Is Ground News a right-wing psy-op?

Now, in my last episode about Ground News, I talked about how there’s been a many-decade long effort by a lot of extremely rich people to create an alternative media ecosystem of reactionary thought under the term “Conservative Media”. And part of that project was to portray all media that wasn’t Conservative Media as “liberal”, meaning left, and behave as if it existed explicitly to further a political agenda the same way Conservative Media does in an entirely successful effort to use mainstream media’s own ideals of neutrality, independence, and objectivity against it to platform reactionary ideas and move the Overton Window rightward.

And it’s probably my fault because I buried it a bit, but it’s important to understand that for the most part this Conservative Media exists not to accurately report the news but expressly to further a reactionary agenda, which is why we have ample evidence of people who’ve been in Conservative Media discussing how they were never fact checked and, to the contrary, encouraged to make things up to further the cause, deliberately stir up controversies out of nothing, and be extremely subjective while assailing the lack of objectivity of everyone else. And I kind of feel like if you don’t understand that Conservative Media is composed chiefly of lies, fear mongering, racism, and grifters, you’re either not paying attention or are also part of the cult. And this is why a service that presents Conservative Media on equal terms with the actual news media and even denotes it as in the political center serves only to legitimize and validate their lies. And by doing so it would also push socialism and socialist ideas like, I don’t know, significantly raising taxes on rich people, further to the periphery, helping to *de-*legitimize them. And some people accused me of being “unbiased”, but part of the point of the video is that there’s no such thing as being unbiased or “objective” and the pose of being unbiased serves only to reinforce the status quo, strip events of their moral weight, pass off official accounts from authority figures as neutral facts, and create false equivalences between truth and lies.

But I finished the video by saying that I might think Ground News is a right wing psy-op, if I were conspiratorially minded, but the people running it and its sources might completely believe they’re honestly providing a useful service. However, some folks pointed me to some interesting evidence that Ground News might actually be a right-wing psy-op. And just to be clear, by “psy-op” here I don’t mean a literal military psychological operation, but just the idea that Ground News was intentionally created to spread and legitimize right-wing ideas under the guise of being “impartial” and “exposing bias”. And I’ll say here at the top that this evidence isn’t conclusive, but it is pretty suggestive, and I think it’s worth taking a moment to look into it and see what tells us not only about these sorts of services but about deeper issues around money and journalism.

And I’m still definitely not getting that Ground News sponsorship, so please consider supporting this project at Patreon.com/ericrosenfield where for only $1 an episode you can get early, ad-free episodes, exclusive authors notes and more, like the exclusive essay about journalist Walter Lippmann and how he helped create centrist discourse and Neoliberalism that I had to cut from the last video.

Anyway, according to its website, Ground News was founded by siblings Harleen Kaur, ex-NASA engineer, and Sukh Singh, ex-Bain Capital. Yes, that Bain Capital, the private equity and vulture capital firm whose CEO and sole shareholder was once former governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. But even aside from that, this is weird, right? Neither of these people have backgrounds in journalism, media, or media analysis. They’re an engineer and a finance guy. And this background shows, for instance, in something I neglected to mention in the last episode, the use of AI to summarize news stories. Journalists might not appreciate the idea of a computer program summarizing their work, and as someone who cares about news I would be, shall we say, concerned about the accuracy and trustworthiness of these summaries. Replacing a news source that may be biased or untrustworthy with software that has no idea what bias or trustworthiness is doesn’t sound to me like an improvement. I could also point out how much the right-wing seems to like AI in particular as a piece of circumstantial evidence, but unpacking that is a bit orthogonal to the main point I’m trying to make, so we’ll put it aside for the moment.

I said in the last video that the site is funded not only by subscribers but by Venture Capital firms and unnamed “independent, mission-aligned investors”, according to the website. Who are these investors? Well, typically if you make a significant investment in a start-up, giving you a significant ownership stake in it, you get a seat on the board of directors that controls the company. Ground News is technically a subsidiary of a company called SnapWise Inc, which you know because it says © 2026 Snapwise Inc at the bottom of the Ground News website, though curiously that’s not mentioned on their About page. Also curiously the name of the parent company used to be on the Wikipedia page for Ground News, but that seems to have been removed at some point for some reason.

