Looking to compile a list of good leftist news sites and sources. Thank you.
So I've not visited some of these for a while, and I know some have issues (like swinging in to either liberal or tankie territory), so I'm not guaranteeing they're all perfect, but these are the news sites I have saved to my bookmarks:
Np. Thank you for the time and effort you invest in posting!
I try but most of my posts turn out to be a little controversial hah!
What's the saying, hit dogs holler? Take it as a sign you're hitting a nerve lol
Honestly I don't know how you deal with all that crap đ
I was on Twitter during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Reddit/Lemmy is tame compared to the crap I dealt with on there. đ¤Ł
Oh yeah, that's hardcore đ
I had 65k followers and got doxxed multiple times. Was crazy stuff. All they do on here is just call me Russian bot.
Oof, that sucks (the doxxing). I guess here is like retirement for you lol
It is haha I came over when the Reddit API exodus was going on. Had 2 million karma and made the frontpage weekly.
I enjoy them, very much.
Seconding the thank you. I'd forgotten about many of those as well, and some I don't recall having ever known.
Reality, for one.
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.
âIf 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.â
-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.
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.
Okay so letâs 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?"
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.
These are some with RSS feeds. Some are news, most are deeper analyses.
How have I known about Varoufakis for years as a serious political economist and speaker-on-the-topic, and never heard he was a Valve employee with a catalogue of 'gaming-economics' blogs in the early 2010s? LMFAO what a world
Thanks so much!
Thank you
I like The Majority Report, The Serf Times, Egberto Willies is good, Status Coup.
Here's some fave websites I like:
The Intercept,
Jacobin,
World Socialist Website,
Socialist Alternative,
Its Going Down,
Common Dreams,
Lib Com,
Democracy Now,
Vox ,
Huff Post,
Counterpunch,
In These Times,
Dissent Magazine,
Labor Notes,
and the newest one I like is The Lever.
Jacobin is great. In the NL we have it too, but I wish we had a fully domestic news like that. Maybe I should start my own...
All very good sources. The Lever is a great new addition. David Sirota is a great fighter.
the majority report
I too like to listen to the political opinions of Fenton Mulley from Home Movies.
(To be clear, this isn't a dig at Sam Seder. I loved him in Home Movies and on The Majority Report)
The Wire India, Caravan, Swaddle, Newslaundry, etc are some of the few legitimate news media in India. The rest of them shill for either capitalist kool-aid (usually, liberal media like ThePrint or ScoopWhoop) or Modi (proto-fascist brainlets like Republic TV, Essel Media-related subsidiaries, like Zee).
They were founded by leftist parties, so there might be not enough critcism of the left. But exposure to regular media will balance that more than enough.
I think there are similar ones in other languages such as Theekkathir(Tamil Nadu), People's democracy etc.
Some More News
Means TV, but it's a subscription version of YouTube for leftist content and it's a cooperative. The Means Morning News channel is 80s/90s cheesey and a decent news summary that ends with the Rich Dick award
I pay for this one. I pay for a number of independent voices that survive on Patreon, Substack, Comradery, etc. subscriptions/donations.
Ground news. Not left but ranks articles based on viewers and the Cradle has become a great source.
I like to listen to the Muckrake podcast for analysis of recent events.
Late stage live is a comedy new channel that feels like older daily show episodes.
It's really hard to list any news sources that I don't read with a few kilos of salt. DN! seems one of the more trustworthy, and Amy Goodman makes it work on a very slim budget; and for that reason, she's simply not able to cover everything, and maybe that's good, because it gives us time to really think about what they publish. I can tell you the only reason I miss TV is for local coverage, and even then, it's also best taken with a few kilos of salt.
Just to type it out to make it easier to find: Democracy Now!
Thanks, I thought they were talking about the Swedish DN.
There is a subtle difference in the abriviation: "DN!" and "DN". :-)
SBS Australia
Left Coast Right Watch.
I'll leave this here. Good resource for evaluating news sources as you come across them also.
Mother Jones.
WMNF radio
I really like BreakThrough News. Also Novara Media that people have mentioned.
News sources should not have orientations. They should be neutral. If they have a political orientation they are not my favourite source at all
There's no such thing as having no orientation. Being honest about it is better than false neutrality.
I don't think this is true.
