Looking for a good news source currenty that arent afraid of critizicing any political party and their actions.
Besides that, I just turn off the news spigot. I'm slowly coming to the realization that watching news was kind of becoming my version of watching reality TV shows. There is of course value in being informed but outside of that, a single person can't meaningfully take action on all the things being reported on. So I see less and less reason to keep up with the news besides just being generally informed.
I think a better way to consume news might be to get a few "general" news tidbits through your regular news outlets. And then get more focused news on topics you personally care about and are willing to take action on through non-traditional news outlets.
As someone with a conservative leaning bias, I would consider PBS to have a very strong left (whatever that means) leaning bias. I guess it depends on your start point.
People who rely on faithful, factual descriptions of reality would be liberals if reality had a liberal bias and they interpreted reality accurately.
You have a liberal bias, and you think conservatives are wrong? Wow, that's a first! And vice-versa.
Per the examples given: Scientific observation says climate change is real, man-made and an urgent threat. Liberals agree, conservatives don't. Maybe not to a person and maybe not with 100% fidelity to the science but the trend is unmistakable.
Same for many other conservative fallacies like "tax cuts pay for themselves". We have data and know it isn't true. And current hot topics like election fraud. All the evidence says it's extremely rare. Liberals agree with the evidence, conservatives don't.
That's not the entirety of the political divide and there's plenty of subjective and philosophical arguments irrespective of evidence but when it comes to justifying policy, one side relies on evidence one doesn't.
Reality Progressives don't like:
- Gender correlates with biology
- Giving chronically homeless people housing won't fix their homelessness
- Not charging serious crime won't lead to safer neighborhoods
- You can't fix societal disparities by changing who is at the top and bottom of a pyramid of privilege
- Demonizing the wealthy won't lead to any productive outcomes
- The amount of GDP consumed by government already should be manifestly sufficient to fix the things government is capable of addressing efficiently
- Universal Basic Income is a pipe dream with no mathematic or social basis in reality
- Getting rid of religiosity without replacing it with another moral foundation will lead to progressively worse societal outcomes (and progressive thought is in no way an adequate replacement)
- Shouting down unpopular opinion doesn't make those opinions go away
Reality conservatives don't like:
- Locking prisoners away for long periods leads to greater gangsterism and lifelong criminality
- Racial disparities, whatever their source, need to be addressed systemically for society to prosper
- Making huge changes to our atmospheric mix is 100% likely to lead to undesirable outcomes- the globe, and humans as part of it, will not prosper with large changes leading to unknowable outcomes in our biosphere
- Education is essential to social mobility
- Social safety nets are essential to social mobility
- Free markets are rarely free of defect and tend towards capture, either regulatory or monopolistic, and need frequent intervention to function efficiently
- Even if you've felt deceived by the media, making it a point of pride to doubt anything/everything you hear opens you up to those who will manipulate that doubt for their profit and power
Either way, the smugness both sides have in being sure they are the 'righteous/scientific' side only opens them up to lack of self-reflection on whether their side is correct on a particular issue. If you're sure that your 'sides' agenda is correct top to bottom, you've assuredly sold yourself a bill of goods.
Regardless, my point is still that the preponderance of evidence aligns with a preponderance of liberal policy. Climate denial, covid denial and election fraud conspiracies on their own are enough to condemn modern American conservatism to the garbage heap of corrupt populism even if liberals were buying every drug-addled hobo a luxury condo. I'd still rather live in that world.
In PBS Newshour the upfront report by Judy is very much fact based. I agree though that the various mini-documentary parts of the segment are less direct-fact based reporting and bias starts to creep in.
Anyways, I'm not too interested in starting an internet politics fight. The main takeaway from my post is that we should reevaluate what we are getting out of following the news obsessively.
Or is it more just general "they're publicly funded and the left supports that" sort of bias? Are they disproportionately covering or ignoring issues due to that bias?
I happen to know several hunters, and that kind of accusation was pretty offensive and far from what actually happens in real life.
They do have their own biases, but the dynamic is more conservative that hates the direction the GOP is going in (Saagar) and liberal progressive who is not a fan of the Democratic establishment (Krystal). As such neither one hesitates to call out what they disagree with for both Republicans and Democrats.
They have an optional subscription service that is doing extremely well. CNN should have consulted them for how to set up their premium service, because they have it figured out. Most of their content is free to the public in segments, but you get an unedited full stream unlisted Youtube link if you pay (plus some extra back and forth commentary), as well as bonus segments every week that are unlisted as well.
Being independent also makes it so they're not afraid to speak their mind about things either.
There's a few things they like to cover repeatedly that I really don't care about personally, and I don't always agree with their views on certain issues, but there's always a few things I like to hear their take on.
I've heard other people say this, but I've never heard Saagar say anything I thought was conservative. He's not paleocon or libertarian because he's comfortable with big domestic government programs. He's not neocon because he spends a lot of time attacking big banks and big tech and he has been very critical of foreign military interventions. I've never heard him take a position on socially conservative issues like abortion or gay marriage. So what am I missing?
It's very hard to define people who don't fit inside the normal blue-vs-red spectrum.
It's really hard to define people who don't fit into an easy quadrant on the political compass test.
Who is actually on Fox quite a bit these days, funnily enough. 15-25 year old me would have laughed in disbelief, but if I decide to turn on cable news these days, I turn on Fox.
Edit: Also, Whitney Webb at Mint Press News is very good, just to throw her in the ring.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/18/ukrainian-biow...
Center for Public Integrity
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Novara Media (UK-based)
scheerpost.org (Chris Hedges's main outlet)
Citations Needed
Truthout.org
In These Times
Evonomics
naked capitalism
It's possible that the commenter was asking for Dem/Repub-critical sources that are all aligned with one pole, but I interpreted the question as asking for sources whose coverage would not correlate with either party.
If you're going to criticize Reason for having an agenda, I would say that critique would apply equally to these sources as well. They seem very agenda driven (which doesn't make them bad)!