So who’s on the board of Snapwise Inc. Well, we see the founders Kaur and Singh, that’s expected. We have, Payman Pouladdej, who’s a known angel invester, which is to say a rich person who invests in early stage start-ups. We have Tom Curley, and this is the only person on this board who actually has experience in journalism, he was the president of the Associated Press, helped found the USA Today in 1976, and actually worked as a journalist. This is the kind of person you’d actually want to see involved in a company like this. And then you have Manuel Mattke. Now Mattke doesn’t personally seem to be an angel investor, but he is the president and COO of Opportunity Education, a company that provides educational materials to private and charter schools, and he’s the President of a company called FactualIQ which uses AI to help “leaders in mid-market companies make strategic decisions rapidly”, and he’s on the Advisory Board of another company called Straight Arrow News, a news site that promises to provide “unbiased news, without agenda”. Straight Arrow News even shows news stories that are primarily being reported by left wing or right wing news sources in order to show people things that they might be missing in their bias blind spots. Well, that sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, they say this “Media Miss” feature is done via their partnership with (you guessed it) Ground News.

And who actually owns Straight Arrow News, FactualIQ, and Opportunity Education? One Joe Rickets, founder of TD Ameritrade and billionaire Republican megadonor involved in a number of conservative organizations and projects, and someone who’s donated millions of dollars to the campaigns of Donald Trump. Well, that’s curious. As I said, if you invest in a company you typically get a seat on the board but if you’re a big company or a very wealthy person with lots of companies you’re involved in, you delegate that responsibility to one of your employees, who answers to you. So it sure seems like Rickets is one of those “mission-aligned investors” of the site, especially since his own site uses their product. Rickets also, incidentally, founded the news site DNAInfo in 2009, but shut it down along with other news sites he’d acquired, Gothamist, LAist, and DCist, in 2017 when their staff voted to unionize. What a swell guy.

Special thanks by the way to Jude Pean for bringing my attention to SnapWise and its board.

But let’s keep going. As mentioned in the last video, Ground News bases its ratings on the work of three other independent companies, AllSides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias/Fact Check.

The CEO of AllSides is John Gable, an entrepreneur who has worked for the Republican National Committee and describes himself as “Lean Right”. Just a little lean. According to their website, he started the company with the CTO Scott McDonald, a developer and entrepreneur who describes himself as politically center (though we’ve seen what that bias rating apparently means). They brought on Joan Blades as a member of the board (she seems to have no other role), a woman who co-founded MoveOn.org in 1998 and rates herself as politically Left. Now, founding MoveOn, an organization that endorsed Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, is a genuine left/liberal bonafide. However, Blades doesn’t seem to have been involved with MoveOn for some time. A successful and wealthy entrepreneur, Blades has written a girlboss business book, founded a woman’s advocacy group called Mom’s Rising, and has focused on “political polarization”, with a project to get people to have conversations “across the political aisle” called Living Room Conversations. Because she has no actual role in the day-to-day operations of the company, she seems to be there as a kind of token liberal to lend legitimacy.

According to the site, these three have a controlling stake in the company and are the only members of the board. Needless to say, none of them have any background in journalism. Meanwhile, the “director of communications and bias services” who wrote many articles and guides to media bias, Julie Mastrine, rates herself as “lean right” and according to the Team Political Alignment page can be associated with the notional American political faction the “Patriot Party”, the “party of Donald Trump’s 2016 primary campaign”, who are “the coalition of the small town, white working-class Americans who feel left behind by globalism and condescended to by cosmopolitanism”. (Forget that the idea that Trump’s base was primarily working class is more of a marketing point than anything based in reality, with his voters actually tending to have higher-than-average education and income, but I digress.) And her bias guides openly advocate “both sides” reporting, saying “A balanced piece of journalism will include perspectives from both sides in equal measure.”

In reality, this kind of both-sidesism is itself actually a form of media bias; giving both sides when one side is telling the truth and the other is lying just legitimizes the lie. In fact, if you wanted to intentionally legitimize a lie while trying coming off as unbiased and impartial, both sides reporting is not a bad way to do it. And her bias guides are embedded with all sorts of right-wing assumptions.

