What news sources do you follow with which you generally disagree?
What news sources do you follow with which you generally disagree?
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
- John Stuart Mill
I sometimes skim Breitbart just to see what the current talking points and bugbears are. Calling it news is a stretch, though - I find that it better fits the definition of a blog.
Good definition.
And you're a better person than I am, I tried a few times but felt really icky really quickly.
I just gotta believe there's something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness. Foreign policy ones, sure, Foreign Affairs works. But for a defense of say, trump's immigration strategy or something, I'd love to have what the National Review used to be arguing for it, just to know what I'm missing.
I just gotta believe there’s something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness.
Let me know if you find it. At this point I sincerely believe I'm not missing anything, and that's a sad thought.
I don't have an answer to your question, but I love your John Stuart Mill quote. I've just had a barrage of comments trying to rip me apart for suggesting that a political opponent's position should be understood; and no comprehension of the point this quote puts across really well.
The membership of Lemmy is overly-emotional, flibbertigibbety infants, as a rule. It's disheartening. It's the mainstream. Bobbleheads as far as the eye can see.
I’ve just had a barrage of comments trying to rip me apart for suggesting that a political opponent’s position should be understood
Ironically, I've never understood the mindset of those commenters. How can you argue against something, or even know if you should argue against it, without knowing what "it" even is?
I generally go a step further than believing that every argument should be understood, and say that every argument should be considered as well. You shouldn't reject an argument purely because it gives you bad vibes. If it's obviously wrong, it should be obvious why it's wrong. In practice you don't always have time to engage with someone promoting obviously dumb ideas, but you should at least yourself know why you consider them to be wrong. I call this "radical possibilism" because you always consider the possibility that an argument is correct.
You might like this podcast: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
This guy has done a lot of great work in trying to understand how conspiracy thinking works, how minds can change, how arriving at a state of "knowing" is an emotional state (and not a rational one), how biases change people thinking, etc.
They like it or hate it. There is flocking behavior too. Simple. Pretty easy to model, no doubt.
Glad you liked it, It's one of my favourites.
Sorry about the barrage of unfun comments. The internet is so wonderful and so goddamn annoying at the same time eh?
Thanks. Comments don't really bother me. It would be a hard life trying to use social media without thick skin.
But your quote came at a good time to make the point I was looking to make.
For your question about news, I would highly recommend using an RSS app. Whichever news source you use, its much better when you get your news in time order instead of their stupidly curated website front pages.
The Economist
Ha, fair. I generally go about 60/40 on the agree disagree ratio with them but I really respect the way they articulate their views.
I read the Financial Times despite being on the left but I find that useful because they don’t cover DC drama unless it legitimately matters. I’m not at all interested in broadening my horizons by reading American conservative bullshit. I already know what they’re going to say. I prefer to read new perspectives. To give an example, I’d rather read a novel by an African woman than learn what propaganda Fox News is pushing. I just don’t care anymore.
“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
— G.K. Chesterton
Oh no, I wouldn't recommend Fox or Newsmax or the ilk on anyone.
But I do like to understand what the best version of things I disagree with are. Wider perspectives are important but if I agree with all of them? I dunno, it feels intellectually lazy to me. That's why I'm asking! I'd like to find something akin to what the National Review used to be.
Otherwise, to me at least, there's a very real danger of becoming the kind of person who writes off everyone who disagrees with me as ignorant, bigoted or evil. Which, in my opinion, isn't a great way to live. Though, admittedly, I've always found those "everything is black or white" folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I'm just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.
Sorry I'm tired and rambling while pooping.
Not all opinions are inherently valid or valuable though. That's the Paradox of Tolerance. You do eventually have to draw a line, because some people will use the benefit of the doubt to dismantle democracy
Though, admittedly, I’ve always found those “everything is black or white” folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I’m just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.
I appreciate this level of introspection. I think you're right to keep an open mind and to seek a broader view of the issues, but don't be afraid for the conclusion you draw to be that someone or some opinion is ignorant, bigoted, or hateful. You should be open to any possibility... but as anticlimactic as it is, sometimes something really is black or white; that's a possibility just like any other. Understanding why someone hateful thinks the way they do is useful, but it doesn't change the fact that they are.
TL;DR: If you never consider other viewpoints, you'll never find the right one, but if you never stop considering them, you'll never find the right one either. I wish you luck in your pursuit of knowledge.
