Media Bias Fact Check’s In-Depth Review of New Discourses: An Extreme Right Website with Low Credibility

New Discourses - Extreme Right Bias - Propaganda - Fake News - Not CredibleFactual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias


On May 27, 2024, Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) conducted a comprehensive review of the website “New Discourses,” founded by Dr. James Lindsay, an American author and critic of Critical Race Theory. According to MBFC’s analysis, the website, which aims to promote free inquiry and dialogue free from political correctness and ideological constraints, had several questionable aspects.

MBFC identified the website as having an extreme right bias and low factual reporting. The reasoning for this rating included the promotion of propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and hate.

New Discourses is privately owned and operated by Lindsay, a self-proclaimed critical race theory expert who generates revenue through book sales, donations, and subscription-based content.

An analysis of content shows that the website strongly opposes Critical Social Justice and related movements. It often publishes content that critiques progressive ideologies and defends conservative values. MBFC notes that the site’s framing and language often emphasize the dangers of progressive ideologies, portraying them as threats to free speech and liberal democracy.

Further, the Southern Poverty Law Center states that Lindsay regularly shares conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world, promotes rhetoric against the LGBTQ community, and spreads the “white genocide” theory. Finally, MBFC found that politically and editorially, New Discourses exhibits an extreme right bias that rails against Critical Race Theory, Wokeness, DEI, LGBTQ, and the threat of communism.

In conclusion, MBFC rates New Discourses as extreme right-biased and questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, poor sourcing, false claims, and being labeled as extremist by a third-party group. This review serves as a reminder for readers to approach the content on New Discourses with caution and critical thinking.

Read MBFC’s Full Review of New Discourses


Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 

or

MBFC Donation


Follow Media Bias Fact Check: 

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media:

Subscribe With Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to MBFC and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 21.3K other subscribers



Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous

we’re LMAO-ing at you losers.

Anonymous

He’s not wrong.

Anonymous

he is not extreme right, he is center. his criticisms against critical race theory, dei, wokeness, and communism are all correct. he is not radical, he is opposed to radicals.

Anonymous

James Lindsay’s work, along with New Discourses’ contributors, is meticulously cited, pulling from the most influential minds and key/seminal texts of every subject they write on.

This poorly-researched and slanderous review was clearly written as a hit job by some leftist loser who is desperately trying to discredit Lindsay’s detailed critiques of the new authoritarian left ideologies.

I encourage everyone to read New Discourses and James Lindsay’s books. They are brilliant and stand on their own. The last thing the author of this takedown wants is for you to read his writings, because they can break the spell of leftist propaganda on their readers.

I recommend starting with Cynical Theories and New Discourses website but Race Marxism and The Queering of the American Child are also essential reading.

MBFC (the better one)

On June 6, 2024, I conducted a comprehensive review of the website “Media Bias Fact Check,” founded by Dave M. Van Zandt, a college graduate.

A thorough analysis of content shows that the website strongly opposes right wing and conservative values. It often publishes content that critiques conservative ideologies and defends progressive values. MBFC notes that the site’s framing and language often emphasize the dangers of conservative ideologies, portraying them as threats to democracy.

In conclusion, I rate MBFC as an extreme left-biased and questionable website based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, poor sourcing, false claims, and blatant pandering to left-wing websites. This review serves as a reminder for readers to approach the content on MBFC with caution and critical thinking, and as a suggestion to MBFC to actually cite specifically what discredits a news website.

Sarah

Where is the detailed breakdown of false statements Lindsay has made? This is just a slew of accusations without any citations or evidence. This website is a sad joke.

Anonymous

The New Discourses website is heavily referenced and uses original sources and linked for independent review. This review and rating appear to be more “left-wing” propaganda than objective review.

Anonymous

So. The bias is yours, not New Discourses. Check.

Anonymous

This comments section is proof that people who comment on political articles are usually idiots.

Anonymous

New Discourses is an incredibly dense chunk of reading (most of the articles are dozens of pages long and aren’t using small words). It can take over an hour to get through just one of them, and there are dozens upon dozens – before you even get to some of the opinion pieces or original works. If somebody is claiming they did a “comprehensive” review of all that content, PLUS an actual, thorough, credible cross-check of the cited sources – and there are a huge number of them – then just the claim alone that they did all that in a single day basically proves they’re lying. It would take multiple people several weeks to do analysis at that depth with any credibility.