The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Politico (stylized in all caps), known originally as The Politico, is an American political digital newspaper company founded by American banker and media executive Robert Allbritton in 2007.[4]
In 2021, Politico was reportedly acquired for over $1 billion by Axel Springer SE, a German news publisher and media company.[6] Axel Springer SE's CEO Mathias Dopfner said that Politico employees would be required to adhere to the company's principles of support for Israel's right to exist, support for a United Europe and a free-market economy.[7]
In 2024, Politico was handed leaked confidential materials from the Donald Trump presidential campaign. Politico confirmed that the documents were authentic but refused to report on their contents. The Associated Press wrote that the decision by Politico to not report on the Trump campaign leaks stands "in marked contrast" to Politico's extensive reporting on the leaked email communications of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager, John Podesta.[110]
An investigation by The Intercept, The Nation, and DeSmog found that Politico is one of the leading media outlets that publishes advertising for the fossil fuel industry while failing to adequately distinguish between independent journalism and native advertising.[111] Journalists who cover climate change for Politico are concerned that conflicts of interest with the companies and industries that cause climate change, obstruct action, and engage in greenwashing through sponsored content will reduce the credibility of their reporting on climate change and cause readers to be misinformed.[111]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico
Axel Springer SE (German: [ˈaksl̩ ˈʃpʁɪŋɐ ɛsˈeː]) is a European multinational mass and online media company, based in Berlin, Germany.
with numerous multimedia news brands, such as Bild, Die Welt, Fakt, and the US political news site Politico, which Axel Springer acquired in 2021.[5]
The company generated total revenues of about €3.93 billion and an EBITDA increase of 12.8% in the first half of 2023.[6][7] Following US private-equity firm KKR's majority-stake acquisition in 2020, Axel Springer’s revenues have increased by a total of approximately €1 billion.[8][9][10] The company, including its subsidiaries, joint ventures, and licenses, operates in more than 40 countries.
In the United States, Axel Springer is ranked among the top four digital publishers, alongside USA Today, News Corp, and The New York Times.[6]
Gudrun Kruip, a scholar associated with the Stiftung Bundespräsident-Theodor-Heuss-Haus, has claimed that Axel Springer SE, along with its subsidiaries, exhibits a pro-American stance, often omitting criticism of US foreign policy.[60] This observation is then backed by allegations made by two former CIA officers in an interview with The Nation, claiming that Axel Springer received $7 million from the CIA.[61] The purpose of this funding, they allege, was to influence the publisher to align its editorial content with American geopolitical interests.[61] Although no conclusive evidence has come to light, Springer's admission in his autobiography regarding the financial challenges faced at the outset of his publishing venture, suggesting the necessity of external funding for the company's rapid growth led Kruip to believe that the allegations of CIA financial support are credible.[60] As of 2001, the Axel Springer SE names "solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America" as one of its core principles on its website.[62] This explicit stance has led to critiques from scholars and independent observers regarding the company's perceived alignment with American interests.[60][63][64][65][66] Furthermore, an article in Foreign Policy has critiqued Axel Springer SE for a history of compromising journalistic ethics to support right-wing causes, implying a longstanding pattern of bias in its publications.[67]
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.
That's why its important to look up company ownership (in my opinion)
Btw, any block list of their companies around, that isn't 6 years out of date? Too much search noise about AS fighting adblockers.
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.
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:
US-focussed:
Europe in general:
Germany:
Philippines:
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novara_Media
https://novaramedia.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canary_(website)
https://www.thecanary.co/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Issue
https://www.bigissue.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Caledonia
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scots_Independent
https://scotsindependent.scot/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_(website)
https://www.joe.co.uk/
https://www.joe.ie/
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.
This is a fantastic resource to answer that very question, and I rely on it quite a lot: Media Bias Fact Check
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.
Wild to me that I already blocked them without knowing this.
Just based on their biased reporting.
If it's not independent and visibly so, expect it to be a right wing corporate rag
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
Sure, but their European reporting from Brussels is by far the best. Euronews has gone down the drain and Euractiv is no match.
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.
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).
Blatant ads irresponsible abuse of "right wing propaganda" in the current context of fascism. Left eating center shit