I agree that nobody can be neutral, but reporting news should at least try to be. It is basically just telling facts about what is going on in the world. I understand that being totally objective is not possible, but not trying, and reporting facts with an agenda is not a news source that I would take seriously
How do you choose what facts matter? How do you choose how to communicate them? Who do you communicate them to? What does news reporting mean to you? What about news reporting makes it worth your precious time alive? What purpose do the people around you have when they amplify, ignore, or quiet your facts? These are all questions that are answered, explicitly or not, by everyone who communicates or relates to facts.
We could play the impossible "no agenda" game. We could lie to ourselves and to others. Or, we could notice that whenever we are dealing with the truth, we have a point of view. We stand here and not there. We can learn to travel around the mountain of truth, so that we mitigate our blindspots. We can be explicit about where in the mountain we are standing (The north base? The vegetated slope? The summit?).
Instead of playing the "god trick", we can situate our knowledge. That's the best we can do. Check out this article by Donna Haraway on situated knowledge. It changed my life. https://philpapers.org/archive/harskt.pdf
That's not something that exists, nor is it possible.
I know that it is not possible, but actively having an orientation just makes for bad journalism. Reporting on news from both sides, and not sensationalizing news or the way they are reported, should be key factors of any good source of news
The Young Tur... wait what was the question?
OP said leftist
I have a problem with the basic terms of political alignment. Every political view is placed on a line between far left and far right, and centrist views are in constant flux. This seems to foster devotion over unity.
We need a set of 3 dimensional terms because the 1 dimensional "left/right" terms are to simplistic. Perfectly reasonable ideas that essentially everyone would support become points of division purely because those ideas are strongly aligned to either the left or right.
I strongly believe the next evolutionary step we must take is to re-engineer politics and government. Freedom, shared resources, reasonable controls, balanced towards the needs of the public, all seem like dreams right now. Fuck knows how we get there without bloodshed, but get there we must.
Left/right is just shorthand, the issue isn't adding dimensions but recognizing that you can only ever describe political positions by what they actually are. Adding dimensions doesn't necessarily help because completely different stances can occupy the same space depending on how you do it, it becomes astrology.
Look up The Minerva model
Isn't that used for marketing ?
It is. But it's also the basis for the political compass, and is taught in polsci all over the world
Just use Ground news and stop consuming bias
Vox
to a lesser extent the NYT
I think you may have misunderstood the question.
The NYT is pretty left leaning and consistently has high quality (save the opinion section). I did not understand âleftâ to gatekeep sources like Vox. This is like shifting the definition of the right to exclude anyone who isnât around or further than MAGA.
The NYT is pretty left leaning
I think you're living in an alternate reality, mate.
...I mean just look at their Lifestyle section. It's clearly aimed at the kind of person who owns "a summer house in the Hamptons." You can hardly call yourself "left" when your main audience is firmly the capitalist class in Manhattan.
The same NYT that is currently sanewashing Trump? The same NYT that sat on the story about the NSA spying on US citizens for over a year at the request of the Bush administration? That NYT? I say this with all sincerity and intend no offense, but what the living fuck are you talking about?
I wouldn't look at the lifestyle section for news. Lifestyle is always lifestylish.
The same NYT that is currently sanewashing Trump?
Why restate the obvious for the millionth time? Nearly nobody who'd wholeheartedly support Trump reads NYT regularly. There's so much more better and substantial stuff to report like how a Canadian province is covering up a mysterious brain disease that has a much higher potential of changing society rather than just "oh trump is still wagging is way along". EnoughTrumpSpam already.
The same NYT that sat on the story about the NSA spying on US citizens for over a year at the request of the Bush administration?
I'll concede that. Like I said, to a lesser extent.
Left, not liberal.
These are the same things unless youâre talking about economic liberalism. Thatâs like saying âright, not conservativeâ.
Liberalism is the ideology of Capitalism, ergo it is right wing. Conervative liberals and progressive liberals are both right wing to different degrees.
Well, since the world is nearly all capitalist, the system is currently treated as an assumption of the center; this makes progressivism to the left of the average, just like how the center has moved to the right in the US.
Anyways, rest assured, I'm still reading the book you recommended.
That's the Overton Window, which is only useful for analyzing medians, not for actual political discourse.
Well, there's a relatives to relativity. Overton is quite relative while the spectrum is only a bit relative. Per the sources . It's no use restricting the left against anyone who advocate maintaining capitalism, as there won't be enough political entities left... in the "left", thus "right" constitutes nearly no meaning save commonality.
