- ads for guns and ammo
- claims that LGBTQ movement is destroying women's rights
- An ad for Fox News
- more claims about not trusting the media, CNN specifically
Books and covers, etc. I don't really trust them to accurately describe the events that happened. (I don't know if that's ironic. Did 2020 claim irony as a victim?)
Some examples a brief look at Washington Standard turned up.
The don't like green energy [1], which would suggest that they are a conservative site:
> If you understand the entire “green energy” deal, you understand it is based solely on a lie from the father of lies, the devil. It’s being pushed by open Communists and why? It’s to enslave people. It’s to make lots of money. It’s to control the world. And where is the largest push of “green energy” products coming from? China. The fake president, China Joe Biden, is now pushing a fake revolution in which “green energy” will be pushed to suck the remainder of wealth of the West
Not fans of Bill Gates, either [2].
> Bill Gates is at it again, asking for more totalitarian intervention to stop a future pathogen. He wants to “prepare” for a plandemic in as serious of a manner as “we take the threat of war.”
> Preparing for these plandemics is easy for the rulers because they’ve been “predicting” or setting up their authoritarian responses to these scamdemics beforehand.
> Are we honestly to believe that a eugenicist who helped develop a fast-tracked vaccine that’s killing and damaging more people than the COVID-19 scamdemic could ever hope to is doing anything for the food of anyone but himself?
(The "fast-tracked vaccine that's killing and damaging more people than the COVID-19" is the Moderna vaccine).
But they don't seem all that happy with Trump, either [3].
> President Trump’s words were stirring on Thursday as he announced that he would soon be signing an Executive Order to establish a national commission to promote patriotic education in opposition to the 1619 Project. The only problem with the president’s soon to be released executive order is that there is zero authority for Congress or the president to engage in education at all.
At least Trump doesn't get swastikas drawn on his forehead like they do for Biden [4].
They seem generally more right than left, but the real unifying thread in most of their work seems to be that they have a very strict interpretation of the Constitution (but based on a poor understanding of the Constitution), and they seem to believe a lot of conspiracy theories.
I'm having a hard time seeing how CNN is "equally as biased the other way". CNN, like most other mainstream sites is biased in a way that is fairly easy to learn and correct for, allowing in most cases to get a reasonable idea of the truth by reading/watching them and one or two that are biased the other way.
It looks like it would take extraordinary effort to get much useful out of Washington Standard.
[1] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/china-joes-faux-revolution...
[2] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/bill-gates-vaxx-sales-pitc...
[3] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/trump-announces-executive-...
[4] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/biden-harris-ready-to-push...
At least I can see that this website isn't feeding me personalized ads...
I don't tend to pattern match on speech/content patterns of groups I disagree with.
You have half the country distrust anything with ads for guns, and the other half distrust anything that uses words like "woke" or "white supremacy."
Advertising is generally dishonest and predatory. It also tends to be AB tested and targeted enough that it doesn't feel dishonest to the readership of any particular venue. I just went to:
* Huff Post, and the first ad was: "Groundbreaking Device Exposes Greedy Internet Providers While Speeding Up Your Slow Internet"
* NYTimes, and the second ad was a sketchy "Bitcoin is the future/Invest Now"
* Wa Post: "Internet Providers Don't Want You Buying One, but They're Not Illegal"
Most venues don't have much control over the ads they serve. It's usually done through ad networks. I think Wa Post and NYTimes are top-notch journalism, while Huff Post is a sensationalist rag.
Just as we restrict advertising to kids so ought we restrict advertising to the elderly.
There are claims of letting people know about products, or "driving consumer demand," but they fall apart as you dig deeper.
It's not clear how it ought to be regulated, but it ought to be regulated. It ought have been regulated a long, long time go, actually. When banner ads popped up on the Internet in the nineties was a much easier time than 2020, when we have trillion-dollar businesses pushing back.