A "leftist news source" is not a news source, it is an opinion source, and thus not better than a "rightwing news source". How about finding something neutral that actually has the goal to inform?
And you, asking for neutrality:
Thats why I ask for true neutrality. Any source that reports in a biased way is not news, it is opinion. And given the current situation in the US, a neutral news source would have to call out a lot of shit and lies coming from the political right. But that does not make it leftist.
This is correct. The news is so reliably stupid that everybody assumes you saying the correct thing is (incorrectly) you being on Team Don't Point Out The Truth Because It Makes Republicans Look As Bad As They Are.
The team is not known for its naming finesse.
False neutrality is propaganda, but so is being so is being activly biased. So a good left news source has to be wiling to show the fscts, when they speak against the left.
False neutrality
All neutrality is false.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
-Desmond Tutu
E: Also, if you knew anything about leftists, you'd know that we're our own biggest critics. I also bet that you don't demand anywhere near as high a standard when you consume your main stream centre-right media, which almost exclusively speak against the left, so it's not like your short of sources for the criticism you want so desperately to confirm the (centre-right) bias you like to pretend you don't have.
I am not saying media is not bias, but that some media just spins the truth, whereas others do not have a problem with fslse reporting. After all tankies are called tsnkies, because they ignored that the Soviets used tanks to violently get rid of the Prague Spring. This happens on the left as well.
And yes that is why I like reading economics news websites like the economist. They report on subjects left leaning news tend to not care about, but which can be incredibly important. Also with rich people using their reporting as a bases for invedtments, makes it hugely important that they do not outright lie. Commentary on them is horrible though, unless they go somewhat agsinst the neoliberal norm, which is rarer, but usually some of the best stuff.
Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn't always a good thing.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but getting a compromise from a debate is not a primary goal. For competitions, the goal is usually to demonstrate and practice debate skills and the topic and positions matter less. For more serious debates, it is meant to be a way to expose people to the strengths of your position's arguments and expose the weaknesses of your opponent's. It's valuable as an opportunity to persuade an audience of people who haven't been firmly entrenched in either position, or who may have only been exposed to one side's arguments in earnest.
The framework does presume both viewpoints are valid, since both sides are expected to believe in their position, be rational, and be reasonably well-informed. An invalid perspective would not be argued by someone meeting these criteria. It does not presume equality as that would be preemptively judging the quality of the argument. Either the debate platform or the other debater would presumably not agree to a debate with someone who cannot be expected to meet these criteria.
I never said anything like compromise. I prefer neutrality (as far as one can get it, but it is way easier in Europe). Why do you all think that anything that is not explicitly left biased is already compromised?
There are f-ups on both sides of the spectrum. This does not say both sides are equal - on the contrary, there is a shitload more f-up on the right side. But general whitewashing the left is also not OK.
I see the question differently.
Tl;Dr:
I think OP is hoping to read the 21st century equivalent to Muck Rakers.
Long version:
A whole lot of improvement in American quality of life came about as a result of publications and journalists called Muck Rakers in the 19th and 20th centuries.
They didn't cover false stories. They simply covered stories that newspapers owned by capitalists tried to cover up. Things like, "physical abuse inside of Factory A" or, "employees at factory B reject union contract."
It's similar with r/antiwork. Most of America never realized why PopTarts were shipped with serious defects for a few months in late 2021. To most people, the quality declined out of nowhere, with no explanation.
And I don't think most people realized the real reason California's ports got congested. (It was a bill designed to protect gig workers -- it required shipping companies to pay truck drivers for the time they spent waiting for their trucks to be loaded (instead of just the time they spent driving)).
People didn't know because, even if current events directly impact everyone's lives, all it takes is a few corporations deciding, "you don't need to know about that" and access to the information through mainstream channels is shut off.
Everyone using r/antiwork knew though. They knew why there was a shipping crisis, and they knew why the glue that was supposed to seal the outside of the box of Cheez-its was now instead gluing the individual Cheez-its together.
News that wasn't considered, "newsworthy" outside of r/antiwork got intense coverage on that subreddit.
And yeah, the subreddit was certainly biased against those corporations. But biased or not, its users were more up-to-date on those events than anyone outside of the sub.
I don't think OP is asking for a leftist perspective on the same current events everyone else is covering. I think OP is asking for true, well-investigated stories that capitalists simply won't air on the major networks.