That's certainly a liberal perspective, but leftists disagree. The left isn't that small either, the most populous state in the world is Socialist.
Whoops, there's to my implicit bias despite being from said state in question. But among the deeply capitalist countries, where most of us reside, it's usually true.
<small>(And now, for a small bit of pedantry, India is unfortunately the world's most populous state as of 2023.)</small>
Ah, was referring to the PRC, was unaware of the population demographic shifts, my apologies.
It's okay, I assumed the PRC was what you meant. (As a tangent, what do you think of using CPC vs CCP to refer to their party?)
I use CPC, because that's the format that is more consistent among international Communist Parties.
CNN and now Fox News since they became commies too.
You got jokes. CNN isn't leftist.
CNN, Reuters and AP all are.
Pretty much NewsMax and OAN are the only things I can watch anymore without having the commie agenda crammed down my throat.
In every evaluation Reuters was the only one reported slightly left leaning. AP is very dry and fact-based and therefore neutral, CNN is neutral to slightly right leaning iirc. News Max and OAN are both strongly right leaning.
Fox News is also still strongly right leaning. Tell me one time Fox News tried to push for equality, gun control, or universal basic income. Instead you can find pro gun content, strong defenses for very conservative politicians who are periodically being given a platform and they are regularly talking about how businesses should get more financial aid.
My guy, we can politically disagree but there is not a universe in which fox news is left leaning. Objectively not.
That article is literally just reporting what the president did. How does that mean they're "pro-gun control?" Do you not even read the articles and just seethe and shit yourself about what you think about the wording of headlines? You are such a raging rightist ideologue you have been blinded to all reality and don't even understand the things that you are mad at. Is this satire? Are you a real person who engages in media and politics like this or have I been trolled?
If you're serious, the US must have gasoline in the water or something (but ah that would be COMMUNIST to regulate that; or even report on it!)
Pretty much.
Only according to that stupid bot
Fox News so far right that went around the globe and became left đ¤
So I've not visited some of these for a while, and I know some have issues (like swinging in to either liberal or tankie territory), so I'm not guaranteeing they're all perfect, but these are the news sites I have saved to my bookmarks:
World Socialist Web Site
Left Foot Forward
Freedom News
Jacobin
Evolve Politics
Canary
Skwawkbox
Tribune
Crimethinc
Disability News Service
Morning Star
Novara Media
The National
Great list! Thank you!
Np. Thank you for the time and effort you invest in posting!
I try but most of my posts turn out to be a little controversial hah!
What's the saying, hit dogs holler? Take it as a sign you're hitting a nerve lol
Honestly I don't know how you deal with all that crap đ
I was on Twitter during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Reddit/Lemmy is tame compared to the crap I dealt with on there. đ¤Ł
Oh yeah, that's hardcore đ
I had 65k followers and got doxxed multiple times. Was crazy stuff. All they do on here is just call me Russian bot.
Oof, that sucks (the doxxing). I guess here is like retirement for you lol
It is haha I came over when the Reddit API exodus was going on. Had 2 million karma and made the frontpage weekly.
I enjoy them, very much.
Seconding the thank you. I'd forgotten about many of those as well, and some I don't recall having ever known.
Reality, for one.
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.
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.
Okay so letâs rephrase the question:
I'm afraid that the real meaning was "Those if you who consider yourself leftists, what
news sourcesbubbles do you follow?"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.
These are some with RSS feeds. Some are news, most are deeper analyses.
More than just a former Valve employee.
True story 𤣠PC Gamer, 2015: Valve's economist is Greece's new finance minister
How have I known about Varoufakis for years as a serious political economist and speaker-on-the-topic, and never heard he was a Valve employee with a catalogue of 'gaming-economics' blogs in the early 2010s? LMFAO what a world
Thanks so much!
Thank you
I like The Majority Report, The Serf Times, Egberto Willies is good, Status Coup.
Here's some fave websites I like:
The Intercept,
Jacobin,
World Socialist Website,
Socialist Alternative,
Its Going Down,
Common Dreams,
Lib Com,
Democracy Now,
Vox ,
Huff Post,
Counterpunch,
In These Times,
Dissent Magazine,
Labor Notes,
and the newest one I like is The Lever.
Jacobin is great. In the NL we have it too, but I wish we had a fully domestic news like that. Maybe I should start my own...
All very good sources. The Lever is a great new addition. David Sirota is a great fighter.
the majority report
I too like to listen to the political opinions of Fenton Mulley from Home Movies.