For example, in her article “Beyond Left vs Right: 14 Types of Ideological Bias”, Mastrine has some odd choices for types of ideological bias. For example, along with things like “authoritarian vs. libertarian” and “traditionalist vs. progressive”, she has “elitist vs. populist”, which is a framing that obviously flatters the populist; people who are against populism don’t call themselves “elitists”. Further, she notes there, “Because major institutions of power are concentrated in American coastal cities, we often hear about the conflicting values and ideologies between ‘coastal elites’ and ‘rural/middle America’ — another way of framing elitism v. populism.” And this is certainly the way the Right likes to frame elitism, but it has nothing to do with the actual divide between rich and poor, with plenty of poverty in coastal cities, and with supposed right wing “populists” actually representing the interests of the rich and powerful, as one can see by the fact that one of Trump’s key laws massively slashed taxes on the rich. But worse is the entry “Nationalist/Localist vs Globalist”. Much as no one actually calls themselves an “elitist”, no one calls themselves a “globalist”. In fact, the term “globalist” is only used by the Right, and is historically associated with a shadowy international cabal of financiers and even more precisely an antisemitic notion of the sinister power of international Jewry. As for “Nationalist”, when that word isn’t used to describe independence movements, like Irish nationalists, it’s usually used to describe, well, folks like Trump who declared “I am a Nationalist” as part of an ethno-nationalist program against those of a different ethnicity than the majority by framing them as not really part of the “nation”, eg. not “real Americans”.

Far more troubling, however, is her article “Slanted: How Partisan Media Use Data to Draw Wildly Different Conclusions”. In talking about voter fraud in the US, Mastrine has quotes from both NPR and the Heritage Foundation (implying both are equally valid sources even though one’s a news organization and the other’s a right-wing think tank), and concludes, “In sum, the right says the available numbers show fraud exists and have changed elections, and that fraud might be much more frequent than reported because it’s so hard to catch; the left looks at the numbers and says it’s not a big problem.”

Now, besides the weaseliness of the phrase “might be much more frequent than reported”, where you’re basically imagining evidence that isn’t there, every source I’ve found that isn’t explicitly right-wing concludes that the Heritage numbers are wildly inflated, grossly exaggerated, and devoid of context. For example, Heritage claims thousands of non-citizens were registered to vote in Virginia, when the case more likely involves human error like people who didn’t check the citizenship box in their DMV form or checking it erroneously and then not replying to a notice to correct the error within 14 days and so being removed from the roles. The Heritage voter fraud database itself only contains 1,100 individuals total across 749 cases going back decades, with the oldest from 1948, out of millions of votes cast and even the contents of that database include a lot of incredibly questionable things.

In other words, voter fraud isn’t a case of two sides drawing different conclusions from the same data, it’s a case of one side brazenly lying about the data and the other side not doing that.

Far worse, though, is section on “police brutality”, which discusses a statistic that “black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers” and whether or not that’s evidence of racism in the police. Much space is given here to right wing writer Heather Mac Donald explaining that black people are just more likely to commit crimes and therefore more likely to encounter the police, including the whopper, “In St. Louis, she says, blacks commit up to 100% of all homicides, though they are less than 50% of the population”.

Mastrine then concludes by saying that both sides apparently agree that there needs to be more research around “violence in the black community”.

So… this is really, really racist. Mac Donald is explicitly saying that police violence against blacks is the fault of black people because they’re inherently violent. And Mastrine then essentially agrees and says what needs to be studied more is not police violence but black violence.

Now if someone were actually interrogating the bias of Mac Donald’s piece, they could point out that the term “up to” in “up to 100%” is a weasel phrase, used to make one high statistic stand in for many. They could point out the statistic is cherry picked from a single police report from 2017 covering only 15 homicides that doesn’t distinguish between suspects and convicts, meaning guilt hasn’t been proven. And the statistic is false anyway, because the same report covers 28 homicides, meaning for 13 cases or 46% there’s no suspect at all. In fact, as noted by APM Reports, of the 1,900 homicides in St. Louis between 2014 and 2023, 1,000, or more than half, of them remain unsolved, so you can’t credibly claim that more than half of homicides are committed by blacks. They could talk also about the prevalence racial profiling, and about how blacks are far more likely to be exonerated for crimes than whites because they’re much more likely to be wrongfully convicted. They could even bring up the relationship between poverty, inequality, and crime, the fact that on average whites in St. Louis are four times wealthier than blacks, and the systems that work to keep them that way, including racial profiling and police brutality. And of course they could point to plenty of actual research on systemic racism in police killings, showing that police brutality on African Americans is a very real problem, if George Floyd and the New York police once sodomizing a man with a broomstick weren’t enough to convince you. In fact, if Mac Donald blaming the victims of these crimes reminds you at all of the reporting on lynching I talked about in the last episode that firmly blamed lynching on the victims and their behavior, well, that’s what it reminds me of too.

