Reliable News Sources?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

As a leftist, what are the best news sources? Let's create a list of the most reliable websites, newspapers, etc. so that they can be referenced by the revolutionary movement.

Also, evaluations of western news sources (i.e. The Economist, NYT, etc.) as far as impartiality would be interesting.

Share your favorite sites (we leftists do love sharing :-P)

[Spawn of Stalin]

As far as general news is concerned, I like Press TV and Russia Today. Al Jazeera is okay but has gone downhill in recent years, still, it's a lot better than most. I prefer to watch the news on TV, but the websites have a lot of content you wouldn't find on any of the imperialist media's sites. Any socialist who gets any of these channels has no excuse to be watching BBC, MSNBC, Sky, etc.

[The American]

reliable

news source
pick one

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

pick one

I want a news source that reaches the highest degree of reliability avalable.

[Broletariat]

I like to use wsws.org and alternet.org

Beware the latter, it's a liberal place.

I've recently starting checking out leninology.blogspot and it seems pretty cool.

[Political_Chucky]

I've been watching democracy now!(www.democracynow.org) religiously lately which has a pretty good array of leftists who speak on the program. They have a good non-biased group of people reporting in my opinion.

[berlitz23]

Your invocation for 'reliability' yields an ambiguous connotation-can you elucidate and elaborate on this term? Since, all media-formats have agendas, are you looking for a 'format' unequivocally symmetrical with your beliefs and principles? Or do you aspire to have a more pluralistic and perspectivist approach? entailing you engage with several mediums with vantage points all over the map? Essentially, you need to question your presuppositions about the Media and its role before you understand how to interpret and investigate into its Modus Operandi if you will. Therefore, If you are truly committed to be active in understanding how ideology disseminates and reproduces I would vow for the latter because subjugating yourself to a singular media format only curtails your ability to actively understand how Ideology operates, channels, and diffuses. I would watch a multitude of shows and watch critically, understand how different 'information' becomes distributed, regulated, and manufactured-that should be at least an element of your enterprise in your search for 'reliability.'

[Tablo]

Russia Today makes me laugh. Al Jazeera is my favorite mainstream news station. I'm not sure if I can really consider any news source reliable. It is best to watch what you find most informative and treat the news offered by it critically.

[Widerstand]

I love The Economist. They are so obviously pro-capitalist it hurts, but they do have quite a grasp of bourgeois economy (of course they always operate under the assumption that the working class doesn't really do much and more important, that capitalism can be saved, but you can read past that, easily).

As for English language news sources I always like Al Jazeera, but yeah, they are really biased and pro-capitalist, too.

[The American]

After Alex Jones showed up on Russia Today for the 3rd time I felt I needed to stop watching RT.

[Fulanito de Tal]

www.cubadebate.cu

[bailey_187]

lol RT always give airtime to wackos from America peddling conspiracies and elaborate stories about USA 'breaking up' :lol:

[Red Future]

lol RT always give airtime to wackos from America peddling conspiracies and elaborate stories about USA 'breaking up' :lol:

Russia always seems to be doing extremley well in whatever they are reporting on too!!:lol:

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Your invocation for 'reliability' yields an ambiguous connotation-can you elucidate and elaborate on this term? Since, all media-formats have agendas, are you looking for a 'format' unequivocally symmetrical with your beliefs and principles? Or do you aspire to have a more pluralistic and perspectivist approach? entailing you engage with several mediums with vantage points all over the map? Essentially, you need to question your presuppositions about the Media and its role before you understand how to interpret and investigate into its Modus Operandi if you will. Therefore, If you are truly committed to be active in understanding how ideology disseminates and reproduces I would vow for the latter because subjugating yourself to a singular media format only curtails your ability to actively understand how Ideology operates, channels, and diffuses. I would watch a multitude of shows and watch critically, understand how different 'information' becomes distributed, regulated, and manufactured-that should be at least an element of your enterprise in your search for 'reliability.'

I agree wholeheartedly. Any recommendations?

[berlitz23]

I agree wholeheartedly. Any recommendations?

Are you requesting for my personal preferences?

[thesadmafioso]

As far as mainstream sources go, NPR is usually more objective and reliable than not.

And I guess you could say something like CSPAN if you really want to watch television for news, as it is devoid of any additional commentary to its programming.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Are you requesting for my personal preferences?

Yes, please.

[Amphictyonis]

Nothing with funding from private corporations/foundations or the government.