(To be clear, this isn't a dig at Sam Seder. I loved him in Home Movies and on The Majority Report)
Democracy Now. Really ought to watch more often.
The Majority Report. It's awesome. https://m.youtube.com/@TheMajorityReport
The Wire India, Caravan, Swaddle, Newslaundry, etc are some of the few legitimate news media in India. The rest of them shill for either capitalist kool-aid (usually, liberal media like ThePrint or ScoopWhoop) or Modi (proto-fascist brainlets like Republic TV, Essel Media-related subsidiaries, like Zee).
The Hindu is sort-of centre-left
In Malayalam(main language of Kerala), there's:
https://www.deshabhimani.com/
http://www.janayugomonline.com/
They were founded by leftist parties, so there might be not enough critcism of the left. But exposure to regular media will balance that more than enough.
I think there are similar ones in other languages such as Theekkathir(Tamil Nadu), People's democracy etc.
Some More News
Means TV, but it's a subscription version of YouTube for leftist content and it's a cooperative. The Means Morning News channel is 80s/90s cheesey and a decent news summary that ends with the Rich Dick award
I pay for this one. I pay for a number of independent voices that survive on Patreon, Substack, Comradery, etc. subscriptions/donations.
Ground news. Not left but ranks articles based on viewers and the Cradle has become a great source.
I like to listen to the Muckrake podcast for analysis of recent events.
Late stage live is a comedy new channel that feels like older daily show episodes.
It's really hard to list any news sources that I don't read with a few kilos of salt. DN! seems one of the more trustworthy, and Amy Goodman makes it work on a very slim budget; and for that reason, she's simply not able to cover everything, and maybe that's good, because it gives us time to really think about what they publish. I can tell you the only reason I miss TV is for local coverage, and even then, it's also best taken with a few kilos of salt.
Just to type it out to make it easier to find: Democracy Now!
Thanks, I thought they were talking about the Swedish DN.
There is a subtle difference in the abriviation: "DN!" and "DN". :-)
SBS Australia
Left Coast Right Watch.
I'll leave this here. Good resource for evaluating news sources as you come across them also.
Mother Jones.
WMNF radio
I really like BreakThrough News. Also Novara Media that people have mentioned.
News sources should not have orientations. They should be neutral. If they have a political orientation they are not my favourite source at all
There's no such thing as having no orientation. Being honest about it is better than false neutrality.
I don't think this is true.
I agree that nobody can be neutral, but reporting news should at least try to be. It is basically just telling facts about what is going on in the world. I understand that being totally objective is not possible, but not trying, and reporting facts with an agenda is not a news source that I would take seriously
How do you choose what facts matter? How do you choose how to communicate them? Who do you communicate them to? What does news reporting mean to you? What about news reporting makes it worth your precious time alive? What purpose do the people around you have when they amplify, ignore, or quiet your facts? These are all questions that are answered, explicitly or not, by everyone who communicates or relates to facts.
We could play the impossible "no agenda" game. We could lie to ourselves and to others. Or, we could notice that whenever we are dealing with the truth, we have a point of view. We stand here and not there. We can learn to travel around the mountain of truth, so that we mitigate our blindspots. We can be explicit about where in the mountain we are standing (The north base? The vegetated slope? The summit?).
Instead of playing the "god trick", we can situate our knowledge. That's the best we can do. Check out this article by Donna Haraway on situated knowledge. It changed my life. https://philpapers.org/archive/harskt.pdf
That's not something that exists, nor is it possible.
I know that it is not possible, but actively having an orientation just makes for bad journalism. Reporting on news from both sides, and not sensationalizing news or the way they are reported, should be key factors of any good source of news
The Young Tur... wait what was the question?
OP said leftist
I have a problem with the basic terms of political alignment. Every political view is placed on a line between far left and far right, and centrist views are in constant flux. This seems to foster devotion over unity.
We need a set of 3 dimensional terms because the 1 dimensional "left/right" terms are to simplistic. Perfectly reasonable ideas that essentially everyone would support become points of division purely because those ideas are strongly aligned to either the left or right.
I strongly believe the next evolutionary step we must take is to re-engineer politics and government. Freedom, shared resources, reasonable controls, balanced towards the needs of the public, all seem like dreams right now. Fuck knows how we get there without bloodshed, but get there we must.
