12 ms·

Not really. CNN has gone the way of MSNBC (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber). HN is the same way when it relates to political news (i.e. libera

Not really. CNN has gone the way of MSNBC (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber). HN is the same way when it relates to political news (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber). Fox News is, well, Fox News. NPR is, well, for the most part, the Fox News of the left. So on and so forth. In a world of two echo chambers (The Right-wingers and The Left-wingers), it's up to you to make up your mind. You have to visit all sites and KNOW that you are getting the one sided alternative facts that best support their specific agenda. Then you MUST realize the world is never really Black and White, and MUST come to your own informed conclusions. Every site has their own goodness. I find interesting articles in each of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Braitbart, The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Geographic, etc. etc., but you have to sift through 99% of one-sided junk.

microcolonel 9y ago
NPR and Fox are such that you can still select a decent subset. Sometimes (less often) NYT and Breitbart have decent neutral content. Fox doesn't try to push the tradcon agenda on every show, so you can just choose not to watch the O'reillys and such. Then there are things that they can't really mess up, like uncut interviews with specific people. I think Tucker Carlson, regardless of his opinions and how they jive with you, does a great job of giving his interviewees enough rope to hang themselves. These days I tune in to Dave Rubin's Rubin Report for neutral interviews with people of widely varying opinions. For pop culture style "news" with less fear-mongering, there's always Phillip DeFranco. There are quite a few interesting political commentators with various viewpoints on YouTube. I've been watching styxhexenhammer666 recently, he seems to have a good predictive grasp on global politics centered around the U.S., he's often right.
Dobbs 9y ago
I'm not sure how NPR and Fox News can be compared in good faith. Yes NPR has a liberal bias, but for the most part it attempts to reasonably source its articles and publish a journalistically accurate news report. Fox News is not a news channel. They have one or two news programs mixed in with "entertainment". Sean Hannity is not news, but entertainment pretending to be news[^1]. [^1]: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/14/1620475/-Fox-News-Is-NOT-News-Network-s-Own-Ads-Label-Its-Programming-As-Entertainment https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/14/1620475/-Fox-News...
- banned1 9y ago
  Is DailyKos the pinnacle of Liberal unbiased sources?
  - electricEmu 9y ago
    It's up to you to find the goodness in the article. > Every site has their own goodness. I find interesting articles in each of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Braitbart, The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Geographic, etc. etc., but you have to sift through 99% of one-sided junk.
  - Dobbs 9y ago
    Not a clue. Never read them before. I simply linked them because they were the first result to come up with sources to Fox Media's own words.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...for the most part it attempts to reasonably source its articles and publish a journalistically accurate news report. FoxNews is basically tabloid media, shark attack and child abduction stories and all. NPR just does a terrible job of explaining other points of view. In some ways that's more dangerous. It is this kind of journalistic failure (a failure to earnestly explain people) that lets tabloid media seem relatively credible to people who feel like they're not being explained well.
- systemvanilla 9y ago
  NPR is known by pretty much every right-of-center person in the nation as being the Fox News of the left. If you're left-of-center you have a stake in NPR's skewed coverage being the neutral truth (because that validates your world view), but it's just not the case. The bias isn't necessarily in the sourcing or the facts, it's in the selective coverage and the constructed narratives and the overt bias in what kind of people and perspectives they choose to give a platform to. I'm honestly surprised that anybody would expect NPR to be neutral or defend it as such. Their entire staff is extremely liberal. The idea that there would be a media organization staffed almost exclusively by liberals that put out totally unbiased journalism sounds like pure fantasy to me. I think journalism in general will always tend to have a liberal bias, because the type of person who ends up in that career tends to be a liberal. It's similar to what's happening in academics. For whatever reason, liberals are just more likely to end up as teachers and TAs and professors and deans etc. Academics and journalism are both, to a certain extent and to varying degrees, nation-wide liberal echo-chambers.
rndmize 9y ago
