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 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 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.
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 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.
What is this z- prefix you’re using?
Z is painted on much of the Russian war kit. It’s their equivalent of a swastika.
Yep, it’s officially promoted as a symbol of being involved in that war that then generalized as a sign of being patriotic. I mostly described military bloggers, but regular idiots too started to change their and their communities names to include english Z and also S V O into their nicknames on the web. The right hand rule is if you see an avatar with Z or a person who has uppercase english letters you just block them for they are long lost.
lemmy
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.
I don’t follow any news sources, and I’m still over-informed.
I usually agree with ign. For whatever reason majority hate them
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
(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 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.
NYT. I wouldn’t say I generally disagree with them, but I disagree with them a lot.
Everything. My default position is disagreement.
Ha, very fair. I think a good number of friends would say the same about me. I think they’re wrong ;)
oh no. me, too!
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.
Some local/regional news sites that are owned by MediaNews Group, because they’re often the only source for breaking events.
