Harvard University Library Brands Conservative Websites as “Fake News”


“Fake News” left-winger Melissa Zimdars is back and she has made it to the Harvard University library which has posted a research guide to fake news, based on Snopes, Politifact, Washington Post fact checkers, the usual left-wing censors. Included on the library website is guidance to “fake news” as well as a “fake news” list compiled by Zimdars, Daily Caller reports.

Zimdars is an assistant professor at Merrimack College who has made it her business to decide what is “fake news” on the Internet and to make plugins like the BS Detector available for people to brand articles and websites they deem “fake news”.

Most notable on the library page is the subtitle, “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical ‘News’ Sources (Huge list of fake news sites)” that includes a link to a massive database of almost all the existing right-leaning sites including the Drudge Report, The Washington Free Beacon, Independent Journal Review, the Daily Caller and the Washington Examiner.

Also included are Breitbart, Heartland, CNS News. Frontpage Magazine is listed as “hate” because they concentrate on the threat of radical Islam; their sister site Truth Revolt is listed as “hate” though there is no hate on it – they complain about hate. Laura Ingraham’s Lifezette is called “clickbait” though it’s clearly not.

Weasel Zippers, which is an aggregate for the the right, like Drudge Report, is also listed as “bias”. If you are right-leaning, you are going to be “bias”.

Zerohedge is considered “conspiracy”. Mostly that site lists excerpts from legitimate news sites with some editorial comments. He’s not predicting the end of the world but he did point out the evil in the Democrat Party in one op-ed.

Ron Paul threatened a lawsuit and his Institute is now simply “political” while under the general category “fake news”. He was on her original fake news list last year when she first posted it.

Even conservative commentary sites like TheBlaze (labelled “clickbait”), RedState, Daily Signal, and the Weekly Standard are listed under the “fake news” umbrella.

While there are left-wing sites on the list, Mother Jones, Media Matters, the New Republic and the Huffington Post are not, though they are fake and far-left.

Laughably, the same people who have flourished using unnamed officials and anonymous government sources are concerned about unsubstantiated claims.

Zimdars is cited on the library site for the quick and easy guide for “5 Ways to Spot and Stop Fake News”. One of the ways to stop things you don’t like is to use a plugin that classifies an article as fake should you deem it so. She has a chat site going on Gitter where anyone can start listing the sites/articles they believe need censoring.

That gives a lot of power to those who disagree with a point of view.

Zimdars doesn’t understand why there is a problem. She included more right-wing sites because she claims there are more of them. She also said that in her “fake news” general category, many sites are not listed as “fake” but as “bias”, “conspiracy”, “rumor”, “hate”, “unreliable”, “junk science”, “satire”, “clickbait”. That’s true, but the umbrella term is “fake news sites”.

Some of the biased far-left sites like alternate, advocate, americanprogess.org (Soros) are listed as “credible” thought they are provably biased.

Censorship is a serious concern. As it is, Conservative websites don’t come up on Google’s first, second, third pages very often. Wikileaks showed us how biased Google is. The CEO of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, was playing on Hillary’s team during the election cycle.

Zimdars “working list” can be seen below.

Censorship has followed the free expressions of men and women like a shadow throughout history. All Totalitarian regimes must first censor to build and control a compliant citizenry. Sometimes media is directly controlled by the government, or the government takes out ads for their side to “nudge” the populace, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Universities also cooperate. It’s something to keep in mind.

Left-wing Idea of Fake News on Scribd

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

I quit watching the ‘predominant’ media for at least a couple of decades. During this past election I did happen to catch one instance of “news” reporting on a local campaign. The “reporter” for the local ABC station had a story on a candidate and a meeting with some individual. I don’t recall the details but the inference Was that something nefarious was going on. The reporter actually said at the end, “We don’t know What was said but it looks suspicious”. It was some kind of guilt by association. I had never forgot this person because I saw his outright blatant bias when I first moved here in the mid ’90’s.

I’ll never forget my first experiences in watching the media covering politics. I was an avid C-Span watcher in the early 80’s. At the time I wasn’t on the side of Reagan. I would debate a co-worker who Was an avid supporter of him. One day he came to me and said “I was right”. He detailed what he had heard on the news the night before. Well, I had watched Regan on that in its entirety. I don’t recall the details But I told him that is NOT what Reagan said. Since then I listen intently on what is asked BY the news media. It tells a great deal of what is going on.

Fast forward to today and we see virtually the same thing going on with THIS administration. When I watch Sean Spicer giving his Pressers I find occasions where “reporters” will ‘stupidly’ ask over and over again the same question. The answer given is clear-cut and is explained thoroughly. One has to ask WHY this isn’t good enough for those in question. Understanding what they did with Reagan I suspect it is clear. They want a 2 or 3 second sound bite they can use in order to ‘twist’ the story into a narrative that fits an agenda.

The distinct advantage today is Twitter and a President who will call out those in the media for their true agenda. It is not ONLY a question of bias reporting but a clear and present danger to America as a whole and its future as a democracy. This ‘agenda’ has taken on a life that is little different than what is seen in Jihadi type mosques. In those mosques there is taught a virulent hatred against any and all that is not Jihad and not to their liking.

The current media conglomerates have a similar goal. They have sought to not only undermine an Administration but to actually destroy it. It was in full display in the recent House hearing on Russian Disinformation. The Democrats made the most outlandish comments. Some even stating the ‘Dossier’ was entirely true. The media is supplanting this narrative with constant stories in order to ferment hatred among the electorate. The media nor the Democrats are the least bit interested in calming this firestorm. Apparently these two groups are willing to foment a civil uprising the likes we’ve never seen before. This, too, would be blamed on this Administration, as was done during the Primaries and to this day.

This societal destruction was even suggested by none other than Loretta Lynch. Will death in the streets cause the media Empire to contemplate what they are promoting. It was after the death of Vince Foster and the suggestion of suicide that the media then began to go on their self-analysis of reporting. There was panel after panel questioning whether or not THEY were the cause. Unfortunately, both the media and Democrats seem willing for such events to come to pass. I’ve never seen such a hatred by so many. It’s almost as if they have gone to the Jihadists playbook to further a goal of totalitarian power. Is this WHY we see a merging of and a symbiotic relationship between the two.

6 years ago

Thank you, Miss Zimdars. You just made it easier for me to expand my favorites list.