I don't believe or agree with everything that I read. I also read a fair amount of different opinions in these sources which leads me to believe it's more varied than you would like to believe.
It's interesting because I've always considered myself center/center right politically.
As a simple test, do you think someone who says "I read the Federalist, Spectator and the WSJ" would notice a change if they read the NYT?
I know they all have some contributors that go against their own ideological grain, so to speak, but still, you provided a good example of what being in an echo chamber might look like.
Just being honest.
> Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own Infrastructure, And The Left Goes Nuts
> 10 Christmas Songs That Must Be Cancelled By The End Of 2021
> BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ENDORSES MORE BABY KILLING BY GREEN-LIGHTING MAIL-ORDER ABORTION PILLS
NYT right now:
> Hidden pentagon records reveal patterns of failure in deadly airstrikes
> As COVID surges, experts say U.S. booster effort is far behind.
The Spectator or WSJ looks a lot better, if you told me Spectator was Atlantic or New Yorker at a glance I might believe you.
What you should be doing is reading them, agreeing with them is beside the point - that's what getting out of an echo chamber looks like.
And again with Baby Killing vs Boosters - one of the two papers is much better at writing headlines, but both of those go to largely the same issue which is how the state should interfere with individual medical decisions.
If you ignore the fact that the Federalist is targeting people who don't appreciate good writing, the dismissal of one and favouring of the other isn't as obvious.
The "right" does not have to build it's own infrastructure, plenty of right wing media personalities and publications maintain a presence on Facebook/Twitter/etc... as long as they follow the rules of the platform. That headline is just clickbait nonsense.
Which are themselves politically bias to one world view, that of the US political left.
To be clear I am not talking about the enforcement of the rules, which is a problem in itself, but the actual rules as laid out are such they favor the identity politics of the modern "left" in the US.
Those that do not support, or agree with identity politics must do verbal, and ideological self censorship to exist on said platforms.
Which I'm happy about! The more competition, the better!
It baffles me why people act like Twitter is the only place on the web. It's popular, sure, but it's easily cloned and could be extended upon.
The real issue hindering competition is dollars.
That isn't an acceptable situation for a wing of politics. The right will need friendly, or at least neutral, versions of the big social media platforms and they will keep losing elections until they figure that out.
People may or may not agree about the specific case, but looking at the capabilities in a strategic sense and it isn't something that can be glossed over. The outrageous treatment Trump received on social media is a big deal; insofar as the right wing is a political entity it has to respond.
They might be "US left of centre" but coming from the UK left, they're centrist at best, slightly right at worst.
I read 100's of news sources weekly, and if topic I want information on I drill down beyond the news organization seeking out orginal sources (for example if a news organization is reporting on a COVID Study, I read the study. If they are reporting on the 6th circuits ruling, I go read the ruling.. etc)
It is ironic that someone the proudly proclaims they only consume information from 3 sources proclaims I am in an echo chamber but they could never be... lol
As for my political leanings, I more of a Political Compass person where by economics is Left/Right, under which I am almost exactly in the enter, but social is on a Authority / Liberty scale, of which I am on the extreme end of the liberty scale