ideologyhunter
Contributor
Right, and my comment about "keep me sane" didn't say that I get my news from him. Puhleeze.
Left Wing Extremist News Bending to Trump
- Thread starter Elixir
- Start date
Gospel
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
The only news outlet that comes to mind that hasn’t changed much over the years is Democracy Now. Clearly left-leaning, which doesn’t bother me, but people on the right, and even some in the center, might not find it palatable. Still, in my opinion, it’s a lot better than MSNBC & CNN.
Derec
Contributor
AutocracyNow! is antisemitic, tankie slop.
I had to look up "tankie".
You are so full of shite!!
Anybody that opposes United Healthcare having a monopoly that fucks practitioners and patients while vacuuming up all health care spending is a tankie. Likewise, if you support human rights you are a tankie. It is overbearing government that doesn’t let a corporation do anything it wants anywhere it wants. Only a tankie would support blocking a copper mine to protect water quality and fisheries downstream or keep hard rock mining out of the boundary waters.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 17,032
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
It has several, but MSNBC ain't that.
Try:
Jacobin
Democracy Now
The Intercept
Pink News
Urban View
Last edited:
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 23,589
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I’ve found NPR to be consistently good over the decades, thoughtful and not biased.
southernhybrid
Contributor
Although I am a fan of MSNOW, my favorite source of news is the NYTImes. It has won more pulitzer prizes than any other source of American news. It has opinion columnists from both sides and sometimes one from the right and one from the left will discuss an issue together. While fact check says the Times leans left, I find it to be very objective when it comes to the actual news. And, the Times will admit if it makes a mistake. News should be as objective as possible, not full of disinformation. There is a big difference between an opinion columnist and a news reporter. The Times has both and I like that. I started reading the NYT when I was in high school and I've been a subscriber to the online version for well over 20 years.
WaPo has become a bit weird in recent months, but it does have wonderful stories about dogs, which is my excuse for keeping my subscription. Most of the better opinion columnists have left or been fired. I know Bezos doesn't write the articles, but it does seem like he has a lot of control over the vibes of WaPo.
I also subscribe to Scientific American and that source has daily news updates, including about politics, assuming one reads the online version. I like SA and when it comes to news, it's quite left leaning.
At least for now, we have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Even that news source is more centrist than it used to be. It has a lot of articles that criticize Trump, although I don't read it very often. So, I think we have access to quite a few decent sources of news and I think it's best to hear both sides.
I'm not talking about Fox or Newsmax, as they are full of disinformation and nonsense. They are not actual sources of news. They are sources to indoctrinate people who are far right. When I was still working, most of my patients were tuned in to Fox most of the time. No wonder they all voted for Trump when he ran the first time. The few who didn't vote for Trump, usually watched what was then called MSNBC or CNN.
WaPo has become a bit weird in recent months, but it does have wonderful stories about dogs, which is my excuse for keeping my subscription. Most of the better opinion columnists have left or been fired. I know Bezos doesn't write the articles, but it does seem like he has a lot of control over the vibes of WaPo.
I also subscribe to Scientific American and that source has daily news updates, including about politics, assuming one reads the online version. I like SA and when it comes to news, it's quite left leaning.
At least for now, we have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Even that news source is more centrist than it used to be. It has a lot of articles that criticize Trump, although I don't read it very often. So, I think we have access to quite a few decent sources of news and I think it's best to hear both sides.
I'm not talking about Fox or Newsmax, as they are full of disinformation and nonsense. They are not actual sources of news. They are sources to indoctrinate people who are far right. When I was still working, most of my patients were tuned in to Fox most of the time. No wonder they all voted for Trump when he ran the first time. The few who didn't vote for Trump, usually watched what was then called MSNBC or CNN.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 18,223
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I can't help but think Pood should discuss this, as they have some professional history or contact with The Times?
This is not my impression of the NYT at all, though.
Rather, the NYT seems very keen on presenting a bias, albeit it's a bias that's hard to see for anyone actually interested in good will towards all: they are heavily pro-business/corporate/industry/investment class, and they use this "apparent lack of bias" in a subtle way to create a further anti-liberal bias because reality itself has a liberal bias.
By simply pretending to eliminate biases, and eliminating that one bias in particular, you can present a facially "neutral-left" seeming news source that pulls people rightward. All it takes is actually reporting all the information in an "unbiased" way, because reality has that liberal bias.
