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.)
To back up OP’s point, here’s some choice quotes from Wikipedia:
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.
Politico exists to give people in power a way to safely and selectively leak what’s useful to them.
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.
This is a fantastic resource to answer that very question, and I rely on it quite a lot: Media Bias Fact Check
What news organization today isn’t owned by some international goliath?
Excellent question. Here are the ones I could think of; let’s collect links! (Of course, they all have their flaws.)
World at large:
- <please help me out, folks>
US-focussed:
Europe in general:
- Most public broadcasting stations (BBC and the likes of it)
Germany:
- nd-aktuell.de
- jacobin.de
- kontextwochenzeitung.de (Baden-Württemberg)
- taz.de
- jungewelt.de (with a grain of salt)
- netzpolitik.org (digital/privacy/civil rights politics)
Philippines:
- rappler.com (led by Maria Ressa, do watch this speech of hers)
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/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.
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.
That’s why its important to look up company ownership (in my opinion)
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 😜
Bild is a shitty tabloid. Love, Germany.
Jfc
If it’s not independent and visibly so, expect it to be a right wing corporate rag
Oooo K. Thanks?
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.
Reminiscent of dumping on the Washington Post because Bezos.
Things did turn out quite badly.
The reason that quality independent journalism is so hard to find is that nobody much is paying for it. Including you, probably.
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).
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