Left/right is just shorthand, the issue isn't adding dimensions but recognizing that you can only ever describe political positions by what they actually are. Adding dimensions doesn't necessarily help because completely different stances can occupy the same space depending on how you do it, it becomes astrology.
Look up The Minerva model
Isn't that used for marketing ?
It is. But it's also the basis for the political compass, and is taught in polsci all over the world
Just use Ground news and stop consuming bias
Vox
I think you may have misunderstood the question.
The NYT is pretty left leaning and consistently has high quality (save the opinion section). I did not understand âleftâ to gatekeep sources like Vox. This is like shifting the definition of the right to exclude anyone who isnât around or further than MAGA.
I think you're living in an alternate reality, mate.
...I mean just look at their Lifestyle section. It's clearly aimed at the kind of person who owns "a summer house in the Hamptons." You can hardly call yourself "left" when your main audience is firmly the capitalist class in Manhattan.
The same NYT that is currently sanewashing Trump? The same NYT that sat on the story about the NSA spying on US citizens for over a year at the request of the Bush administration? That NYT? I say this with all sincerity and intend no offense, but what the living fuck are you talking about?
I wouldn't look at the lifestyle section for news. Lifestyle is always lifestylish.
Why restate the obvious for the millionth time? Nearly nobody who'd wholeheartedly support Trump reads NYT regularly. There's so much more better and substantial stuff to report like how a Canadian province is covering up a mysterious brain disease that has a much higher potential of changing society rather than just "oh trump is still wagging is way along". EnoughTrumpSpam already.
I'll concede that. Like I said, to a lesser extent.
Left, not liberal.
These are the same things unless youâre talking about economic liberalism. Thatâs like saying âright, not conservativeâ.
Liberalism is the ideology of Capitalism, ergo it is right wing. Conervative liberals and progressive liberals are both right wing to different degrees.
Well, since the world is nearly all capitalist, the system is currently treated as an assumption of the center; this makes progressivism to the left of the average, just like how the center has moved to the right in the US.
Anyways, rest assured, I'm still reading the book you recommended.
That's the Overton Window, which is only useful for analyzing medians, not for actual political discourse.
Well, there's a relatives to relativity. Overton is quite relative while the spectrum is only a bit relative. Per the sources . It's no use restricting the left against anyone who advocate maintaining capitalism, as there won't be enough political entities left... in the "left", thus "right" constitutes nearly no meaning save commonality.
That's certainly a liberal perspective, but leftists disagree. The left isn't that small either, the most populous state in the world is Socialist.
Whoops, there's to my implicit bias despite being from said state in question. But among the deeply capitalist countries, where most of us reside, it's usually true.
<small>(And now, for a small bit of pedantry, India is unfortunately the world's most populous state as of 2023.)</small>
Ah, was referring to the PRC, was unaware of the population demographic shifts, my apologies.
It's okay, I assumed the PRC was what you meant. (As a tangent, what do you think of using CPC vs CCP to refer to their party?)
I use CPC, because that's the format that is more consistent among international Communist Parties.
CNN and now Fox News since they became commies too.
You got jokes. CNN isn't leftist.
CNN, Reuters and AP all are.
Pretty much NewsMax and OAN are the only things I can watch anymore without having the commie agenda crammed down my throat.
In every evaluation Reuters was the only one reported slightly left leaning. AP is very dry and fact-based and therefore neutral, CNN is neutral to slightly right leaning iirc. News Max and OAN are both strongly right leaning.
Fox News is also still strongly right leaning. Tell me one time Fox News tried to push for equality, gun control, or universal basic income. Instead you can find pro gun content, strong defenses for very conservative politicians who are periodically being given a platform and they are regularly talking about how businesses should get more financial aid.
My guy, we can politically disagree but there is not a universe in which fox news is left leaning. Objectively not.
A simple google search came up with this:
Trump administration moves to ban sale of bump stocks, make possession illegal by March.
So they are pro-gun control.
That article is literally just reporting what the president did. How does that mean they're "pro-gun control?" Do you not even read the articles and just seethe and shit yourself about what you think about the wording of headlines? You are such a raging rightist ideologue you have been blinded to all reality and don't even understand the things that you are mad at. Is this satire? Are you a real person who engages in media and politics like this or have I been trolled?
If you're serious, the US must have gasoline in the water or something (but ah that would be COMMUNIST to regulate that; or even report on it!)
Pretty much.
Only according to that stupid bot
Fox News so far right that went around the globe and became left đ¤
Hey, compared to OAN...