It’s always the same problem when trying to understand us politics. You try and hear what’s happening in the country, and all your sources come from one side blaming the other side. Even when it’s from a source I mostly agree with, they’re clearly trying to sway people to believe in them irregardless of if it’s accurate. And that doesn’t go without saying demonizing the opposing side.
I’m done with it. And nobody should be fine with this, irregardless of your leanings. I just want to be able to be able to hear about events in the world, know what’s happening in my local or national government, without someone explaining it to me like I can’t think for myself
25 comments
Wire services like the Associated Press and Reuters are good but they are pretty limited in scope. Part of being well informed is the ability to pull things out of biased sources.
I’d encourage separating the actions of the US government and government officials from political parties and political campaigns. It’s a fine distinction, and I’m not saying it can’t be abused. But there’s a level of authority someone speaks when they are speaking as a Member of Congress vs how they speak on the campaign trail.
Reuters, Associated Press give pretty fair but albeit limited coverage. NPR/PBS is a bit more widespread, but some would argue they have a slightly left-of-center tilt. BBC too, but their coverage of US politics is limited even on BBC – America.
Local, you can check your local daily paper and your local news channels. Follow reporters and media accounts on Twitter. Check out your local sub. Hell, I know many of the reporters in Indianapolis and have even worked with them on stories.
Personally, I subscribe both due to the daily newspaper as well as the weekly business journal in Indianapolis. The business journal, though has a business focus, has excellent statehouse coverage. I’ve also at times subscribed to local newsletters, which a lot of journalists are starting to do.
Unfortunately every news source now has a certain bias based on who funds them. The best way I’ve found to get the truth is get your news from multiple places each with a different political leaning and try to decipher the truth, but that is extremely hard and time consuming
I would say read as much as you can. And start developing your own measuring stick to evaluate journalism, politics, & bureaucracy/civics.
​
unfortunately the politics song and dance is many decades old. I took an introductory international studies class. One of our reading assignments was the NYT World News daily newspaper section. The professor’s advice was that — global politics is like an on-going soap opera. If you’re new you are starting to watch the soap opera mid-series. At first there is no context for anything. But if you pay attention daily you eventually get the background information to help build context.
Irregardless isn’t a word.
Also, the answer you’re looking for doesn’t exist. The only true way is to stop giving a shit and stop following politics altogether. You will be amazed at how much your mood lifts when you cut out that negativity from your life.
Join the jreg fandom
Every source is going to have some level of bias. No matter how much you don’t want that to be true it is a reality that we must accept.
The Wall Street Journal does a pretty good job of giving a slightly conservative perspective without the sensationalism as Fox. On the other side, Politico provides fairly neutral political coverage with maybe a slight lean to the left. Politico and the NYT have a slightly left lean, but are safe sources as well. Just be careful with the editorials.
Avoid cable news like the plague and for the love of god stay off Reddit.
For an unbiased-as-possible take I’d first suggest looking at non-US news sources. A couple of people have mentioned Reuters and The AP. Another great option is The Guardian. It has a left-of-center point of view when discussing British politics but its US coverage is pretty straightforward.
If you are interested in just a rundown of stuff that happened I highly recommend [https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/](https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/). They basically give brief summaries of the events of each day with links to articles with more detail. They also have a podcast if that’s more your bag.
I subscribe to The Flip Side newsletter. it gives both sides of current events with quotes from representatives of both parties. So it is biased, but I typically form my own opinion after hearing each side.
This is impossible because an event that will be of concern to someone holding a left ideology might be completely irrelevant to someone holding a right wing ideology. And vice versa.
A few years ago I used to have this app that would show you news stories and along with the story it would tell you the political slant of the source it’s coming from, and also show you other sources covering the same story from different positions. I can’t for the life of me remember what it was. Does anybody else know of this app and what it’s called?
In any case, I think the best thing you can do is look at varied sources, and then if possible, also look at actual data on the matter at hand (obviously if they are reporting on something happening in Ukraine, you can’t go to Ukraine and verify it yourself, but if they’re reporting on scientific data then you absolutely should go and look at that stuff).
Every source will have bias, but PBS or NPR is about as neutral as you’ll realistically get.