Meh. He shoulda quit while he was ahead.
I don't really follow right-wing news sources, as much as I follow right-wing commentators. I already know what the news on the right says, but what I'm interested in is how the people on the right actually interpret that news; which points they choose to regurgitate, and which points the average person on the right will latch onto. FOX News can say 30 different things about one particular news story, but generally the audience will only focus on one or two.
NYT. I wouldn't say I generally disagree with them, but I disagree with them a lot.
Breaking Points. I disagree with the conservatives on there, but respect them. They are smart and rational, and often make good points.
Ooooooh, thank you! That sounds exactly like what I was hoping for!
Glad I helped, hope you find it engaging!
The only news site I follow is my country’s equivalent of the BBC, which leans left. Lemmy also skews heavily to the left, but the podcasts I listen to tend to be more centrist or center-right from my perspective - though some might argue that someone like Joe Rogan is far-right, which I disagree with.
I don’t align myself with any particular side. I form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis rather than adopting the beliefs of "my side" - whatever that may be - as a package deal. I’ve been on the right, and I’ve been on the left, but I’ve since settled somewhere in the middle. I feel like I have a fairly accurate understanding of both perspectives and can often argue for most hot topics from either side’s point of view.
I don’t align myself with any particular side. I form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis rather than adopting the beliefs of “my side” - whatever that may be - as a package deal.
I'd like to think that most people do this, but unfortunately I know better. I would like to say, however, that it's possible to make your own independent decisions about each issue, have them align with one party more than the other, and then identify with the party that your views align with. As long as your views define your party, rather than your party defining your views, there is nothing wrong with identifying with the party that you're closest to.
In the US and I read mountains of business and economic news,much of most of it assumes the reader supports and agrees with the underlying premises of cronie capitalism. It's a really helpful way to understand how businesses operate, think and where economy and society will be driven.
WSJ. The news stuff is usually okay but the opinion section is a bit wild sometimes. I get the subscription for free and the business/financial news is generally good.
My day one bottom bitch, as Butters would call it, for news source I don't always agree with but love: Jon Stewart. I lean right, especially back when The Daily Show was airing with Jon Stewart. Never mattered tho, always loved his perspective and wish I could list the amount of shit he's brought to my attention or changed my stance on.
I used to read the National Review and disagree with 9/10 articles but after Krauthammer died, they went crazy on the trump train.
Foreign Affairs sort of counts? A lot of people with whom I disagree publish essays there...
The Economist, I go 50/50.
I dunno. I'd like the most plausible and persuasive form of the Conservative argument, I've got Conservative friends but I don't think that's really enough.
What are you trying to understand about conservatives? Like they believe in a hierarchy and follow a type of virtue ethics. Conservative brains are more fearful and less open.
If you want to understand conservative's then just look at things through their view of stuff. For example, take Jan. 6 and the different interpretations presented. Conservative news just censors any actual coverage and just makes stuff up to serve their goals. So we get stuff like people were invited in by the cops and the only person who died that day was the girl that got herself shot. While completely ignoring the obstruction the Trump admin engaged in to ensure there was a delayed response to the assault on the Capitol.
Or just look at the coverage to both 2016 candidates mishandling classified documents. I know conservatives that couldn't vote for H dawg because she mishandled those documents. Then eight years later they have no issue voting for Trump who stored documents in public areas of his resort and worked to obstruct the investigation into said handling. Why the different responses? Because conservatives believe in a hierarchy and their leaders can do no wrong.
Sorry for the essay.
This is pretty much exactly the mindset I'm trying to avoid.
I'd note you could just as easily flip the 2016 classified documents business. A Conservative could plausibly argue that Liberals were willing to vote for someone being investigated for mishandling classified documents when it was their person, but once it was trump it became a serious voting issue. (I tend to disagree, I think trump's were a lot worse but I can absolutely see the logic of their case.)
lemmy
Distrowatch
I follow russian official media and look for trend in z-bloggers spaces via a compilatory channel at https://t.me/s/ve4niyvoy In one way or another they prove whatever breakthrough is announced in western media, like killing of generals or using new munition or attacking X place. But I don't dive into these too much because my mental health can take only a brief amount of that. Russian media are too fucking dense, intense, and it's no wonder people who casually watch them without a stellar opinion on stuff got zombified and soothed into z-thoughts.