You know: Muck raking.
Okay so let’s rephrase the question:
Those if you who consider yourself leftists, what news sources do you follow?
Those if you who consider yourself leftists, what news sources do you follow?
I'm afraid that the real meaning was "Those if you who consider yourself leftists, what news sourcesbubbles do you follow?"
Neutrality in this case is a news source that doesn't have a editorial position that explicitly favors a certain political party, it is not splitting the two opinions down the middle and sticking to that as it is so often misrepresented.
A good news source will follow the following guidelines when reporting news.
1: Due impartiality , this is not the same as full impartiality where abhorrent points of view are given the same importance as valid points of view , DUE impartiality differs in that the news source will consider multiple VALID points of view to give the audience a closer representation of the truth.
2: Broad perspective , the news source will attempt to contact as many valid perspectives as they can from as broad of a cross section of society as is possible to represent the opinion of society as fairly as possible.
3: Editorial freedom , the news source can and will produce content for any subject as long as it is within the public interest to do so, this will involve scrutinizing arguments and questioning consensus to hold those in power over others in some way accountable for their actions.
4: Avoiding endorsements , the news source will take care not to endorse politicians or products , nor allow their content to be used in such a way without challenge.
5: Democratic values , the news source itself is not value free , but instead incorporates the core values of democracy and civil society into its editorial policy in place of partisan political values.
6: It will reflect the diversity of its audience , it will make an effort to continually be aware of the demographics that view it and produce a wide range of content to ensure that no group is either underrepresented not over represented.
7: Transparency, when reporting opinions of others that some people may find distasteful it will be made clear that these opinions belong to the person being interviewed or reported on and not to the news source that is only committed to reporting the truth.
Such a news source would be neutral , in that their only loyalty is to accurately reporting the news as it happens without spinning it to make anyone look any better or worse than they already are.
To me this falls more under the category of non profit independent news, primarily local news where all the corruption happens. Report for America, reportforamerica.org, assists these local newsrooms and has a spot on their site that you can search for sites local to you. These local papers are interesting because their individual sponsors are often influential people in your community who believe in democracy and are concerned about the power of corporate media. I just checked out our local online paper like this and see the same names that I recognize for people I know who support the arts.
A "leftist news source" is not a news source, it is an opinion source, and thus not better than a "rightwing news source". How about finding something neutral that actually has the goal to inform?
And you, asking for neutrality:
Thats why I ask for true neutrality. Any source that reports in a biased way is not news, it is opinion. And given the current situation in the US, a neutral news source would have to call out a lot of shit and lies coming from the political right. But that does not make it leftist.
This is correct. The news is so reliably stupid that everybody assumes you saying the correct thing is (incorrectly) you being on Team Don't Point Out The Truth Because It Makes Republicans Look As Bad As They Are.
The team is not known for its naming finesse.
False neutrality is propaganda, but so is being so is being activly biased. So a good left news source has to be wiling to show the fscts, when they speak against the left.
All neutrality is false.
-Desmond Tutu
E: Also, if you knew anything about leftists, you'd know that we're our own biggest critics. I also bet that you don't demand anywhere near as high a standard when you consume your main stream centre-right media, which almost exclusively speak against the left, so it's not like your short of sources for the criticism you want so desperately to confirm the (centre-right) bias you like to pretend you don't have.
I am not saying media is not bias, but that some media just spins the truth, whereas others do not have a problem with fslse reporting. After all tankies are called tsnkies, because they ignored that the Soviets used tanks to violently get rid of the Prague Spring. This happens on the left as well.
And yes that is why I like reading economics news websites like the economist. They report on subjects left leaning news tend to not care about, but which can be incredibly important. Also with rich people using their reporting as a bases for invedtments, makes it hugely important that they do not outright lie. Commentary on them is horrible though, unless they go somewhat agsinst the neoliberal norm, which is rarer, but usually some of the best stuff.
Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn't always a good thing.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but getting a compromise from a debate is not a primary goal. For competitions, the goal is usually to demonstrate and practice debate skills and the topic and positions matter less. For more serious debates, it is meant to be a way to expose people to the strengths of your position's arguments and expose the weaknesses of your opponent's. It's valuable as an opportunity to persuade an audience of people who haven't been firmly entrenched in either position, or who may have only been exposed to one side's arguments in earnest.
