5 ms·

what are some of these outlets you know of? I've been trying to ironclad my news sources after getting into Chomsky recently but have only found Democracy Now!

what are some of these outlets you know of? I've been trying to ironclad my news sources after getting into Chomsky recently but have only found Democracy Now! and Novara media, as well as a couple other small speciality podcasts that seem potentially good. Would appreciate pointers.

bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
If you like Chomsky check out What's Left (podcast) if you haven't yet. It's very good and will only deepen your skepticism of the corporate press.
sukilot 6y ago
Reuters and frankly the websites of the local TV stations (Sinclair notwithstanding). Al Jazeera, mostly. ProPublica is OK but falling from grace as it leans harder into manipulating heartstrings.
st1ck 6y ago
You can also try The Intercept.
randomsearch 6y ago
It’s been posted here a thousand times, but the Economist and the FT are good starting points.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Less biased on what topics? Both are notoriously, extremely biased on all kinds of topics, for example Brexit/the EU. The Financial Times actually flies the EU flag above its offices: rather hard to get a clearer statement of bias than that.
  - randomsearch 6y ago
    > Both are notoriously, extremely biased on all kinds of topics That's a strong claim without evidence.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Well, I provided some evidence for the FT. Do you think a newspaper that literally flies the flag of a foreign government over its offices is going to be critical of that government? I'm not sure how you'd prove this rigorously though. Just look at other comments in this thread. One commenter observes he never saw a pro-Brexit op-ed in the FT, ever. They're always anti.
      - randomsearch 6y ago
        I doubt editorial policy is dictated by proximity to flags, so I'll leave that aside. The FT and Economist are both focused on economic issues. I don't think you can expect them to campaign for a cause that is (by the admission of its supporters) going to damage the economy. They do consider the positive economic outcomes and possibilities of Brexit within their reporting, but there just aren't many compared to the negative ones. I don't think that's biased, it's fact, and it's fact that is agreed upon by both sides of the debate.
        esja 6y ago
        As a long-time subscriber I think it's more accurate to say they are selectively focused on economic issues. They publish plenty of non-economic pieces which align with their view of the world.
        thu2111 6y ago
        That's a really weird construction, almost feels bad faith. I meant that the flag is dictated by proximity to their editorial policy, the other way around as you put it here is nonsensical. You're arguing with a strawman. The idea that Brexit will harm the economy is: 1. Highly controversial to begin with. Plenty of Leave campaigners and voters were motivated by a belief that the EU is sclerotic and adopts many anti-growth economic policies that could be reversed or ignored once out. The idea it's economically harmful is not at all agreed on by both sides, but if you read the FT you can be forgiven for having a highly one-sided view on this! 2. Discredited. The whole population was told even just voting to leave would cause a huge recession. In fact the economy grew. Economists quite clearly cannot predict the effects of Brexit because they tried already and were as wrong as wrong can be. Even Paul Krugman admitted that the stated beliefs of economists on Brexit were "dubious" and "motivated reasoning" ... of course he only admitted this after the vote was in: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/freshwaters-wrong-turn-wonkish/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/freshwaters-wro... What we’re hearing overwhelmingly from economists is the claim that it will also have severe short-run adverse impacts. And that claim seems dubious. Or maybe more to the point, it’s a claim that doesn’t follow in any clear way from standard macroeconomics — but it’s being presented as if it does. And I worry that what we’re seeing is a case of motivated reasoning, which could end up damaging economists’ credibility. At this point, reporting on what economists think is about as useful as reporting on what epidemiologists think. They all disagree on everything all the time, so it's a way for the journalists to speak through their chosen 'experts'.
- esja 6y ago
  I don't agree. I've paid to subscribe to the FT for over ten years, and used to subscribe to the Economist before letting it lapse. They are not neutral and especially in the case of the FT, this has gotten a lot worse in the last few years. Both papers do provide quite good coverage of particular economic topics, framed by their editorial perspective. But if your understanding of Brexit or Trump (or anything politically contentious) comes only from the FT, you are setting yourself up for a huge surprise.
lenkite 6y ago
I find the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times mostly OK, if you can live with the fact that they will always support the corporate sector.

bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago

If you like Chomsky check out What's Left (podcast) if you haven't yet. It's very good and will only deepen your skepticism of the corporate press.

sukilot 6y ago

Reuters and frankly the websites of the local TV stations (Sinclair notwithstanding). Al Jazeera, mostly. ProPublica is OK but falling from grace as it leans harder into manipulating heartstrings.

st1ck 6y ago

You can also try The Intercept.

randomsearch 6y ago

It’s been posted here a thousand times, but the Economist and the FT are good starting points.

thu2111 6y ago
Less biased on what topics? Both are notoriously, extremely biased on all kinds of topics, for example Brexit/the EU. The Financial Times actually flies the EU flag above its offices: rather hard to get a clearer statement of bias than that.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  > Both are notoriously, extremely biased on all kinds of topics That's a strong claim without evidence.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Well, I provided some evidence for the FT. Do you think a newspaper that literally flies the flag of a foreign government over its offices is going to be critical of that government? I'm not sure how you'd prove this rigorously though. Just look at other comments in this thread. One commenter observes he never saw a pro-Brexit op-ed in the FT, ever. They're always anti.
    - randomsearch 6y ago
      I doubt editorial policy is dictated by proximity to flags, so I'll leave that aside. The FT and Economist are both focused on economic issues. I don't think you can expect them to campaign for a cause that is (by the admission of its supporters) going to damage the economy. They do consider the positive economic outcomes and possibilities of Brexit within their reporting, but there just aren't many compared to the negative ones. I don't think that's biased, it's fact, and it's fact that is agreed upon by both sides of the debate.
      - esja 6y ago
        As a long-time subscriber I think it's more accurate to say they are selectively focused on economic issues. They publish plenty of non-economic pieces which align with their view of the world.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        That's a really weird construction, almost feels bad faith. I meant that the flag is dictated by proximity to their editorial policy, the other way around as you put it here is nonsensical. You're arguing with a strawman. The idea that Brexit will harm the economy is: 1. Highly controversial to begin with. Plenty of Leave campaigners and voters were motivated by a belief that the EU is sclerotic and adopts many anti-growth economic policies that could be reversed or ignored once out. The idea it's economically harmful is not at all agreed on by both sides, but if you read the FT you can be forgiven for having a highly one-sided view on this! 2. Discredited. The whole population was told even just voting to leave would cause a huge recession. In fact the economy grew. Economists quite clearly cannot predict the effects of Brexit because they tried already and were as wrong as wrong can be. Even Paul Krugman admitted that the stated beliefs of economists on Brexit were "dubious" and "motivated reasoning" ... of course he only admitted this after the vote was in: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/freshwaters-wrong-turn-wonkish/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/freshwaters-wro... What we’re hearing overwhelmingly from economists is the claim that it will also have severe short-run adverse impacts. And that claim seems dubious. Or maybe more to the point, it’s a claim that doesn’t follow in any clear way from standard macroeconomics — but it’s being presented as if it does. And I worry that what we’re seeing is a case of motivated reasoning, which could end up damaging economists’ credibility. At this point, reporting on what economists think is about as useful as reporting on what epidemiologists think. They all disagree on everything all the time, so it's a way for the journalists to speak through their chosen 'experts'.
esja 6y ago
I don't agree. I've paid to subscribe to the FT for over ten years, and used to subscribe to the Economist before letting it lapse. They are not neutral and especially in the case of the FT, this has gotten a lot worse in the last few years. Both papers do provide quite good coverage of particular economic topics, framed by their editorial perspective. But if your understanding of Brexit or Trump (or anything politically contentious) comes only from the FT, you are setting yourself up for a huge surprise.

lenkite 6y ago

I find the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times mostly OK, if you can live with the fact that they will always support the corporate sector.