted.<\/p>\n
There is simply no question that for over five years, CNN, the New York Times<\/em>, the Washington Post<\/em>, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico<\/em>, BuzzFeed, etc., have relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day\u2026<\/p>\n
\n
- The Trayvon Martin Hoax<\/li>\n
- The Hands Up, Don\u2019t Shoot Hoax<\/li>\n
- Donald Trump Can\u2019t Win<\/li>\n
- The Russia Collusion Hoax<\/li>\n
- The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax<\/li>\n
- The Covington High School Boys Hoax<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
And yet, every outlet I listed above that are<\/em> part of Poynter\u2019s blacklist either got these stories 100 percent correct, as Breitbart News did, or was at least skeptical of them.<\/p>\n
But we are the ones these so-called \u201cchampions of free expression\u201d are openly calling to be blacklisted, not those who have relentlessly and deliberately lied to the public for more than a half-decade.<\/p>\n
Which proves this is not a blacklist targeting the unreliable, but a blacklist targeting those who hold ideas the un-American Poynter finds inappropriate and unacceptable.<\/p>\n
How else to explain why Poynter wants the Media Research Center blacklisted for bias but not Media Matters?<\/p>\n
The Poynter Institute is nothing less than a non-profit version of Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, and Big Brother.<\/p>\n