YSK that Politico is a subsidiary of Axel Springer, a right-wing propaganda house
Thus, when you're tempted to share a Politico article, please look instead for an article from a different source.
(Also, if you're wondering, know that Axel Springer, the mass media company, has nothing to do with Springer, the science publisher (the one with the chess knight logo; it's named after Julius Springer; it deserves criticism of its own, but a different kind.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#CriticismOpen linkView original on feddit.org654
Comments51
Here's a handy hosts file that blocks all Axel Springer domains.
Politico is 90% shit and 10% lucky break. They skew headlines and have obvious skin in the game. A great way to see this is to look at the European version and then compare it to the US version.
https://www.politico.com/
https://www.politico.eu/?no-geo-redirect
Politico exists to give people in power a way to safely and selectively leak what's useful to them.
I've seen this criticism a lot, but as somebody who has Politico in their daily news rotation I just don't see it myself. It definitely has a voice and perspective -- insider-y, pro-Western, well connected to internal party drama -- but I've never really noticed a right-wing editorial bias or agenda. It frequently features stories critical of Trump and Republicans, and doesn't seem to engage in unreasonable hit pieces on left-wing figures. Worst you can say is they sometimes have sections sponsored by corporations, but these are clearly labeled and not especially shill-y.
Are there particular headlines or stories that people think are examples of the kind of bias that should make people avoid reading them? Axios, for example, feels like a much bigger offender.
I'm on the same page. I'm a bit of a wonk and, yeah, politico has a perspective but I wouldn't call it right wing. Centralist, to an extent.
Yeah, pretty sure we wouldn't see Fox or The Daily Wire release this story
https://feddit.uk/comment/22430802
How is interviewing EU officials to game out a plausible strategy by which Trump might annex Greenland right-wing propaganda? It's not arguing that it's a good thing, or justified. They published many more stories talking about how the Greenland thing was a disaster for American soft power.
I have highlighted the relevant parts. I make and never made no comment on that specific article or story but on the overall credibility of the newspaper as a whole.
The Daily Mail is one of the biggest piece of shit right wing rags to have ever existed, is outright banned by Wikipedia as a source and supported the literal 20th century German Nazi party and still occasionally manages to make credible articles. The occasional good article doesn't make up for the overall messaging however. The same applies to Politico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE
That's why its important to look up company ownership (in my opinion)
Don't also forget Axel Springer is trying to make ad blocking illegal
Makes me want to follow him around screaming about raid shadow legends for his entire life so he gets absolutely no peace.
What news organization today isn't owned by some international goliath?
There's no "objective" source, so you must read from multiple sources and then try to discern what's really going on by what they DON'T say.
Excellent question. Here are the ones I could think of; let's collect links! (Of course, they all have their flaws.)
World at large:
US-focussed:
Europe in general:
Germany:
Philippines:
Propublica?
Good question, I've heard of but never looked into them. ProPublica seem to get most of their money from a charity created by billionaires, so their funding might come with some significant strings attached, but they do some pretty good journalism, it seems.
ProPublica is one of the good guys for sure.
They dig deep on corruption and bring receipts.
Their articles aren’t necessarily fun reads, because they’re thoroughly researched and heavily documented.
They are looking out for us.
UK:
Novara Media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novara_Media
https://novaramedia.com/
The Canary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canary_(website)
https://www.thecanary.co/
The Big Issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Issue
https://www.bigissue.com/
Morning Star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/
Bella Caledonia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Caledonia
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/
The Scots Independent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scots_Independent
https://scotsindependent.scot/
Private Eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/
UK and Ireland:
PoliticsJOE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_(website)
https://www.joe.co.uk/
https://www.joe.ie/
404 media is killing it these days, they've had a ton of banger articles over the last year. Like real breaking investigative journalism, not just an AP aggregator.
I would just be careful with the state owned ones.
Sure BBC or RFL isn’t owned by corpos but owned by governments and that means they usually favour the narratives of those with power.
Is the grain of salt with the jungewelt because of its "special viewpoints" of certain topics or do they have ties to a international Goliath?
Their special viewpoints are what I meant. Their ownership structure is a co-op (Genossenschaft), so absolutely decent by all I can tell.
Media bias fact checkers have their own biases though. Relying on one is like outsourcing your critical thinking to somebody else.
Looking up Politico on MBFC, for example, paints an entirely different story to that of what Wikipedia says about Politico. To the point that one is clearly outright lying. Considering that Wikipedia is open to all, and requires citations for claims. And MBFC is edited almost entirely by one person. I know which of the two I would be trusting more.
Not to forget they considered BBC left leaning with their coverage of the Gaza bombings. So yeah.
