Guys, I'm here to break some news to you: We aren't a bunch of latte-sipping soy boys in pajamas that spent our years in college learning to be trained monkeys that can churn out propaganda in AP Style.
In fact, Not The Bee is a direct reaction against the holier-than-thou institutional media and its elitist gatekeepers – a gaggle that has, for decades, had its head in the clouds and demands respect because sometime back in 1920, there was an editor somewhere who actually cared about objectivity and journalistic integrity.
Likewise, our big bro The Babylon Bee is a reaction against the sacred cows of those in power, poking fun at their smugness and solemnity and traditions like Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.
We have never purported to be an objective outlet.
We write openly with said biases, because we believe you are adults with eyes and functioning prefrontal cortexes who would like to dialogue with other adults without the Ministry of Truth telling you what to think under the guise of objectivity.
This is why I found it absolutely hilarious that editors over at Wikipedia had a long discussion about our reliability as outlets.
Some screenshots in case this story gets traction and they take down the link:
Yep, we're right in there between terrorism and beaches.
I love it.
Now look at the setup for the discussion:
If you're wondering what "harmful" article example they linked to, it was this:
Yep, we called out groomers and abusive parents who have caused immense harm to their daughter by telling her she's a boy.
But we are the harmful ones for thinking that this is a bad thing!
We also don't separate opinion from factual reporting, which is totally what the mainstream media does with 24/7 feeds on Orange Man Bad, how Mother Earth is burning, why Joe Biden's latest ice cream flavor proves he's the Messiah, and those "pouncing" Republicans.
You want to know why some of our authors are anonymous? Because they would be utterly destroyed by people like Taylor Lorenz at WaPo, who regularly dox ordinary citizens who threaten the regime instead of making sure democracy doesn't die in darkness.
Our motto is "What A Time To Be Alive," because we report on news that should be fringe satire but instead is real life. If we reported it all with a straight face, you honestly wouldn't believe it was real!
These guys are gonna make Harambe cry!
Oh, I can assure you that we in no way consider ourselves "legit."
See, legitimacy as they mean it is defined by support from ruling institutions. Our credibility is based one whether the right people give us the right honors, degrees, and awards.
Simply put, we don't want any of that. We aren't the English nobility looking down our noses at you little people and hiding behind fancy titles and accolades.
Our reliability is proven in the trenches next to you all, by the weight of our words alone.
You might think we're the crazy Irishman, or you might think we're William Wallace himself, but either way, we're all shaking our derrières at the elites as we prepare for battle.
Do our staff members have formal training and degrees in journalism? Yes. Does that matter to us? Very little.
What's more important is that we're average husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, who see the need for laughing at the impending train wreck facing our nation and civilization in the hopes that someone will see through the media's Wizard-of-Oz charade that's dominated American life for decades.
There ya go!
Lest you think these editors – the purported Gatekeepers of Reliability for all the Kingdom of Wiki – have the capability to objectively note that we are certainly a humorous news outlet with an open bias but that this doesn't mean we are unreliable, hold up:
Amazing.
Again, these people think they are the Last Bastion of Truth for the internet, and that their word will carry forward through time to inform all the peoples of the world of what is right. And in that noble quest, they believe themselves to be the only objective thinkers in all said world, rightly able to stay unbiased while wisely sifting through the facts.
These stalwart editors then throw out conservative "talking points," Tucker Carlsen [sic]," and "wack" in the same statement.
Yep. Totally objective.
Reminds me of the atheists who used to run around my high school looking down on anyone who believed in God. So smart! So enlightened! So unbiased!
See how enlightened this editor is? He or she consumes media from both sides of the spectrum and is above us all.
I want to focus in on the use of one word though:
"Supposedly"
Oh, the absurdity of the Left is merely alleged or supposed??
* * *
* * *
Yeah, that was like the first three articles I came across in a 3-second search. We have thousands of articles like that.
In the end, the discussion was closed, since the moderators didn't think us worthy of their time.
As an outlet, do we get things wrong? Yep. Information travels fast. There are definitely times we report on things – like the "Ghost of Kyiv" – that other outlets are reporting but that turn out to be fake.
We also have 1/1,000th of the staff of a typical media outlet, and even less of a budget.
And yet we, some random men and women writing from our living rooms while our kids run around screaming and our dogs are barking at the mailman, are taking on the woke establishment with its billions of dollars and decades of momentum.
In case you're wondering, here are a few outlets that Wikipedia considers "reliable."
- Buzzfeed News
- CNN
- Los Angeles Times
- MSNBC
- The Nation
- NPR
- The New York Times
- Playboy
- Politifact
- Vogue
Holy moly am I glad we are not on that list! Please peruse our archives for plenty of examples about many of these outlets and their "reliability."
After all, my college professors always told me that using any list or citation from Wikipedia would not be accepted due to its lack of reliability!
________
Thanks to an anonymous reader for the tip on this amazing article that Wikipedia can be sure to reference when determining which gulag I should be sent to!
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