But this kind of analysis would require someone to actually care about how data is misused to further a particular agenda and to reinforce existing stereotypes and social hierarchies. Instead, all this does is demonstrate all too well how “both sides” reporting, rather than exposing truths, actually aids in obscuring them. In fact, Mastrine’s whole “Slanted” document is basically an instruction set for how to use a neutral tone and “both sides” framing to validate and legitimize falsehoods and lies.

Moving on to Ad Fontes Media, which was founded by Vanessa Otero, and began life as the “Media Bias Chart”, a chart that place news organizations on a graph with four axes, left and right, and more or less reliable (ie. truthfull). Otero does not have a background in information literacy or journalism. She was an intellectual property lawyer, and before that apparently worked as a regional advisor for Nouveau Riche, “a non-accredited vocational school specializing in real estate investing” that was later exposed as a multi-level marketing scam. And the board of directors of Ad Fontes Media is entirely made up of venture capitalist and business types, though the “Advisory Board” does have a token journalism professor, Walter Dean, who apparently helped develop their rating methodology. And there’s an actual economist there too who writes about political bias, Max Sterns. But the rest are wealthy investors, finance, and marketing types, and there are a lot of them, four on the board of directors besides Otero, and sixteen others on the advisory board.

And just looking at the Bias Chart, perhaps the most obvious thing that jumps out at you is that there seems to be a confluence between how politically “center” outlets are and how “reliable” they supposedly are. And because of how “center” seems to be defined, this creates some odd results, for example 60 Minutes, which is marked as leaning left, seems to have a similar reliability score as Fox News. This chart, in other words, could be used in the dictionary definition of “false equivalence”. Also it’s hard to understand, for example, classifying The Young Turks, a show that bills itself as “progressive”, as being farther left than the openly socialist Jacobin Magazine, unless you think more inflammatory rhetoric (with lots of exclamation points) are what makes something more “left”. I tried to dig in more into how exactly these scores were reached, but while they’ll give you scores for some specific articles there isn’t a lot of detail. For example, Jacobin has an article called “The Government’s Own Number Crunchers Agree: We Need Medicare for All” which Ad Fontes Media gives a left bias score (which is to be expected) but also a relatively low reliability score. However, the numbers that are discussed in the article, which mainly come from the government’s own Congressional Budget Office, seem pretty accurate to my mind, and I’d be curious to know exactly what the Ad Fontes Team found unreliable about them.

Ad Fontes Media has a white paper that describes their ratings methodology. And while this document doesn’t have the obvious red flags of the Allsides material, it becomes pretty clear how their ratings come to be the way they are. First off, it rates the political spectrum specifically in terms of the positions of US elected officials, which is already going to be a problem if the ostensibly “left” party is more like a European conservative party while the other one decided to take a dive straight into the deep end of the fascism pool. But it’s also worth noting that even Democratic elected representatives are generally well to the right of the Democratic electorate. As mentioned, Ad Fontes Media gave a high left bias score to a pro-Medicare-for-All article, which might indeed be a far-left position for our elected representatives, but it’s a position that’s actually supported by a majority of Americans and therefore should really be a center position for Americans as a whole, with the bias of our politicians against it evidence of the fundamentally undemocratic nature of our electoral system. Or consider how many Democratic politicians seem to support cryptodespite it being unpopular with their voters, thanks to their willingness to service the billionaires who pay for their campaigns or might pay for the campaigns of their opponents.

And this rightward tilt of the bias scale is exacerbated by the methodology used to rate articles and news sources. Each article is rated by a team of three “analysts” who self-identify as left-leaning, center, and right-leaning.