To back up OP's point, here's some choice quotes from Wikipedia:
https://feddit.uk/comment/22430802
valid and no love for those fucks, but you'll find that practically every media outlet is owned or controlled by the forces of evil. on the other hand, politico didn't start as an AS wing, it got acquired. plus, there's not a lot of places real journos can work at.
we're in deep into the enshittocene, there is no other solution than to treat every source with the same healthy scepticism and distance you'd apply in the school yard - "oh yeah?", "how come?", "says who?", etc.
If it's not independent and visibly so, expect it to be a right wing corporate rag
Btw, any block list of their companies around, that isn't 6 years out of date? Too much search noise about AS fighting adblockers.
See this comment here, or this direct link to the repo: last updated 6–7 moths ago
Yes, thanks!
Well, I can’t say I support or like Axel Springer, as it is definitely conservative, but they are definitely pro-democracy. I wouldn’t say they are populist, or right-wing, eg I don’t see them supporting the AfD. Always consider that US “liberals or democrats” are much more to the right compared to similar parties in the EU: Bill Clinton can easily be considered a conservative in most European countries.
I looked at Welt once (their largest newspaper that is considered to be the less right wing populist one compared to Bild), and the second or so article was from the editor and boiled down to: The conservative party not working with the Nazi party (AfD, and Nazi as in literally using Nazi slogans, talking about replacement theory and differentiating between immgrants with German citizenship and real Germans) is really a ploy by the left wing parties to force their ideas on Germany and force the AfD to become more radical.
They are at least at the edge of pro democracy
Exactly! Bild is naturally hard to read; but compared to the britisch Sun or Daily Mail it seems like a leftist pamphlet 😜
Jfc
Wild to me that I already blocked them without knowing this.
Just based on their biased reporting.
Reminiscent of dumping on the Washington Post because Bezos.
The reason that quality independent journalism is so hard to find is that nobody much is paying for it. Including you, probably.
I listen to Politico's EU Confidential podcast and it's pretty good. The EU's national medias are too parochial to cover Brussels, with Politico at least somebody's doing it.
I pay for The Guardian and I swear there are dozens of us!
Ha. Actually I believe there are hundreds of thousands who do (and good for you!). It's a great model IMO. Foundation status with an endowment, free to access and beg banners saying "Pay so that others don't have to". Of course, the quirky status was a bit of an accident of history.
There is a certain irony with my most trusted source of news (im an American) being a British publication.
Things did turn out quite badly.
There are several interrelated reasons: Lack of funding (in part due to a lack of an advertising subsidy, which is a good thing), lack of prominence, lack of readers recognizing the value of independent journalism.
The crucial thing is that with everyone who does recognize its value—and the harm that is caused by a corporate-dominated media landscape—and who therefor starts to make a conscious effort to read independent sources more often, to point others to them, and to support them financially (which I do, for the record), those issues improve in tandem.
The Bylines network is good and free (apart from the necessary ads, of course).
Sure, but their European reporting from Brussels is by far the best. Euronews has gone down the drain and Euractiv is no match.
Blatant ads irresponsible abuse of "right wing propaganda" in the current context of fascism. Left eating center shit
Oooo K. Thanks?
I don't disagree with this. But why don't we ever see these disclaimers identifying left-wing bias? Nobody is unbiased. To ignore it on the left is highly problematic.
Because, despite the vague boundings, right now being associated with the right is basically "pro fascism." While you could argue about traditional republican behaviours, it's obvious that the "bad" on the left are just rightwing plants.
"left-wing bias" in its most raw form is basic care for people in policy.
As a Canadian, I definitely care about who actually supports the crazy fascists that are threatening to annex my country, and are actively feeding successionist propaganda to the least intellectually robust people in my country.
People don't care about left wing bias because the left is generally defined by pro social, anti corporate/fascist behaviours. While USA made it legal to bribe democrats into kneecapping leftist intention within their party, and democrats are barely even "left" in policy to begin with.
So people aren't too worried about the smothered, unfunded, and neglected pro-populous and anti-fascist policy having its bias discretely plant itself anywhere.
There are definitely issues of leftist subgroup communication failures leading to vulnerability to "divide and conquer" tactics, but having a secret bias of "we should give people basic rights and safety" is only a worry for fascist oligarchs and their propagandized cults.
Easy, show me the left aligned billionaires that own media channels.
George Soros is an often used Boogeyman by the far right, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't own a media empire like Springer, Murdoch and all the other ghouls.
because big money owns news networks, and communities print newsletters. kinda different scopes.
Yet Politico leans left and was founded in 2007 by two former Washington Post Journalists, John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei.
Very strange tbh or ironic.
Fortunately or unfortunately, not everything is black or white.