Amazon.com Widgets
  • Big-Big Biased Piece of Socialist Agenda Crap

    An agenda driven publication. While the articles often make a poignant point that's easy when the "fact" finding excludes the facts that don't support that point which was decided before any research is done. Their stats are always skewed, sometimes apparently made up. I've found their statistics regarding gun violence and Obamacare, for instance are completely fraudulent. Once I know that credibility on any given topic is compromised then I cannot trust anything said on any topic

  • Credible? Yes. Unbiased? No.

    Mother Jones has an excellent reputation for fact checking. See a description of their fact checking process here: http://www.motherjones.com/media/2011/12/mac-mcclelland-burma-fact-checking-politifact. In my eyes, credibility means I can trust the information in the source. I assume, however, that most sources have a bias which is why I always seek multiple sources from across the political spectrum. Most sources are biased. It is the responsibility of the reader to recognize that and account for it according when researching a subject.

  • Amazingly blind bias

    Promoting an agenda based on their political beliefs without any regard to even looking at the opposing point of view. Not a credible source at all, more propaganda in relation to election issues. It scares me that some people trust this source for a news outlet. Unfortunately as it had potential.

  • They are definitely biased

    They are definitely biased if you disagree with them, they call you racist, they call you prejudiced, they call you a homophobe. And in the comment section let you race everything that you say if it goes against what they believe. They leave nothing there in your opinion to allow may be a reader to switch his thought process. They are fact base, If you consider articles leaning to the left fact base. They are so far to the left that they fall down because there's nothing for them to lean against.

  • Mother Jones is Biased

    It's legitimate data, but it's horribly biased, and they're leaving out a lot of important statistics that point in the other direction. They're an agenda driven publication. I feel like this site is from a politician, with the information bent and twisted. I would not recommend anyone looking for a credible source to use this site.

  • All publications are agenda driven

    Find value in their agenda, then you will find their presentation very thorough. Want controversy, you've come to the right place. Want to hear your own voice telling you what you want to hear because you can't hear anything else, Mother Jones is the place to be because it'll smack you upside the head and say, get over yourself.

  • Leans Left, but facts are facts.

    Even though it is extremely left-leaning, all of their articles post the facts that they used to back up their claims. A lot of these sites that the site are credible as well. It definitely is an opinion-based website, but facts are facts, and as long as they are there, that is good enough for me.

  • Hf fjf dffjjjffff ffff

    Nff frf rf ffrr fjng fv d fnvj kgg r kdfjkw fjjefn ffjjjfk vn n nn nnn nn njfkd jfk kvnvvkvv nvnnknfvknkvn nvkfnv kn vj v v kvn bdf b v v fj j vh vfd s fh v f fhjvjfn fjidn ffjfffslkdfj fjv fjvnf v vj vfn vnnnmvn vnf

  • Sometimes uses sensationalism, but who doesn't?

    The truths found in their articles are the same truths found in other "credible" news sources. Thought-provoking headlines are meant to attract you to read the information presented, and besides, I've never seen or read a reporters message that didn't include opinion, whether that opinion be authored by the reporter or the agency itself.

  • Internationally Recognized for Excellence - Best fact-checking and legal department in the industry - maybe second to The New Yorker.

    One of the best fact-checking departments in journalism. Which is one of the reasons they're so deadly - they report pointedly on the facts. They do not omit facts that are relevant. They do deep investigative journalism which is rare these days. They have not been shown to fabricate, falsify, misrepresent, or obscure. You can base a lawsuit on their reporting it is so solid - as has been done many times! When they are challenged, they are transparent. They have never lost any court challenges. They continue to represent the best in print journalism. Right up there with The New Yorker. They won't use their publication to mislead the American people into war like The New York Times. They are sometimes a bit sensationalistic.

  • No way no how

    They tow the socialist agenda line nothing more. The people that buy into it are complete morons. The writers are worse because they know the readers are dumb as dirt and will buy into the socialist narrative. Usefull idiots all of them are to stupid to feel dumb most of the time.

  • Was very ongoing

    There were too many things in the articles, seemed like way more stuff than needed and also repeated the same thing in different ways. Also their "witnesses" almost always seem to conveniently want to remain anonymous. I'm not directly saying they make stuff up, I'm just saying that if you don't have someone identified as the witness there's no one to talk to for fact checking.

  • What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

    While they insinuate that the NRA is responsible for the deaths and injuries, they never undertake the difficult task of determining how many deaths are caused by legal weapons. In fact, their own statistics for 2012 indicate that the majority of deaths are caused by suicides, and very few of these cause the catastrophic injuries they depict in the frame story. Clearly, they are conflating legally obtained weapons with those acquired illegally by criminals. Most of the article consists of powerful emotional appeals; MoJo is not interested in reasonable analysis and is not therefore a source I would trust.

  • Just Not Credible

    I'll site what you have mention above as supporting argument as to why this publication is not a credible source to get news from. Any "news media" that solely depends on a liberal or conservative bias to defame the other party is not "News Worthy". News is supposed to be just that, news. Not a way for a particular political party to gain support.

  • It promotes racism, bigotry, and ignorance.

    Many times this "news" has provided empty arguments and cliche stories. Instead of acknowledging real events in life objectively they tend to sensationalize and make useless things important. Mother Jones is self contradictory if you look at their previous stories as they have no passion for the truth but rather seeking to appeal to their mostly liberal audience.

  • No balance here.

    Any source that leans one way is not a balanced enough perspective to determine truths beyond vested interests and selfish agenda's that do not include the best interests of all involved and affected.When one looks at who funds these biased sources,a whole new perspective can be gained,but not from publications such as this.

  • Sins of omission

    I just read their article ostensibly refuting the Heller decision on the second amendment arguing that historically it was not an individual right but was for the "militia". But they leave out the fact the 10 US Code 311 defines the militia as
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ...

  • They force you to sign-up to what they are pushing at that time in order to read their article. The information was poor and uncompleted.

    MotherJones was a waste of time and I felt used in promoting there agenda. As they say--Don't go there--. I would not trust them to have an unbiased write up on political articles. Personally, do any of you feel that any Politian is honest or truthful? So don't get caught up in this or any ones ONE opinion. Get the facts. Usually the truth takes some time to find. Hope you find this helpful.

  • NRA's Murder Mystery Biased

    The article refers to the 2nd Amendment as an individual right as an "expansive" view, "broader interpretation," and a "revisionist" view. In the commentary re: the adoption of the Second Amentment the founding fathers made it clear that the Amendment was individual. It was only in the 60's that liberal lawyers began arguing that the Amendment guaranteed a collective right. Why would only one amendment be collective?

  • Mother Jones Sucks

    An agenda driven publication. While the articles often make a poignant point that's easy when the "fact" finding excludes the facts that don't support that point which was decided before any research is done. Their stats are always skewed, sometimes apparently made up. I've found their statistics regarding gun violence and Obamacare, for instance are completely fraudulent. Once I know that credibility on any given topic is compromised then I cannot trust anything said on any topic


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.