…or a deeper look into the website and its creator.
The Gateway Pundit prides itself on Truth and exposing corruption. That is what its website says at any rate.
In this post, we will take a closer look at its header, its about page, and the wording in one of its articles.
After all, when people look to you for truth, shouldn’t you be open to when people think you’re spinning things?
What is a pundit?
Before I begin my critique of the site and the wording, I want to make it clear I am not attacking the owner of the blog. In order to understand the site, we must delve into the definition of “pundit”. As stated in the image, calling yourself a pundit means you are declaring yourself an expert on a particular subject. This means people will look to you for your expert take on matters, in this case, political discourse or political news.
To see what the political lean is on the site in general, we need to look no further than the header and the “ProTrumpNews” navigation link. He says they “report the truth” and call-out the Russian Collusion calling it a “fairy tale”.
We need to now look at the About section to get their mission statement.
As you can see, they are establishing themselves as a news and commentary site to counter the left-leaning media. I have no problems with this statement. However, it is important to take note that it not only purports to relay current events, it also makes it clear it also provides opinion.
The part I did not include here is their statement that they are conservative in nature.
Now, on to the bullet points.
As you can see, they pride themselves on truthful reporting, and they stress that any opinions stated must be back by the truth. This is admirable, but what truth? In a world dominated by left-leaning rhetoric and edited videos, how far will they go find the truth behind the overarching story? This, I feel, is very important in reporting any news and exposing anything that needs light shown upon it. After all, the truth is not true if it’s based on heavily edited video footage and misquotes.
Another thing with sites like this is the funding. Hoft makes it clear that he funds it entirely and is not restricted by outside investors, grants, or funding. Many sites like this often are.
What brought me to this site is a post that was found by one of my followers.
(Imbedded link follows that may trigger screen readers.)
This peaked my interest and immediately got my thoughts going at a mile a minute. I had to dig my teeth into it properly. So, here we go.
Headlines Are Important
In an ever-increasing world of click-bait and attention grabbing headlines, this one made me frown.
Already, the biased reporting is front-and-center. “Racist Joe” already casts the POTUS in a dark light and is more than likely going to elicit visceral responses from his readers. I am not saying there isn’t evidence of President Biden saying things that could be construed as racist, but this a blatant accusation.
Then there is the use of “Black Guy in a Power Position”. There is no denying the identarian politics at play on the left, but for a right-leaning publication to do it shows they are riding the “race card” angle in order to further fan flames of hate toward the POTUS.
With a change of a Presidential Administration, there will always be a change of staff in key positions. To call President Biden Racist just on this choice alone is disingenuous when you take a look at his cabinet appointments. His cabinet has people from all walks of life, races, genders, and so forth. One could say I already debunked his story from the headline, but then we would be forgetting the bevy of controversial statements on race he has uttered throughout the years.
From the gate, he drives home the fact that the POTUS is racist and therefore that is the reason for the dismissal. He uses more inflammatory language. Keep in mind, he did not mark this as opinion. If this would have been marked an opinion-editorial piece, I would not have an issue with it. There is no such statement to that fact.
Then, he does something that I feel discredits him. He uses himself as a source in the article, an article with only four sentences.
Remember what I said earlier about edited video? He not only uses himself as a source but links a video from someone on Twitter that features Biden when he was in Congress. When you follow the so-called source to the post, you find a screen shot of the video, not the video itself. The actual video on the cited post has nothing to do with what the post is about. He then goes onto tell us what the video says. This is not what I call trustworthy. Call me too critical, but when you link a video, at least embed the video.
He then goes on to reiterate that the President Biden fired a “black man”.
Due to the nature of many who glance over an article they see on the internet, provided they make it past the headline, how many do you think will scroll all the way to the bottom to see the statement from the person who was asked to step down?
(Imbedded link follows that may trigger screen readers.)
As a matter of fact, the former Surgeon General even links to a statement he typed on Facebook. There is no picture in the above tweet. Social media marketing research shows that people are more likely to click on a tweet with a picture or short video than just text with a link. Knowing that fact, how many people do you think followed the link to the statement?
In my humble opinion, this is not unbiased reporting. This is slanted reporting meant elicit a negative response from the reader. This has been passed as news, not opinion. There has been no clear citations linking it any evidence proving that President Biden is racist. Linking one your own blog posts doesn’t count in my book.
But who am I. I am just a writer on the internet reporting what I see and pointing out inflammatory wording when I find it. I am by no means a pundit.
Next post will be about Hannity and his post on the National Guard. See you two days from now.