I don't understand this perspective. When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitbart still pushing the hard anti-climate change line, Hannity with the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entire birther movement, Pizzagate, and on and on and on)... nothing happens. Nothing. It took Milo saying "maybe pedophelia isn't that bad" before there was enough of an outcry for him to be fired. It truly frustrates me when I see people pushing this "oh both sides are just as bad, but one is left and one is right". No. They are not. And it isn't hard to see the direct effects this is having, now. When the governor of Texas calls out the national guard to keep an eye on the US Army doing training exercises, because of right-wing conspiracy insanity that has hit the mainstream, we are having problems. When President Trump can claim that Obama is the founder of Isis and people just eat it up, we are having problems. For God's sake, the man had his press secretary go out on Day One of his presidency and lie about crowd sizes. He spouts bullshit about crime statistics in Sweden and for months, Breitbart suddenly has constant articles about how immigrants are causing everything wrong in Sweden ever (I particularly remember an article with an image of a mangled child, with the claim this was caused by immigrants, only for word to come out later it was a dog attack). The "mainstream media" (and I use the term in quotes because all the biggest radio shows are right-wing, fox is the biggest cable channel and the WSJ is the biggest paper aside from USA Today) is like a dog chasing a car, towing a pro-business line and chasing after whatever will give them the most eyeballs at the moment. But at least they aren't a goddamn propaganda force for the left, marching in lock-step and feeding off each other the way the right media does.
- King-Aaron 9y ago
  > When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitbart still pushing the hard anti-climate change line, Hannity with the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entire birther movement, Pizzagate, and on and on and on)... nothing happens. Nothing. We see this in Australian media too, and I'm guessing everywhere else in the world is seeing it becoming more prevalent too. There's a real elitism around "what you are allowed to say"...
- ryandrake 9y ago
  But they are! At least that's how it is perceived by the other side, and that's how you understand that perspective. For a large number of people, truth is in the eye of the beholder. If a story confirms your preconceived biases, the journalist got it right and is telling the truth. If it opposes your beliefs, it's factually wrong. Truth is like relativity: There is no aether, no privileged reference frame. When one believes, for example, with all of their soul and being, that climate change isn't happening, or that vaccines are good for you, then any reporting on the "facts" is ridiculous conspiracy, no matter how measurable it is. It's those greedy ivory tower elite, at it again! Reports about the falseness of climate change and the dangers of vaccinations are the lone voice of truth shining through. You could write a report that you believe has zero bias. All observable facts. It will be seen as ridiculous, biased conspiracy by some people out there.
vacri 9y ago
> HN is the same way when it relates to political news (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber) HN is one of those places where everyone thinks that there are plenty of "the other side" here. There are plenty of fiscal and social conservatives on this site. Probably the only sector of the conservative world that isn't well-represented here are war hawks.
- komali2 9y ago
  I dunno, what about super nationalist white supremacists? Don't really find them here either.
  - banned1 9y ago
    Why would they not be here? They are here just like "SJWs" are here. Does technology, or this website, somehow imply a barrier to any group to join it in conversation? I would say that you will find each and all interests groups represented to some extent here. Just because you don't hear them here does not mean they are not here. They may just choose to keep their views quiet here because it is well known that the HN community at large would rather kick them out than engage in discourse. We know the HN community, because it's highly San Francisco-centric, are highly sensitive and establishes that this forum be a safe space
  - morgante 9y ago
    They're definitely here. I've had HN users insist that I, as a Jew, should be deported to Israel.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      I'd second this. There was recently a long thread concerning Reddit and r/the_donald and those ranks certainly showed up. You can catch a few in this thread.
  - axaxs 9y ago
    They exist, and you don't know it. Just as a middle easterner who wants death to gay people, a gay christian fundamentalist, and a black kkk member. Yes, I jest. Sorta. That's what I love about HN, typically. It has a very diverse community that typically leaves religion and politics at the door. And even if we all met, we may kill each other, we get along here in the sake of tech and interesting sciences.
knodi 9y ago
What the hell are you talking about, just because NPR report the news that not pro Trump doesn't make them liberal or left.
- 40Alpha 9y ago
  NPR has been known as being a left leaning news outlet long before Trump entered the picture.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Known by who based on what criteria?
    - 40Alpha 9y ago