The framework does presume both viewpoints are valid, since both sides are expected to believe in their position, be rational, and be reasonably well-informed. An invalid perspective would not be argued by someone meeting these criteria. It does not presume equality as that would be preemptively judging the quality of the argument. Either the debate platform or the other debater would presumably not agree to a debate with someone who cannot be expected to meet these criteria.
I never said anything like compromise. I prefer neutrality (as far as one can get it, but it is way easier in Europe). Why do you all think that anything that is not explicitly left biased is already compromised?
There are f-ups on both sides of the spectrum. This does not say both sides are equal - on the contrary, there is a shitload more f-up on the right side. But general whitewashing the left is also not OK.
I see the question differently.
Tl;Dr:
I think OP is hoping to read the 21st century equivalent to Muck Rakers.
Long version:
A whole lot of improvement in American quality of life came about as a result of publications and journalists called Muck Rakers in the 19th and 20th centuries.
They didn't cover false stories. They simply covered stories that newspapers owned by capitalists tried to cover up. Things like, "physical abuse inside of Factory A" or, "employees at factory B reject union contract."
It's similar with r/antiwork. Most of America never realized why PopTarts were shipped with serious defects for a few months in late 2021. To most people, the quality declined out of nowhere, with no explanation.
And I don't think most people realized the real reason California's ports got congested. (It was a bill designed to protect gig workers -- it required shipping companies to pay truck drivers for the time they spent waiting for their trucks to be loaded (instead of just the time they spent driving)).
People didn't know because, even if current events directly impact everyone's lives, all it takes is a few corporations deciding, "you don't need to know about that" and access to the information through mainstream channels is shut off.
Everyone using r/antiwork knew though. They knew why there was a shipping crisis, and they knew why the glue that was supposed to seal the outside of the box of Cheez-its was now instead gluing the individual Cheez-its together.
News that wasn't considered, "newsworthy" outside of r/antiwork got intense coverage on that subreddit.
And yeah, the subreddit was certainly biased against those corporations. But biased or not, its users were more up-to-date on those events than anyone outside of the sub.
I don't think OP is asking for a leftist perspective on the same current events everyone else is covering. I think OP is asking for true, well-investigated stories that capitalists simply won't air on the major networks.
You know: Muck raking.
Okay so let’s rephrase the question:
I'm afraid that the real meaning was "Those if you who consider yourself leftists, what
news sourcesbubbles do you follow?"Neutrality in this case is a news source that doesn't have a editorial position that explicitly favors a certain political party, it is not splitting the two opinions down the middle and sticking to that as it is so often misrepresented.
A good news source will follow the following guidelines when reporting news.
1: Due impartiality , this is not the same as full impartiality where abhorrent points of view are given the same importance as valid points of view , DUE impartiality differs in that the news source will consider multiple VALID points of view to give the audience a closer representation of the truth.
2: Broad perspective , the news source will attempt to contact as many valid perspectives as they can from as broad of a cross section of society as is possible to represent the opinion of society as fairly as possible.
3: Editorial freedom , the news source can and will produce content for any subject as long as it is within the public interest to do so, this will involve scrutinizing arguments and questioning consensus to hold those in power over others in some way accountable for their actions.
4: Avoiding endorsements , the news source will take care not to endorse politicians or products , nor allow their content to be used in such a way without challenge.
5: Democratic values , the news source itself is not value free , but instead incorporates the core values of democracy and civil society into its editorial policy in place of partisan political values.
6: It will reflect the diversity of its audience , it will make an effort to continually be aware of the demographics that view it and produce a wide range of content to ensure that no group is either underrepresented not over represented.
7: Transparency, when reporting opinions of others that some people may find distasteful it will be made clear that these opinions belong to the person being interviewed or reported on and not to the news source that is only committed to reporting the truth.
Such a news source would be neutral , in that their only loyalty is to accurately reporting the news as it happens without spinning it to make anyone look any better or worse than they already are.
To me this falls more under the category of non profit independent news, primarily local news where all the corruption happens. Report for America, reportforamerica.org, assists these local newsrooms and has a spot on their site that you can search for sites local to you. These local papers are interesting because their individual sponsors are often influential people in your community who believe in democracy and are concerned about the power of corporate media. I just checked out our local online paper like this and see the same names that I recognize for people I know who support the arts.