[berlitz23]

Before responding to the question I would like to make a few preliminary remarks, we need to understand,underscore and underline again the commodification of 'Information'. Essentially understand how information whether it is from our disposed sources invariably becomes imprisoned by the nonetheless a 'calculated' lense. It precipitates the question and excavating process of understanding how our 'shows' are made and undeniably by 'Who'. First and foremost one must realize Any Media format cannot dislodge itself from an entrenched ethnocentrism,Phallaogcentrism(Which will not be elaborated in this post) whereas it will invariably subordinate itself to national codes, customes, and languages that to a degree eschew a 'foreign' perspective. This is not to say The constellation of Media wholly neglects a foreign and international perspectives-yet these alterior perspectives must surrender still to a dominant domain of ideology and perspective whether we believe these shows possess a genuine interest in transmissioning and illuminating Alterior viewpoints.
This subsumes an even greater and more exigent issue in regards to Image-Outlets, we must fundamentally question when any Apparatus intervenes what they select,censor, frame, filter and how the negotiation process operates. One can fall into the trap of thinking images are faithful reproductions of 'Live' Events, but we must understand what constitutes our notion of an Event. Who determines, dictates, precipitates and confers an event with its significance are quesitons everyone must ask whether it is through Local, Underground Or Major instituional apparatuses, again I emphasize these are questions we must ask ourselves incessantly and with rigorous measure.
Yes, it is difficult and I could elaborate further if desired, but I do watch shows like Democracy Now, CNN, Al-Jazeera, Fox News, and Then resign myself to cyberspace, reading a litany of media sources like Huffington Post, Revleft, and a slew of Blogs (If you wish for me to disclose here I am willing). However, I earnestly and rigorously try to understand at the same time what I am reading and watching is always manipulated by a confluence of forces that will always shape and to a certain extent be commensurable with my perspective.
Yet, I think before we dole and provide our preferred 'media' we need to understand how 'media' will not only relinquish to the Dominant Regime of thinking, yet also to its rhythm and calculative effects that have prevailed and permeated through our spheres of 'informative' apparatuses and organs. This post right now subjugates itself to a rhythm, because after a certain point I suppose my post will be circumscribed by a limit of words or interest, this might be a superfluous novelty for some, but it is question we must ask, who determines the format and template of our ideas and questions.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Essentially, you need to question your presuppositions about the Media and its role before you understand how to interpret and investigate into its Modus Operandi if you will. Therefore, If you are truly committed to be active in understanding how ideology disseminates and reproduces I would vow for the latter because subjugating yourself to a singular media format only curtails your ability to actively understand how Ideology operates, channels, and diffuses. I would watch a multitude of shows and watch critically, understand how different 'information' becomes distributed, regulated, and manufactured-that should be at least an element of your enterprise in your search for 'reliability.'

I wouldn't even bother to do this... For despite your attempts to portray historiography as an entirely subjective practice, it's not. Simply put, you can't just 'make up history' - events either happen or they don't. I would argue that you should take a perspectivist view on news reporting simply because (like any scientific field) there's greater validity in truth by consensus. That said, arguing that it is an absolutely necessary to analyze the 'discourse' and 'language' of the information seems quite unnecessary and really a phenomenal waste of time. What you are advocating for is simply an attempt to force the practice of literary criticism onto a field where it is only slightly required (at best...). As I said earlier, there are a lot of subjective and idealogical biases in news reporting, however for any legitimate news agency, there are certain standards for journalism and reporting, which leads to a minimization of those biases.

[berlitz23]

I wouldn't even bother to do this... For despite your attempts to portray historiography as an entirely subjective practice, it's not. Simply put, you can't just 'make up history' - events either happen or they don't. I would argue that you should take a perspectivist view on news reporting simply because (like any scientific field) there's greater validity in truth by consensus. That said, arguing that it is an absolutely necessary to analyze the 'discourse' and 'language' of the information seems quite unnecessary and really a phenomenal waste of time. What you are advocating for is simply an attempt to force the practice of literary criticism onto a field where it is only slightly required (at best...). As I said earlier, there are a lot of subjective and idealogical biases in news reporting, however for any legitimate news agency, there are certain standards for journalism and reporting, which leads to a minimization of those biases.

I did not contend that one can simply 'make up history' through the media, I am more interested in what I have stated previously how history becomes intervened and moulded by these very Apparatuses and Institutions. Also, I am fundamentally questioning the politics of memory and history itself that becomes transmissioned through the array of media apparatuses, that are bastions of System, and how these bastions facilitate the subsistence of this dominant aegis of ideology. I would also like to question Why would it be 'unnecessary and phenomenal waste of time' to analyze the discourse and language of information when in a contemporary context a majority of our population relies on these very institutions for their news? Why does it seem in our society that there is an erosion of memory, awareness, and historigraphy, it is not exclusively and merely ideology, there are also other albeit not palpable forces playing a role in shaping and construing their relation to these appartuses. My next question to you is what constitutes the discourse legitimate news agency? To simply neglect these questions assumes that these standards by right have always had a legitimacy in the first place, but how do legitimate standards arise and become embedded, ingrained, and embraced by a public sphere? These questions should be asked, you might think they are merely superfluous and inane, but I think they do bear concrete and tangible significance if we are to address questions about The Media and its hegemonic role today.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I did not contend that one can simply 'make up history' through the media, I am more interested in what I have stated previously how history becomes intervened and moulded by these very Apparatuses and Institutions.