      Just Google it... Awhile back there was a decent amount of debate about the organization as they are partly funded by tax dollars. Many agree they are left leaning. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-biased-is-your-media/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-biased-is-your-media/ http://archives.cjr.org/news_meeting/does_npr_have_a_liberal_bias.php http://archives.cjr.org/news_meeting/does_npr_have_a_liberal... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/business/media/14carr.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/business/media/14carr.html...
      - nradov 9y ago
        Many others agree that they aren't left leaning. Who is correct? And telling us to just Google it is a ridiculous non answer. Don't waste our time.
    - specialist 9y ago
      Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
      - justin66 9y ago
        I got the Colbert reference, but it reminded me of something interesting that everyone with basic cable should watch and experience, at least a few times. Brian Lamb created the gold standard for balanced reporting on political topics and current affairs with Washington Journal on C-SPAN. Expert guests are chosen when feasible in preference to talking heads, the show uses separate call-in lines for guests of various political affiliations to ensure balance, and in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view the journalists are frighteningly capable of maintaining poker-faces in the face of whatever idiocy comes their way from guests or - more likely - callers. Their production does not depend on advertisers or ratings. It's all just brilliant. Their viewership numbers in the dozens. In spite of all that, callers will at times complain randomly, often hilariously, about perceived political bias in what they are watching - while the journalists maintain their sober, quiet poker faces and the experts talk about whatever is within their expertise. So often these complaints have literally nothing to do with bias in the presentation and everything to do with bias in the viewer.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
debaserab2 9y ago
That's really disappointing that you list an outlet like Breitbart with all the other reputable publications you name in an otherwise well formed argument. What a sad state of affairs when we've legitimized a publication that identifies itself as central to the political movement that's brought together the xenophobes of our society.
- banned1 9y ago
  It's a good point. Thanks for making it. I do read everything, including fringe publications. In the continuum of publications, everybody will find their tolerance for unacceptable to be different. Thanks for your honest comment. I did think about your point before including it. Edit: and i am sorry for offending you.
  - debaserab2 9y ago
    Oh - I'm not offended at all - it's just disappointing that it's many people's observation that the bias of historically reputable media outlets allow it to be lumped in the same category as a fringe publication. I don't think there's anything wrong with learning from or reading a fringe publication.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      Breitbart is unfortunately no longer "fringe". They have a US Alexa rank of 69, comparable to the 57 for Fox News. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...the xenophobes of our society I'll argue that there are "xenophobes" on the left, it's just that they consider middle America the foreign land. They identify more closely with formally educated people from other countries than Americans who enjoy hunting, processed food, revival churches, etc. The bitter clingers, deplorables, etc.
  - 9y ago
specialist 9y ago
"In a world of two echo chambers... it's up to you to make up your mind." Fox News: "We report, you decide." aka gossip. Not to be confused with journalism. If you think Koch funded NPR is liberal, Democracy Now! and Thom Hartmann will make your head explode.
- mgoetzke 9y ago
  sure about NPR being funded by the Kochs ? https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Koch-Brothers-big-supporters-of-NPR-or-am-I-mistaken https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Koch-Brothers-big-supporte...
- dsmithatx 9y ago
  Luckily it's not just a world of two echo chambers and, I don't have to decide between delusions. Science: We discover great things, you get smarter.
  - specialist 9y ago
    There is just Yes and No. The default answer to most every question is No, aka status quo. Change occurs when a temporary coalition of Yes is formed around a hot issue. aka the Politics of Attention. Looks like punctuated equilibrium from the outside. Sometimes that change is progress, eg extending the franchise, more fairness, better accountability. The partisanship in media, culture, politics, etc. maps very loosely to Yes and No, if at all.
scythe 9y ago
CNN is more pro-status-quo/pro-Third Way than "left" in the traditional sense. They're markets-and-welfare nationalists really, but in the original, less frightening sense of "nationalist". I read Reason and The Economist plus additional assorted liberal media. It's still bad but at least there's variety without having to sift through as much crap.
jahaja 9y ago
From an European perspective this is an echo chamber of right-wing news.