I have a group of friends that are essentially the opposite of what I think, keeping them as friends is a challenge. Without reaching the point of being actual Nazis, they are as far right as they get, and also ancaps. They expose me to the internals of how they think, is very interesting.
National Review, The Economist, Drudge
Not an ad, but this is why I like Ground News. It aggregates that stuff so I don't need to be continually checking a specific publication.
I really need to check them out, I like their mission and I hope their implementation is good and unbiased (as in applying the same standard to all sources, not as in granting the same legitimacy to all sources).
So far I've been happy with it. I'm not paying enough to see its factuality scores.
(UK) I read the Daily Mail and the Guardian and have issues with both of them. Daily Mail because of language used around immigrants and benefit recipients. The Guardian I find panders to its audience presenting news from Palestinian a certain way. But I want to read both these points of view as there's always elements of truth in what's being said that opposite news sources leave out for their own reasons.
Oh interesting. I always thought the Daily Mail was more of a tabloid with like topless girls on page three or whatever. Am I confusing it with something else? Or is it both?
And fully agree with you on the Guardian.
It is a tabloid. And although I don't agree with some of their stances, I find the criticism it'll get from UK sections of Lemmy or Reddit are quite knee jerk and over the top. I don't think any of the main UK tabloids do page 3 topless anymore. The sports ones maybe?
Typically they report stories with a simplified language style, and tend to sensationalise some language. Though this seems to be far from as bad as how it's sometimes made out. Not to set the bar too low or anything, but here are a few articles grabbed at random from their frontpage:
Personal story of women paralysed by hit by a teen driver who was texting / videoing / driving dangerously. The article focuses on her family and her suffering. The conviction of the perpetrator is handled quite matter of factly. Nothing is generalised, young drivers arent made out to be villains in any way.
Piece on continued allegations against Gregg Wallace. All allegations are attributed to specific unnamed sources. All are taken credibly. Defence of Wallace / brushing things away appears entirely absent. There's one quote of a friend saying it's not like him, everything else in the article explains how he made lots of people uncomfortable / assaulted / or was a creep. It quotes specifically what was said / done with respect to racism allegations without taking any particular delight in including that information.
American 14 year old girl shoots self because of cyber bullying, culprits not caught. Despite the girl being a cheerleader, gymnast and surfer amongst other things the article is tasteful, celebrates her accomplishments and there are no what you might call 'creepy' shots of her doing these activities.
That's just a few. It's all just..I don't know.. pretty uninteresting to me. But I read it to see what slice of the world that their readers are getting. I think when certain groups trounce the DM as worthless trash (which it may well be in some cases) that doesn't ring at all true with people reading the likes of the above and it only serves to deepen the divides present in this country.
I don't generally follow news I disagree with because it stresses me out pointing out how everything they think is wrong... BUT... I do poke my nose in on "beforeitsnews.com" every now and then to see what the batshit crazy fringe is up to.
because it stresses me out pointing out how everything they think is wrong...
Honestly, that sounds fairly healthy. I have a weird obsession with being well informed and being able to articulate arguments from all sides (which has occasionally made me very unpopular both in real life and online) and while it's a fine intellectual exercise, it's probably not the most conducive to feeling great.
Some local/regional news sites that are owned by MediaNews Group, because they’re often the only source for breaking events.
What if what I consider to be the most plausible and persuasive expression of an idea is not the one that most believers in that idea would express or even be aware of? For example, if I read the work of an economist who presents strong evidence that Trump's tariffs would benefit the American economy, have I actually engaged with the beliefs of most Trump supporters or Trump himself?
Interesting question and thoughtful distinction!
My initial thought is that while you might not be engaging with why trump supporters are for it, I think it still counts because the people making the policy are probably doing it for reasons that are disconnected to the beliefs of the rank and file.
I put it akin to religion and whatnot. If the only argument for or against something is religion, I don't give it much credence other than the basic "I generally think it's good to be respectful of religion until it interferes with others." But even if their reason is religion, if there's actually a good reason, that good reason may be worth engaging with.
Not sure if I'm making sense, it's been a looooooooooong day after a longer week.
Where I live the commercial TV evening news shows are completely Murdoc level conservative trash. I still watch them I guess.
I am american who opposes the military industrial complex so I tend to be perpetually exposed to news I don't agree with or support the framing.
I have to work to find news sources I agree with consistently. I often wind up just playing Bingo with CSpan and State Dept press breifings.
