Avoid a sound chamber


#1

I know I’m way go for my political news at the Washington Post the intercept and democracy Now. But it would be intellectually dishonest of me for them to be my only sources I need to look at the right. So can any of you ladies gentlemen non-binary offer me a right leaning perspective that’s not going to kill me intellectually.


#2

I highly recommend Reuters and The Wall Street Journal.


#3

Reuters is a good international and business source. I second @cascat07’s recommendation. The BBC is a good opposite of Reuters, especially for international stuff again. Money mag is another business perspective orientated source for economic news too.


#4

news.google.com will serve up a large number of sources of various political perspectives for the top issues of the day if you’re interested in additional perspectives or in giving new sources a try.

If you’re looking for quality sources that try hard to be objective, then Reuters, The Washington Post, the BBC, and the Economist are all among my favorites. The Wall Street Journal’s paywall is a pain in the backside however, and that’s the primary reason why I don’t include it on the above list. Its conservative editors tend to keep a tight reign over its liberal leaning journalists so the news is presented neutrally even if the editorial page and most of the opinion columns are conservative. While all four make an effort to be objective, Reuters is probably the least criticized of the bunch since they stick to hard news and don’t have to worry about accidentally blurring the boundaries between analysis and opinion pieces. The Washington Post tends to get the most flak of the bunch since Washington politics are their bread and butter, and they do a lot of unflattering analysis pieces based upon inside sources, ie. leaks. They tend to be a royal headache for whichever party is in power, and they’ve already managed to earn Trump’s ire. Their editors also tend to be liberal just as the Wall Street Journal’s editors tend to be conservative. Meanwhile the BBC gives a British perspective, which is always interesting, and does a good job of staying neutral with respect to American politics. The Economist is also British, but it doesn’t just cover economic issues. It’s a weekly that specializes on political analysis pieces that are well-sourced and often highly insightful.

For the conservative establishment’s perspective there is The Weekly Standard and The National Review, neither of which is particularly fond of Trump. To counter the Washinton Post’s perceived leftward bias there is the Washington Times. For the libertarian perspective there is Reason. For the Trumpian perspective there is Breitbert, but they can be a bit out there with their conspiracy theories… I haven’t read enough of the Drudge Report or the Blaze to get a feel for where they stand in the conservative constellation, especially since the advent of the earthquake known as Trump, but they are certainly highly popular with conservatives.


#5

Not to sound like this guy but I have a good friend that read those news outlets. I would argue it brain rot.


#6

You mean an echo chamber, not a sound chamber.


#7

My professor called It echo chamber, but if it have other names which most fallacies do have multiple I would not be surprised. Do you have any recommendations to help me on this quest to balance my information perspective?


#8

No, because I’ve tried to give you information before on other topics and you’ve just ignored it. Have fun.


#9

Incidentally, there’s this chart that’s been going around, plotting common online news sources based on political bias and quality of reporting/analysis.


I certainly don’t agree with all of it, and I do think the chart is a little right-biased (I’d certainly consider CNN and the Beeb to both be vaguely centrist), but it does seem to put up a pretty decent plot of relative positions.

I’ve actually started using “Breitbart” as a unit of measurement for how biased and likely to argue in bad faith out of partisanship a source or individual on the Right is.

It’s more or less a scale based on a line on that chart drawn from BBC (at 0 Breitbarts) to the right-wing tire fire itself (sitting, obviously, at 1.0 Breitbart) with everything else right of that 0 baseline in between.

I’ve been tentatively referring to the left-wing equivalent as the “Wikileak”, but I’m also questioning how much an outlet which serves as a willing dupe for a pseudo-tsarist right-wing dictatorship could qualify as “left”.


#10

Huh interesting, i read most of the time these
CNN
CBS
BBC News
USA Today
The New York Times
The Washington post
The Wall street Journal (WSJ)

Apparently i read mostly in the leans left category with only 1 in the neutral and 1 in the leans right area. I am only barely surprised by this, though i would have expected CNN and FOX to be slightly lower, fully in the upper mixed quality area.