But this is different than history itself. I stated that I am interested in the actual events that occurred, while you stated that you are interested in how the media construes these events to fit towards their idealogical biases.


Also, I am fundamentally questioning the politics of memory and history itself that becomes transmissioned through the array of media apparatuses, that are bastions of System, and how these bastions facilitate the subsistence of this dominant aegis of ideology.

I think overwhelmingly this is a non-issue. Because while to a certain extend history can (and is) molded to fit idealogical purposes, as I said earlier, one only has so much liberty with historical facts. It seems as if you are advocating for historical revisionism.


Why does it seem in our society that there is an erosion of memory, awareness, and historigraphy,

I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here...


it is not exclusively and merely ideology, there are also other albeit not palpable forces playing a role in shaping and construing their relation to these appartuses.

What exactly are these non-palpable forces?


My next question to you is what constitutes the discourse legitimate news agency?

News agencies that have been established for upholding high standards in journalistic practices - ex. The Economist. But not only that, virtually every news agency (bar Infowars or some fringe news agency), is fairly accurate.

Because I perceive journalism (and historiography) like this:

Underlying Facts => Conclusions Drawn by the Author

I believe that it is fairly easy to separate the two, and by analyzing the sources referenced and other textual information, one can come to a well adversed understanding of the actual facts underlying an event. You seem to believe that authors hold the ability to radically mold the underlying facts that they use to support their articles - a proposition that I don't accept. Authors may exclude and include facts based upon there ability to support the idealogical biases of the writer, but rarely do they dramatically alter the factual information that goes into their piece (and they are usually heavily critiqued if they engage in such practices).

But this is why I believe language and discourse play a secondary role in historiography, and that one should focus on a perspectival comprehension of the data rather than the discourse. To give an example, say if I write:

Marxist-Leninism is a totalitarian ideology, which in every circumstance it was implemented lead to a police state. Marxist-Leninism will always lead to a totalitarian system due to its closed, totalizing ideology.

Now, in this circumstance, we can separate the facts from the authors conclusions, right?


To simply neglect these questions assumes that these standards by right have always had a legitimacy in the first place, but how do legitimate standards arise and become embedded, ingrained, and embraced by a public sphere? These questions should be asked, you might think they are merely superfluous and inane, but I think they do bear concrete and tangible significance if we are to address questions about The Media and its hegemonic role today.

I think that in all fields of scientific practice, the standards of legitimacy are quite grounded - that one cannot take liberties with data, and should try best to adhere towards an objective standard when it comes to evaluating the data.

But I have a question for you: if authors play a large role in shaping not only their texts but the supposed histories, information, etc. that are allegedly a part of their text, in order to fit their idealogical biases, how do we come to conclusions when evaluating their accuracy? For example, I know when I read a pro-Marxist article, it's going to tell me how class struggles are influencing a certain scenario - where as if I read a pro-capitalist article, it's going to tell me how state meddling in the economy is influencing a certain scenario... so how do I tell which viewpoint is the more accurate representation of the reality?

[Political_Chucky]

I did not contend that one can simply 'make up history' through the media, I am more interested in what I have stated previously how history becomes intervened and moulded by these very Apparatuses and Institutions. Also, I am fundamentally questioning the politics of memory and history itself that becomes transmissioned through the array of media apparatuses, that are bastions of System, and how these bastions facilitate the subsistence of this dominant aegis of ideology. I would also like to question Why would it be 'unnecessary and phenomenal waste of time' to analyze the discourse and language of information when in a contemporary context a majority of our population relies on these very institutions for their news? Why does it seem in our society that there is an erosion of memory, awareness, and historigraphy, it is not exclusively and merely ideology, there are also other albeit not palpable forces playing a role in shaping and construing their relation to these appartuses. My next question to you is what constitutes the discourse legitimate news agency? To simply neglect these questions assumes that these standards by right have always had a legitimacy in the first place, but how do legitimate standards arise and become embedded, ingrained, and embraced by a public sphere? These questions should be asked, you might think they are merely superfluous and inane, but I think they do bear concrete and tangible significance if we are to address questions about The Media and its hegemonic role today.

*sigh* I think you think too much.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is an excellent and radical source of (non-Marxist, but alternative) news:

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/

[berlitz23]

I'll respond to your questions and responses once time permits me. I don't want the assumption that I am evading your questions and responses-they are in fact stimulating and galvanizing me to question my inherent assumptions as well. So hopefully we can continue on this discussion.