A conservative-leaning website has managed to surpass Fox News as the most unreliable news source in the world.
I started off my time on the internet in a typical fashion- flipping through articles on MSN, opening interesting ones and trying my best to ignore all of the celebrity-centered ones. I came across an article about a Chinese cyberattack on the White House. Curiosity struck- and I opened it. The article, from politico, explained that the attack had been on a low-level, unclassified network that was not a part of the most sensitive of White House computers. Nothing had been stolen, or copied, or whatever internet thieves do when they're not taking photos of cats, or making mischief on 4chan.
The article also mentioned that the panic had been started by an article on a website, Free Beacon. I decided to take a look for myself. I typed it into the URL bar and what did I see? The biggest headline on the front page, at the very top, read as follows:
CHINESE HACKERS BREAK IN TO WHITE HOUSE MILITARY OFFICE NETWORK IN CHARGE OF THE PRESIDENT’S NUCLEAR FOOTBALL
Hackers linked to China’s government broke into one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive computer networks, breaching a system used by the White House Military Office for nuclear commands, according to defense and intelligence officials familiar with the incident. One official said the cyber breach was one of Beijing’s most brazen cyber attacks against the United States and highlights a failure of the Obama administration to press China on its persistent cyber attacks.
The other half of the headline detailed the breach on the "classified" network. Classified. Yeah, that's right. Did I mention that the "classified" network held the commands to the United State's nuclear arsenal?
That's funny, because I'm sure that the most sensitive network in the United States could be breached by a phishing attack.
Some of the other articles are a bit closer to the truth, but are still obviously not neutral, which diminishes their value and reliability. There's one about a NM congressman who was arrested, celebrities making a "terrible video" to promote voting (note: they're all known liberals), and a new cigarette tax. However, others that aren't exactly what I refer to as "reputable" include a report about a neutral board donating "overwhelmingly" to democrats, democrats turning a blind eye to bad economic news, and how Obama is "buying" the election.
Don't you love it? I don't. I hate stupid bullsh*t. That goes for both sides of the aisle. If you're a professional news source publishing articles that you are citing as fact (note: doesn't include Newsvine, we're not professional enough), then you shouldn't lean more than a few degrees one way or another. FOX walks that line constantly (and crosses it too), and this one, well, let's just say that the subject website is in another universe.
I can't picture sitting next to one of the hardcore conservatives that reads this crap day in and day out, watching them consume this news and then repeating it at their dinner parties, believing that it's right with all of their hearts. I hope one of them is smart enough to fact check once in a while- but seeing that the editor himself isn't, I highly doubt that this is the case.
In the meantime, I'll work on photo-shopping the "Onion" logo onto the top of the page. Or hey, I'll get the Chinese to do it.
