4 ms·

I've tried this and my problem is that conservative new sources, like Fox, seem to be objectively less reality-based. There are exceptions like the WSJ and the

I've tried this and my problem is that conservative new sources, like Fox, seem to be objectively less reality-based. There are exceptions like the WSJ and the Economist, but for a UK Guardian-loving lefty like me, what conservative news publications would you recommend?

ucaetano 8y ago
The Economist isn't a conservative news source by almost any possible metric. They are actually very socially liberal (and generally economically centrist). A lot of their positions (taxation, free education, government spending in infrastructure, universal healthcare, etc.) would be classified as left-leaning or left. Additionally, I've seen that leftist news sources aren't by any means behind rightist ones in terms of fake news. They just focus on different sets of fake news. Maybe the fact that you find rightist news more biased is just a result of your own bias. You overlook the bias in the publications that are aligned with your beliefs.
lazerpants 8y ago
Maybe try the National Review? I disagree with a lot of their conservative stances but they are typically well thought out and often at odds with Fox and the completely loony alt-right news sites. But NR is more of a news-magazine, they don't cover everything and don't necessarily cover breaking news. For example, they advocate protecting marijuana legalizing states at the federal level. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-should-be-left-to-states/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-shou...). https://www.nationalreview.com/ https://www.nationalreview.com/
- gowld 8y ago
  NR is an opinion mag / think tank, not a news magazine.
vorpalhex 8y ago
Fox news is about the same amount of biased as Huffpost (which is to say, both are quite biased). WSJ is definitely fiscally conservative, and otherwise fairly moderate. Economist is actually quite liberal leaning. It's possible that your personal bias is very liberal so normal "conservative" positions seem far right. To be fair, news as a whole tends to lean slightly liberal. http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 is a decent source for news bias alignment.
- gowld 8y ago
  Economist is libertarian / European liberal, not USAmerican liberal (which is more like "progressive").
- teachrdan 8y ago
  I'm getting downvoted for my post, so perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. I know there are numerous left-leaning publications that are unreliable, like the Huffington Post. But there are ample others, like the NYT, Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News, etc. I can read instead. I realize none of these publications have a perfect track record, but they are relatively transparent in admitting to and correcting their errors. On to the point of whether publications like the Economist are left or not. This may be a matter of whether you consider neoliberal policies to be conservative. I personally believe that the Economist's position on privatizing industries, selling national assets, minimizing worker protections in the form of minimum wage laws, etc. to all be extremely conservative. I happen to be more sympathetic to opening borders to immigration, which the Economist supports. And the Economist is very much anti-death penalty, and, as others have pointed out, they are socially liberal (in the US sense) in a number of other ways. But at the end of the day this is a magazine called The Economist, and their economic views are mostly in direct opposition to mine. But I'll still read it, because I think it's a mostly fact-based publication.
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    My preferred sanity check was the FT but sadly they stopped letting you read a few pieces free a month. Since the Telegraph remade themselves downmarket behind a paywall the only other I can think of is Reuters. Reuters' coverage of environment and climate change is dubious. Economist describe themselves as "extreme centre" and have supported both right and left at different times. So they're likely to remain hard to precisely pin down. :)
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    So the general method for analyzing political leaning/bias is by analyzing not the stated policy positions but the self declared leaning of the audience. The reason for that is the bias of any given position is very difficult to calculate and political identities are heavily nuanced across the entire spectrum. In addition, most people don't subscribe to well fixed ideological positions on most issues - and the line of being moderate shifts over time. But yes, as I said earlier, most news is a bit liberal leaning so news isn't perfectly aligned and in general there are much more liberal news sources then conservative news sources. In general your best bet is to read a lot of news sources, understand that all news has some bias (towards increasing readership, as well as a slight liberal lean), and do your best to kind of meet in the middle. Be aware of general logical fallacies and try to correct for them as best you can, and always question everything.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Reuters seems pretty solid, though I wouldn't classify them as "conservative". They're not clearly liberal, though.

ucaetano 8y ago

The Economist isn't a conservative news source by almost any possible metric. They are actually very socially liberal (and generally economically centrist). A lot of their positions (taxation, free education, government spending in infrastructure, universal healthcare, etc.) would be classified as left-leaning or left. Additionally, I've seen that leftist news sources aren't by any means behind rightist ones in terms of fake news. They just focus on different sets of fake news. Maybe the fact that you find rightist news more biased is just a result of your own bias. You overlook the bias in the publications that are aligned with your beliefs.

lazerpants 8y ago

Maybe try the National Review? I disagree with a lot of their conservative stances but they are typically well thought out and often at odds with Fox and the completely loony alt-right news sites. But NR is more of a news-magazine, they don't cover everything and don't necessarily cover breaking news. For example, they advocate protecting marijuana legalizing states at the federal level. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-should-be-left-to-states/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/marijuana-policy-shou...). https://www.nationalreview.com/ https://www.nationalreview.com/

gowld 8y ago
NR is an opinion mag / think tank, not a news magazine.

vorpalhex 8y ago

Fox news is about the same amount of biased as Huffpost (which is to say, both are quite biased). WSJ is definitely fiscally conservative, and otherwise fairly moderate. Economist is actually quite liberal leaning. It's possible that your personal bias is very liberal so normal "conservative" positions seem far right. To be fair, news as a whole tends to lean slightly liberal. http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 is a decent source for news bias alignment.

gowld 8y ago
Economist is libertarian / European liberal, not USAmerican liberal (which is more like "progressive").
teachrdan 8y ago
I'm getting downvoted for my post, so perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. I know there are numerous left-leaning publications that are unreliable, like the Huffington Post. But there are ample others, like the NYT, Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News, etc. I can read instead. I realize none of these publications have a perfect track record, but they are relatively transparent in admitting to and correcting their errors. On to the point of whether publications like the Economist are left or not. This may be a matter of whether you consider neoliberal policies to be conservative. I personally believe that the Economist's position on privatizing industries, selling national assets, minimizing worker protections in the form of minimum wage laws, etc. to all be extremely conservative. I happen to be more sympathetic to opening borders to immigration, which the Economist supports. And the Economist is very much anti-death penalty, and, as others have pointed out, they are socially liberal (in the US sense) in a number of other ways. But at the end of the day this is a magazine called The Economist, and their economic views are mostly in direct opposition to mine. But I'll still read it, because I think it's a mostly fact-based publication.
- oldcynic 8y ago
  My preferred sanity check was the FT but sadly they stopped letting you read a few pieces free a month. Since the Telegraph remade themselves downmarket behind a paywall the only other I can think of is Reuters. Reuters' coverage of environment and climate change is dubious. Economist describe themselves as "extreme centre" and have supported both right and left at different times. So they're likely to remain hard to precisely pin down. :)
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  So the general method for analyzing political leaning/bias is by analyzing not the stated policy positions but the self declared leaning of the audience. The reason for that is the bias of any given position is very difficult to calculate and political identities are heavily nuanced across the entire spectrum. In addition, most people don't subscribe to well fixed ideological positions on most issues - and the line of being moderate shifts over time. But yes, as I said earlier, most news is a bit liberal leaning so news isn't perfectly aligned and in general there are much more liberal news sources then conservative news sources. In general your best bet is to read a lot of news sources, understand that all news has some bias (towards increasing readership, as well as a slight liberal lean), and do your best to kind of meet in the middle. Be aware of general logical fallacies and try to correct for them as best you can, and always question everything.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

Reuters seems pretty solid, though I wouldn't classify them as "conservative". They're not clearly liberal, though.