microcolonel 9y ago

NPR and Fox are such that you can still select a decent subset. Sometimes (less often) NYT and Breitbart have decent neutral content. Fox doesn't try to push the tradcon agenda on every show, so you can just choose not to watch the O'reillys and such. Then there are things that they can't really mess up, like uncut interviews with specific people. I think Tucker Carlson, regardless of his opinions and how they jive with you, does a great job of giving his interviewees enough rope to hang themselves. These days I tune in to Dave Rubin's Rubin Report for neutral interviews with people of widely varying opinions. For pop culture style "news" with less fear-mongering, there's always Phillip DeFranco. There are quite a few interesting political commentators with various viewpoints on YouTube. I've been watching styxhexenhammer666 recently, he seems to have a good predictive grasp on global politics centered around the U.S., he's often right.

Dobbs 9y ago

I'm not sure how NPR and Fox News can be compared in good faith. Yes NPR has a liberal bias, but for the most part it attempts to reasonably source its articles and publish a journalistically accurate news report. Fox News is not a news channel. They have one or two news programs mixed in with "entertainment". Sean Hannity is not news, but entertainment pretending to be news[^1]. [^1]: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/14/1620475/-Fox-News-Is-NOT-News-Network-s-Own-Ads-Label-Its-Programming-As-Entertainment https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/14/1620475/-Fox-News...

banned1 9y ago
Is DailyKos the pinnacle of Liberal unbiased sources?
- electricEmu 9y ago
  It's up to you to find the goodness in the article. > Every site has their own goodness. I find interesting articles in each of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Braitbart, The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Geographic, etc. etc., but you have to sift through 99% of one-sided junk.
- Dobbs 9y ago
  Not a clue. Never read them before. I simply linked them because they were the first result to come up with sources to Fox Media's own words.
humanrebar 9y ago
> ...for the most part it attempts to reasonably source its articles and publish a journalistically accurate news report. FoxNews is basically tabloid media, shark attack and child abduction stories and all. NPR just does a terrible job of explaining other points of view. In some ways that's more dangerous. It is this kind of journalistic failure (a failure to earnestly explain people) that lets tabloid media seem relatively credible to people who feel like they're not being explained well.
systemvanilla 9y ago
NPR is known by pretty much every right-of-center person in the nation as being the Fox News of the left. If you're left-of-center you have a stake in NPR's skewed coverage being the neutral truth (because that validates your world view), but it's just not the case. The bias isn't necessarily in the sourcing or the facts, it's in the selective coverage and the constructed narratives and the overt bias in what kind of people and perspectives they choose to give a platform to. I'm honestly surprised that anybody would expect NPR to be neutral or defend it as such. Their entire staff is extremely liberal. The idea that there would be a media organization staffed almost exclusively by liberals that put out totally unbiased journalism sounds like pure fantasy to me. I think journalism in general will always tend to have a liberal bias, because the type of person who ends up in that career tends to be a liberal. It's similar to what's happening in academics. For whatever reason, liberals are just more likely to end up as teachers and TAs and professors and deans etc. Academics and journalism are both, to a certain extent and to varying degrees, nation-wide liberal echo-chambers.