I'm on Lemmy obviously, and generally I agree with all the leftist takes here, but sometimes I think they stray too far from reality. Not in their extremism (I'm fine with that) but literally just that they're based off of unreal facts or logic (insert Ben Shapiro joke here).
I don't follow any right-wing news sources directly, but whenever I see articles posted around, there are topics that I generally take issue with the coverage of by "normal" newspapers, especially the Israel situation (horribly misrepresented in Israel's favor by most western media).
Since I try to align my beliefs with reality, and I don't tend to follow news sources that don't accurately portray reality, ideally I wouldn't follow any news source that I regularly disagree with. Opinion articles are fair game though.
Since I try to align my beliefs with reality, and I don't tend to follow news sources that don't accurately portray reality, ideally I wouldn't follow any news source that I regularly disagree with.
Said every dogmatic, orthodox zealot since the beginning of time.
Skill issue tbh, just don't warp your own view of reality to conform to a preexisting narrative
Reason magazine and ReasonTV. I can't defend or totally justify it and I often wonder whether they are more propaganda than journalism or news but they have some very plausible positions on many controversial topics that I surprisingly find myself actually sympathetic to or at least I can hold their ideas in my mind at the same time as my own that I organically developed from before I knew about them so I dunno
Oh interesting, I've never really taken libertarian positions seriously but that might be worth a look.
Be careful, it can be a little intoxicating lmfao
- Glenn Beck
- mark Levin
- Steve deace
- Allie Beth stuckey
- jp sears
- the daily wire
the thing is, I find that news/commentary ALWAYS comes with bias, and I prefer not to beat up people on "my" side.
I live in Northern New York so newzjunky.com, they're a right wing rag but one of the few local news sources so I still follow them.
I usually agree with ign. For whatever reason majority hate them
I follow a lot of podcasts that are either center-left sources or Democratic party cheerleaders: NPR and the NPR Politics Podcast, Ezra Klein (God he's an insufferable twat), the Daily, Pod Save America...some of these I listen to because I want to know what the, "mainstream American left," believes, some of them just have good information; NPR's Up First is a great 15 minute morning news wrap, and the Daily does good in depth reporting (even better when Michael Barbaro is on vacation).
I don't listen to right-wing pundits like Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh very often. They're mostly culture war crap, and there's usually very little information to be gained from them. I do regularly read conservative reporting though, mostly WSJ and the Economist.
I can't help but agree with you, most conservative media is so smug and smarmy, it's insufferable. "Don't Walk, Run!" is an example, same with Piers Morgan. Like, can't these guys say their piece without acting like fucking Ben Shapiro? It's rare you find a regular, lucid guy just talking about political news or having discussions with the other side.
I'm fascinated by Anna Kasparian's political evolution over the past year, and I'm almost tempted to see what TYT are up to these days.
Yeah, I fell off of TYT in 2017 or 2018 for a lot of the same reasons I can't stand listening to right-wing pundits; a lot of smug and little information (mostly from Cenk). I hadn't heard anything about Ana Kasperian. What happened with her?
There are some leftist podcasts that I like, but they are kinda just angry and unproductive, like The Insurgents; I only listen to them when I'm deeply angry or they have a good guest. The Lever is probably the best new left-wing podcast I'm listening to right now, and the Majority Report is always great.
I don't follow any news sources, and I'm still over-informed.
Tbh, whatever pops up on lemmy for the most part. I'm right wing, it's pretty easy to follow the left and lurk the news communities.
Although, it's not being persuasive, it's more disgusting and horrifying that my fellow human beings think these ways.
Ahaha, I glanced at this earlier before diving into work stuff and thought you'd have a lot more angry replies to you!
Among a lot of folks, I'm the crazy liberal hippy do gooder but I gotta say, a good amount of Lemmy kind of worries me. Though, I suppose I attract the crazy by having the temerity to explain or defend Conservative positions, even when I disagree with them.
In the spirit of this post (understanding the other side's perspective), could you explain what thoughts you consider disgusting/horrifying and why?
My main thing is the illegal immigration thing. When the left says they need illegal immigrants to pick crops, what comes to my mind is 1850s American south, with slavery. The south claimed they needed slaves to pick crops, and now it's being echoed by the modern left wing.
If farmers paid good wages, they'd get workers. And I'd rather pay extra for ethically grown and harvested crops. I already do to some extent.