#11

I’m not a fan of Breitbert either, I only pick through it now on occasion to get a feel for the Trumpian perspective. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother. As for The Blaze and The Drudge Report, they’re certainly very strongly partisan. I have little stomach for them myself, and you’re to my left politically speaking, so I certainly don’t blame you. I will give The Drudge Report this, for all its hyper-partisanness, it manages to get enough scoops that a lot of mainstream outlets see it as a threat and its scoops often get cited by those same mainstream outlets.

I’ve actually started using “Breitbart” as a unit of measurement for how biased and likely to argue in bad faith out of partisanship a source or individual on the Right is.

It’s more or less a scale based on a line on that chart drawn from BBC (at 0 Breitbarts) to the right-wing tire fire itself (sitting, obviously, at 1.0 Breitbart) with everything else right of that 0 baseline in between.

I’ve been tentatively referring to the left-wing equivalent as the “Wikileak”, but I’m also questioning how much an outlet which serves as a willing dupe for a pseudo-tsarist right-wing dictatorship could qualify as “left”.
[/quote]

An interesting idea.


#14

This is gonna sound a little crazy and it probably led to the fake news deluge we got during the election, but I follow a couple people that I personally respect “academically” on Facebook that are frequent users of social media. My primary political science professor in college for instance. I find his personal perspective of big events to be really enlightening and I’m basically still in his classroom to a degree. He makes a point of “being there” for big events like the inauguration and the women’s march, and I find his ground-level perspective along with a substantive constitutional law and urban politics education to be enlightening.

Obviously you have to be cognizant of the reliability of a source like that, but I’d argue taking anything at face value today is ill advised.


#15

Here is a thought imagine something being 3 breitbarts in scale


#16

That actually might be a better idea than engaging entirely through news sources, actually.
News outlets with a partisan audience will cater to that audience, and pitch their coverage in a way which is tailored for that audience. To those who don’t accept the fundamental assumptions that audience is likely to harbour, it might just convince them that said news sources (and those who listen to them) are even more wrong.

Engaging with people who disagree can be a useful way around that, especially if they’re patient enough to explain ideological fundamentals to you. There’s an added bonus in the fact that if that person lacks just as much empathy as you had originally feared, you can write them off as an asshole without writing off wide swathes of the population as such.

I’d imagine that to be somewhere between Joseph Goebbels, and Darkseid.


#17

I use many of those already actually, though for longer articles I tend to prefer both Forbes and the Atlantic these days. I guess they’ve both got some writers/journalist who consistently manage to capture my interest better than a lot of the rest of them.

Other then that there’s also the specifically gay sites for me, mainly the advocate if I want to be chilled and dismayed at the US these days.

For those who can read Dutch our state broadcaster is generally decent in its foreign reporting and leans left, while its main commercial rival, particularly in their business coverage actually tend to be very good, if you can get past the business oriented rightwards slant.


#18

The difference is simple: the people you follow identify themselves as individuals and don’t try to represent something else they are not. Many of the sources leading to “fake news” were purposefully trying to mislead people into thinking they were news organizations or such, even going as far as using logos and layouts of legitimate sites as their own.

Personal anecdotes are great sources of info but only if you recognize their bias to begin with. In covering recent events in Latvia (NATO stuff and such) I had two professors from that region giving their take on things - one was a native Latvian and the other was a ethnic Russian living in the Baltics for decades before coming to America. Both of these guys are qualified to give their opinions and you can learn a lot from both but unless you know their backgrounds you won’t be able to filter their biases out.


#19

Another thing I’ve started looking at too is Inflencers on LinkedIn. I follow a few there or am connected with business leaders that but our some in the weeds business opions and news that I like to read. Good for my career as well.


#20

Guys keep going here by the sources are giving a really awesome. Of course I would never consider RT right of anything .


#21

Technically, RT is exactly as right as Putin is.
So, in the context of the original post it was in, it’d probably fit somewhere around the “Reply” button.


#22

I found a awesome channel on YouTube called Prague U. It is a conservative leaning channel, but it even has other things. I definitely suggest you check it out.