rndmize 9y ago

I don't understand this perspective. When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitbart still pushing the hard anti-climate change line, Hannity with the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entire birther movement, Pizzagate, and on and on and on)... nothing happens. Nothing. It took Milo saying "maybe pedophelia isn't that bad" before there was enough of an outcry for him to be fired. It truly frustrates me when I see people pushing this "oh both sides are just as bad, but one is left and one is right". No. They are not. And it isn't hard to see the direct effects this is having, now. When the governor of Texas calls out the national guard to keep an eye on the US Army doing training exercises, because of right-wing conspiracy insanity that has hit the mainstream, we are having problems. When President Trump can claim that Obama is the founder of Isis and people just eat it up, we are having problems. For God's sake, the man had his press secretary go out on Day One of his presidency and lie about crowd sizes. He spouts bullshit about crime statistics in Sweden and for months, Breitbart suddenly has constant articles about how immigrants are causing everything wrong in Sweden ever (I particularly remember an article with an image of a mangled child, with the claim this was caused by immigrants, only for word to come out later it was a dog attack). The "mainstream media" (and I use the term in quotes because all the biggest radio shows are right-wing, fox is the biggest cable channel and the WSJ is the biggest paper aside from USA Today) is like a dog chasing a car, towing a pro-business line and chasing after whatever will give them the most eyeballs at the moment. But at least they aren't a goddamn propaganda force for the left, marching in lock-step and feeding off each other the way the right media does.

King-Aaron 9y ago
> When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitbart still pushing the hard anti-climate change line, Hannity with the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entire birther movement, Pizzagate, and on and on and on)... nothing happens. Nothing. We see this in Australian media too, and I'm guessing everywhere else in the world is seeing it becoming more prevalent too. There's a real elitism around "what you are allowed to say"...
ryandrake 9y ago
But they are! At least that's how it is perceived by the other side, and that's how you understand that perspective. For a large number of people, truth is in the eye of the beholder. If a story confirms your preconceived biases, the journalist got it right and is telling the truth. If it opposes your beliefs, it's factually wrong. Truth is like relativity: There is no aether, no privileged reference frame. When one believes, for example, with all of their soul and being, that climate change isn't happening, or that vaccines are good for you, then any reporting on the "facts" is ridiculous conspiracy, no matter how measurable it is. It's those greedy ivory tower elite, at it again! Reports about the falseness of climate change and the dangers of vaccinations are the lone voice of truth shining through. You could write a report that you believe has zero bias. All observable facts. It will be seen as ridiculous, biased conspiracy by some people out there.

vacri 9y ago

> HN is the same way when it relates to political news (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber) HN is one of those places where everyone thinks that there are plenty of "the other side" here. There are plenty of fiscal and social conservatives on this site. Probably the only sector of the conservative world that isn't well-represented here are war hawks.

komali2 9y ago
I dunno, what about super nationalist white supremacists? Don't really find them here either.
- banned1 9y ago
  Why would they not be here? They are here just like "SJWs" are here. Does technology, or this website, somehow imply a barrier to any group to join it in conversation? I would say that you will find each and all interests groups represented to some extent here. Just because you don't hear them here does not mean they are not here. They may just choose to keep their views quiet here because it is well known that the HN community at large would rather kick them out than engage in discourse. We know the HN community, because it's highly San Francisco-centric, are highly sensitive and establishes that this forum be a safe space
- morgante 9y ago
  They're definitely here. I've had HN users insist that I, as a Jew, should be deported to Israel.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    I'd second this. There was recently a long thread concerning Reddit and r/the_donald and those ranks certainly showed up. You can catch a few in this thread.
- axaxs 9y ago
  They exist, and you don't know it. Just as a middle easterner who wants death to gay people, a gay christian fundamentalist, and a black kkk member. Yes, I jest. Sorta. That's what I love about HN, typically. It has a very diverse community that typically leaves religion and politics at the door. And even if we all met, we may kill each other, we get along here in the sake of tech and interesting sciences.

knodi 9y ago

What the hell are you talking about, just because NPR report the news that not pro Trump doesn't make them liberal or left.