Now take an article like the one above from Jacobin which lays out the data about how medicare-for-all actually gives people better care for less money. In terms of the bias rating, of course everyone will rate this article “left” given the parameters that have been set. But when it comes to evaluating the reliability, the right-leaning person is going to question all the numbers and perhaps produce contrary numbers provided by right-wing media; someone like Julie Mastrine from Allsides or Heather Mac Donald in this milieu could probably produce the kind of bogus data just as Mac Donald did about black violence in order to make the claims Jacobin seem less reliable. And since the political scale used here is defined by our elected officials, it’s possible none of the three might be in favor of Medicare-for-All, and so predisposed to believe information sewing doubts on the Jacobin claims. According to the methodology document, if the scores are within an 8-point range (out of 64) they’re averaged together, and if they’re not within an 8-point range there’s a discussion to try and bring them within that range, or else the article is sent to another set of analysts. Which means as long as things are within that range, the justification for the rating doesn’t even get discussed, and any actual research involved might be cursory if done at all. The whole system seems built, in other words, to favor a right-leaning perspective with few guardrails to ensure that the whole thing isn’t based chiefly on “vibes”.

Now, compare this to the work of an actual fact-checker at a news organization, who’s expected to have certain credentials, experience, and professionalism. Which isn’t to say that these fact checkers are infallible or that this system is perfect, it’s obviously not. But it certainly doesn’t operate with the assumption that different political biases are necessarily equally reliable, especially when one side is known for bad faith arguments and the belief that winning is more important than being truthful. The side that consistently claims things like global warming is a hoax, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, vaccines are bad, and the efficacy of trickle-down economics is not a side you can rely on to evaluate the truthfulness of statements, and if you don’t understand that you don’t really understand anything.

But at least you can speed up the process by using AI, which is also something Ad Fontes Media has been doing. So that’s something we can trust in, right?

And finally, we come to Media Bias/Fact Check, which is completely owned and operated by one Dave Van Zandt,who according to the site retains “final editorial authority”. The site does not have paid employees, only volunteers. Unsurprisingly, then, MBFC doesn’t try to vet every single piece of news, but instead samples “a minimum of 10 headlines and 5 news stories” from each news source to determine ratings. Which… doesn’t seem like enough? But okay.

Van Zandt proudly claims to be apolitical, as if that were a good thing, saying the only political contribution he ever made was giving $10 to the campaign of Bernie Sanders out of an objection to corporate influence in politics. So that’s nice. And Van Zandt apparently works in health care, though I haven’t been able to determine what he actually does in health care.

Media Bias/Fact Check has its own methodology page where it describes bias along four categories: Economic, Social, “Straight News”, and “Editorial Bias”. Now, for the economic scale, well, their definitions of “communism”, “socialism”, and “democratic socialism” are completely wrong, though it’d take too long to explain why here, see my episode “Star Trek into Socialism” for more about that. But at least they’re on the scale and mentioned as things that exist. And it while it can make sense to rate the “straight news” and “editorial” (which is to say “opinion”) biases differently, it’s strange that they’re separate from the economic and social categories that then become part of the final ratings with them, when it seems like the economic and social categories are what you’d rate the news and editorial sections with. But ultimately, this methodology really seems designed around the particular idiosyncrasies of a single person, which is a problem particularly when that person doesn’t have a background in journalism or media analysis. Still, Media Bias/Fact Check is the only one that actually rates the Wall Street Journal as right-wing, so that’s something. They’re also the only ones who are staunchly against using AI to do their work for them. Which I suppose points to the lack of wealthy venture capitalists breathing down their neck.

Now, an obvious objection to my pointing out these companies being largely funded by venture capitalists and run by entrepreneurs would be to say, “what do you expect? That’s who funds and runs companies.” Well, yes, but that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? As Upton Sinclair was pointing out over a hundred years ago, the rich own the media and the the rich are far more likely to be right-wing than left, with ever more media organizations being bought by ever richer people and ever more right-wing people. Which is to say, the leadership and ownership of these bias rating companies—with the possible exception of Media Bias/Fact Check, since I don’t know the financial situation of Van Zandt, seems to be stock full of exactly the sort of people who might be, say, getting very concerned, as the Economist was, about the rise of Gen-Z socialists who might try to tax away their money. I mean, we know what the politics of Silicon Valley are like these days, don’t we?

And the thing is, most people don’t have much tolerance for right-wing media, especially when it glorifies as nakedly corrupt, dishonest, and violent an administration as the current one. You’re probably not picking up the National Review or turning on Fox News if you’re not already pretty deep in the pool yourself. So why wouldn’t a billionaire Republican megadonor, someone from an investment bank with Republican ties, and an engineer see an aggregator showing news from “all sides” as an effective tool for exposing non-right wingers to right wing viewpoints? An aggregator that will further serve to push to the extreme and delegitimize actual socialist ideas while legitimizing right-wing ones and place them closer to the supposedly “reliable” center.