Theres one guy I trust for what’s going on in politics on a national level. His name is Jamie Dupree. He’s been a DC correspondent for like 40 years. In my opinion he’s about as unbiased as they come. He had [a daily substack is like $8 a month.](https://jamiedupree.substack.com/p/gop-demands-answers-on-biden-documents?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=231644&post_id=96253314&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email)
Allsides.com can be a useful tool. My personal approach is to embrace the chaos. Usually you can learn just as much by paying attention to the narrative each side is trying to advance which often dictates *which* stories they choose to run.
Get info from as many sources as possible with a good understanding duplicitous nature of the propaganda narratives each tries to advance. Then, patterns will emerge. They know the current approach only works on people that only get their news from 1 or 2 sources or barely pay attention, which is the majority of people. If you put in a modicum of effort, the veil falls away quickly and you can glean the likely truth behind most issues.
Two things I follow that have helped me distill information:
Tangle Newsletter (readtangle.com idk how to do hyperlinks on mobile)- it has been rated by AllSides as center. The creator Isaac Saul is committed to transparency. Monday-Thursday is free and Friday is for subscribers. I’ve read it for over a year and it has been extremely helpful understanding current events.
SharonSaysSo on Insta. She is committed to giving the facts and also she gives so much US political history!
Don’t listen to people that try to tell you how you should think about something.
Instead, look for information on what they are talking about and make up your mind for yourself.
For example: I’ve seen a 5 page article on what people should think about a 2 minute speech…and they didn’t even include a link to a video of the speech or include a complete transcription of it in those pages.
—–
TL;DR Look for verifiable data. Listen to what people say in context.
Is that more boring and take a longer time than just gut reactions to clickbait headlines? Sure. But it also gives you a much better idea about current events.
Your post history makes it seem like you are from the Twin Cities. For more state and regional politics, MPR looks fairly decent at first glance.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/10/08/survey-many-minnesotans-distrust-media
Myself, I tend to shift between politico.com (left-establishment), thehill.com (business-right-establishment), and the podcasts/youtube shows Breaking Points (left and centrist anti-establishment) and Humanist Report (far left anti-establishment).
Unfortunately, in reading any news, but especially national political news, you should always have a dose of healthy skepticism, and understand the likely bias of the author while reading it. Is it a Fox News or CNN article? What might the author be leaving out that would be crucial in understanding the topic in its true context? Is it an anti-establishment news source? What are some of the facts in the mainstream press that they are failing to bring up and how might those facts potentially disagree with their narrative?
In the end, you have to find a few different sources you can at least somewhat trust, and then cross-reference and be skeptical of all claims
Think about how intelligence gathering works. You need to start with the history. I’d probably start with WWII. If you can follow the thread from there to here, you’ll have a better understanding of the motivations of the parties and players you’re reading about today.
As an American I use multiple sources for news. As a general rule – the truth is boring. So if I get some kind of emotional response to a source, it’s probably biased. There are some “intellectually honest” sources out there. What I look for is are they open to criticism and praising of both sides. For example, the Bulwark podcast, which tells you it’s conservative, praises Democrats and criticizes it’s own party when appropriate.
You just have to be open to multiple sources from multiple biases, and be willing to evaluate coverage of the same event from multiple sources if the reporting seems overly biased; and/or go straight to primary source material.
My best advice is to study history. When you realize a lot of things happening now have happened before, or atleast similar things, it allows you to look through the partisan BS more easily. Other than that, AP and Reuters are pretty factual. You can look at more biased sources if you acknowledge them for what they are and what motives they have.
For a few decades we had the Fairness doctrine, which helped with what you are asking, but that has long since been repealed.
Most of what I read is mainstream press, but I also check the New York Post and the Hill which are right leaning.
It’s like swimming in the ocean rather than a lake. The biases are going to be there. You have to allow for them.
Concern yourself not with bias, but truth. An extremely biased and partisan source can be 100% correct. A totally unbiased source could be totally wrong.
Worrying about bias is usually a kind of ad hominem argument, an attempt to poison the well, against a source.
Politicians don’t care about you. All they care about is keeping power. For 99% of them they don’t believe in any issue. They will just say whatever to appease their voter base. That’s why they flip flop so much and behind the scenes they are all the same. It’s why each side calls the other side evil and does nothing but spread division in the country. Don’t listen to politicians. Talk to regular people.
I like the Economist. It has its bias, but it approaches US politics in a fairly neutral way, while explaining some of the stranger cultural/procedural dynamics that US publications assume their readers already know.