40Alpha 9y ago
NPR has been known as being a left leaning news outlet long before Trump entered the picture.
- nradov 9y ago
  Known by who based on what criteria?
  - 40Alpha 9y ago
    Just Google it... Awhile back there was a decent amount of debate about the organization as they are partly funded by tax dollars. Many agree they are left leaning. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-biased-is-your-media/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-biased-is-your-media/ http://archives.cjr.org/news_meeting/does_npr_have_a_liberal_bias.php http://archives.cjr.org/news_meeting/does_npr_have_a_liberal... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/business/media/14carr.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/business/media/14carr.html...
    - nradov 9y ago
      Many others agree that they aren't left leaning. Who is correct? And telling us to just Google it is a ridiculous non answer. Don't waste our time.
  - specialist 9y ago
    Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
    - justin66 9y ago
      I got the Colbert reference, but it reminded me of something interesting that everyone with basic cable should watch and experience, at least a few times. Brian Lamb created the gold standard for balanced reporting on political topics and current affairs with Washington Journal on C-SPAN. Expert guests are chosen when feasible in preference to talking heads, the show uses separate call-in lines for guests of various political affiliations to ensure balance, and in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view the journalists are frighteningly capable of maintaining poker-faces in the face of whatever idiocy comes their way from guests or - more likely - callers. Their production does not depend on advertisers or ratings. It's all just brilliant. Their viewership numbers in the dozens. In spite of all that, callers will at times complain randomly, often hilariously, about perceived political bias in what they are watching - while the journalists maintain their sober, quiet poker faces and the experts talk about whatever is within their expertise. So often these complaints have literally nothing to do with bias in the presentation and everything to do with bias in the viewer.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

debaserab2 9y ago

That's really disappointing that you list an outlet like Breitbart with all the other reputable publications you name in an otherwise well formed argument. What a sad state of affairs when we've legitimized a publication that identifies itself as central to the political movement that's brought together the xenophobes of our society.

banned1 9y ago
It's a good point. Thanks for making it. I do read everything, including fringe publications. In the continuum of publications, everybody will find their tolerance for unacceptable to be different. Thanks for your honest comment. I did think about your point before including it. Edit: and i am sorry for offending you.
- debaserab2 9y ago
  Oh - I'm not offended at all - it's just disappointing that it's many people's observation that the bias of historically reputable media outlets allow it to be lumped in the same category as a fringe publication. I don't think there's anything wrong with learning from or reading a fringe publication.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    Breitbart is unfortunately no longer "fringe". They have a US Alexa rank of 69, comparable to the 57 for Fox News. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com
humanrebar 9y ago
> ...the xenophobes of our society I'll argue that there are "xenophobes" on the left, it's just that they consider middle America the foreign land. They identify more closely with formally educated people from other countries than Americans who enjoy hunting, processed food, revival churches, etc. The bitter clingers, deplorables, etc.
- 9y ago

specialist 9y ago

"In a world of two echo chambers... it's up to you to make up your mind." Fox News: "We report, you decide." aka gossip. Not to be confused with journalism. If you think Koch funded NPR is liberal, Democracy Now! and Thom Hartmann will make your head explode.

mgoetzke 9y ago
sure about NPR being funded by the Kochs ? https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Koch-Brothers-big-supporters-of-NPR-or-am-I-mistaken https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Koch-Brothers-big-supporte...
dsmithatx 9y ago
Luckily it's not just a world of two echo chambers and, I don't have to decide between delusions. Science: We discover great things, you get smarter.
- specialist 9y ago
  There is just Yes and No. The default answer to most every question is No, aka status quo. Change occurs when a temporary coalition of Yes is formed around a hot issue. aka the Politics of Attention. Looks like punctuated equilibrium from the outside. Sometimes that change is progress, eg extending the franchise, more fairness, better accountability. The partisanship in media, culture, politics, etc. maps very loosely to Yes and No, if at all.

scythe 9y ago

CNN is more pro-status-quo/pro-Third Way than "left" in the traditional sense. They're markets-and-welfare nationalists really, but in the original, less frightening sense of "nationalist". I read Reason and The Economist plus additional assorted liberal media. It's still bad but at least there's variety without having to sift through as much crap.

jahaja 9y ago

From an European perspective this is an echo chamber of right-wing news.