Because this is the thing, even if Ground News and these other services aren’t deliberately right-wing psy-ops, their clearly doing the same functions as one.

And the more Reactionary wing of the capitalist class has gotten ever larger, bolder, more powerful, and much, much richer, while the less Reactionary wing is only too willing to make space for them. As an illustration, the supposedly center left New York Times just happily gave editorial space to David Ellison to claim that he didn’t want to make unbiased news at all, he wants to make news that’s “straight down the middle”. Which must be why he gave CBS to Bari Weiss of the right wing Free Press, who’s proceeded to fire longtime journalists and replace them with right-wing hacks, often with little journalism experience, and force Trump talking points on journalists about things like ICE murders. But as we’ve seen many times before, part of the way the notional “neutrality” of AG Sulzberger’s New York Times manifests is its willingness to let right wingers openly lie in its pages with little pushback. And the more that the economy goes K-shaped, the more wealth inequality increases, the more people are forced into poverty wages and homeless encampments while others have more wealth than anyone in history, the more capitalism spins apart, the more the capitalists are going to close ranks to shut the rest of us out.

So what do you think? Do you think Ground News is actually a right-wing psy-op? Let me know in the comments.

Also, I promised a note on the term “liberalism” because it came up in the comments a lot. As I’ve discussed before, the main problem with the term is that it has different definitions depending on who’s using it and the context in which it’s used. Like the “Liberal” party of Australia is what we in America would call “libertarian”, in favor of free markets with little government oversight, and this is what’s also sometimes called “classical liberal”. “Neoliberalism” is actually called that because its the new version of this kind of liberalism.

In America, though, “Liberal” is sometimes used to mean “left” where someone who’s more left is “more liberal”, which actually mirrors what happened to the word “conservative” which is also something that didn’t used to work that way, being more right-wing didn’t used to mean you were “more conservative”, it just meant you were reactionary. I actually use the term “liberal” this way a few times in the Ground News piece as shorthand, just because it’s the way the conservatives are also using it, but I know it can be confusing. Because we leftists, particularly in America, tend to use the term “liberal” to describe the position of wanting to preserve capitalism but have a welfare state and regulatory controls to guard against its worst effects, which is distinct from actual “leftism” which wants to abolish capitalism. This, of course, is why calling the New York Times “leftist” or talking about “left wing billionaires” or describing, say, Barack Obama as a “leftist” is the height of absurdity to us. And liberalism by this definition actually basically describes the status quo, and defending that and believing change should be slow and careful is the traditional definition of conservatism, which is why we say liberals are conservative and also why in this country we have one conservative party and one fascist party. But this variance in definitions and understandings is just another reason why trying to divide up the news media in terms of a simple left-right spectrum makes no sense and a service which makes these determinations for you is one that’s not revealing something but imposing a very specific political worldview and portraying that as reality. And that’s why we have to ask what this worldview actually is, what does it imply, and who might be trying to impose it on us.

Anyway, I talk more about conservatism and fascism in the episode “How Conservatives Become Fascists”. And I talk a lot more about the origin of the term “liberal” and how it got to mean these different things in an essay available only on my Patreon at Patreon.com/ericrosenfield. And consider helping support this channel on Patreon for only $1 a month and getting early, ad-free episodes, exclusive author’s notes, and more.

And also like and subscribe, and I also have a Discord server now, link in the description. I promise the next video will not be about Ground News. And I’d like to thank all my patrons for their continued support. I’ve also added a tier where I shout-out my $10 Patrons, so I’d like to especially thank Danny Tomicek, Chaos Gritty, Curtis Shea, Tim Nolan, AnnaLovesRiley, Peter Bostrom, K8, Mohammad Amer, Steve Lewis, and Nancy Rosen. Thank you all so much!

Bibliography

Books

The View from Somewhere: Undoing the Myth of Journalistic Objectivity, Lewis Raven Wallace, 2019
Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics, Nicole Hemmer, 2018

Articles

Is Ground News a right-wing psy-op?

Bibliography

Leave A Reply Cancel reply