Every news source that is in reality unbiased WILL have a vaguely identifiable liberal bias to it because that's just reality itself shining through.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 23,589
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I also read the NYTimes, and WaPo, out of habit as many years ago, part of my job was actually to read NYT, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, LA Times and some others on a daily basis. Never has NYT been written for or in support of the masses, except in a general way: not all their readers or subscribers work on Wall Street, or in the fashion industry or in theater or music or art—or even real estate nor aspire to work there. But NYT definitely thinks we all aspire to.
My observation is that wherever I’ve lived, the major metropolitan area of that state ( to be fair, it’s only been 4 states) sees itself as The Center of the Universe or at least of the US. Most realistically that has been Washington DC and NYC, who could arguably make the claim that they are centers of all things important. In the Midwest, people tend to see themselves and their state as being more genuine and more genuinely American and therefore, the true center of the US, and lack any pretensions to any larger part of the world. Hailing from the Midwest, I was absolutely shocked at just how insular and self important those adjacent to politicians could be. Also: parties were not for socializing but for making connections and deals. I was very young and naive.
Midwesterners are very certain that all of that is very artificial—and to some extent, they are correct. But they have their own delusions of self- importance, basically centering on believing they are the true Americans, the working people. Again, true to a certain extent.
It is far easier to see the good in those surrounding you and the evil in those who are distant.
Take everything with a grain of salt.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 17,032
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Like most news outlets, the NY Times is meant to feel neutral, unbiased, and honest... to its target readership, aka white middle class New Yorkers. That means they are heavily emphasizing some stories and suppressing others. The most recent scandal in DC or a war the US is involved in will almost always have the front page. An opinion piece by a Marxist will never be. Neutrality is a useful myth in a nation that is as vast and diverse as ours. At the end of the day a media outlet must choose whose sense of "normality" to cater to.
crazyfingers
Meow
I've forgotten which Republican claimed that facts are liberal.
But the implication was that any news source that provides the facts is by definition left wing crazy woke fake news.
But the implication was that any news source that provides the facts is by definition left wing crazy woke fake news.
It was Colbert who said reality has a liberal bias.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
One's ethics should have a liberal bias. Reality does not, at least not the reality I've witnessed in the past 60 years.
Why anyone would continue to frequent a news source just because they've always done so is beyond me. Special features aside, you are doing yourself a disservice. In the navy, I read mostly USA Today and Stars & Stripes because those were the newspapers available on base. It was good because I had two news sources to compare often the same coverage. Once the internet came around I did not continue to read them simply out of habit.
In the last seven or so years, I've gravitated toward Reuters, and lo and behold, even Media Bias/Fact Check rates them "very high". About the same time, I gave equal time to Associated Press. Over the years I've found them to have a slight liberal bias. I bet Media Bias/Fact Check rates them slightly less than Reuters. Hey look. They do. Amazing. Regarding AP and their slight liberal bias, I say this because they provide outsized negative coverage on Trump. My first thought is to say, "deservedly so". The man is a cancer on humanity. But it still has the potential to bias the reader as doing so in my opinion promotes confirmation bias.
It's not just what a news service reports but how they report it. How much length they give a particular subject. How and where the fact are presented. What gets the front page and how often it gets it.
Why anyone would continue to frequent a news source just because they've always done so is beyond me. Special features aside, you are doing yourself a disservice. In the navy, I read mostly USA Today and Stars & Stripes because those were the newspapers available on base. It was good because I had two news sources to compare often the same coverage. Once the internet came around I did not continue to read them simply out of habit.
In the last seven or so years, I've gravitated toward Reuters, and lo and behold, even Media Bias/Fact Check rates them "very high". About the same time, I gave equal time to Associated Press. Over the years I've found them to have a slight liberal bias. I bet Media Bias/Fact Check rates them slightly less than Reuters. Hey look. They do. Amazing. Regarding AP and their slight liberal bias, I say this because they provide outsized negative coverage on Trump. My first thought is to say, "deservedly so". The man is a cancer on humanity. But it still has the potential to bias the reader as doing so in my opinion promotes confirmation bias.
It's not just what a news service reports but how they report it. How much length they give a particular subject. How and where the fact are presented. What gets the front page and how often it gets it.
MB/FC said:
MB/FC said: