Just cancelled my subscription, absolutely disgusting seeing this on the front page. Is there any publication left not bought and paid for by our corporate overlords?
The onion can point to fascism and call it such and consistently oppose it. Might be the only news source that can sadly enough. So yeah I’m willing to put up with learning about mass shootings like this
The Guardian is decent. Articles can definitely be opinionated and not all columnists are equally good, but I haven’t read anything particularly egregious yet. And their investigative journalism is quite good compared to other media outlets imo.
They also clearly mark articles that are old as being old (warning you to check more recent sources), which I quite like.
It’s one of the few outlets that seems to have an opinion rather than an agenda, if that makes sense. Their viewpoint is left of center, but they make this fairly clear and they’re pretty factual and offer nuanced alternative viewpoints most of the time. They don’t seem like they’re sneakily trying to convince you of stuff, it’s just a “Here’s what we think about what happened”.
As a person who actually lived in the UK and read The Guardian for maybe a decade, in my opinion it’s a neoliberal propaganda outlet and it’s definitely (not just opinion, actual fact) pretty much just maned (last I checked all journalists but 2) by people from a high upper middle class and upper class background (what in the UK is called “Public School Educated”, which curiously doesn’t mean a State School, it means an expensive private school).
All you have to do is look back at the Snowden Leaks - The Guardian did leak the Snowden information but not soon after the Newspaper Editor there who was part of it got kicked out and the coverage of it changed 180 degrees, to the point that whilst the UK Government was busy retroactively making legal all that eavesdropping (unlike the US, were some of it was rolled back) The Guardian was mute about it.
(Whilst I believe The Guardian had genuine Leftwing and pro-Democracy journalists - and last I checked, it still has two of them - they’re the exception rather than the rule as the natural tendency of both its Board and most of its staff is Neoliberalism in very much the same vein as the NYT as well as massivelly pro-System - with their coverage of The Royals being fawning to the point of servilism - which is why the Editor who published Snowden got kicked out as soon as the focus on it moved out)
It also has had some real extreme Fashion-following Upper Class Identity Warrior articles over the years, like the one from a self-proclaimed Feminist criticizing men who use sex dolls (I! Kid! You! Not!) totally oblivious to how her article was in exactly the same pattern as used a decade or two earlier to criticize homosexuality.
Last but not least (I have material here to go all day, but lets not) don’t get me started on how they were a massive part of the campaign to slander Corbyn (a leftwinger who some years ago got elected leader of the Labour party, taking it of the hands of the Neoliberals who led it for 2 decades), a campaign which overwhelmingly relied on anti-semitism accusations, done together with UK based Israeli-linked Jewish groups and which was so ridiculous that they literally accused a Jewish Holocaust Survivor of being anti-semite for comparing some of the actions of Israel with those of the Nazis (this was some years ago) and thus taint Corbyn by association as they were both on the same panel in a conference.
(The present day Zionist Genocide and the use of such anti-semitism accusations to slander critics of their mass murder, really gives us some perspective on the true nature of such slander and those who use it. The anti-Corbyn campaign on which The Guardian so eagerly participated was very much an early trial run of the use by Israel - with again The Guardian eagerly participating, though they’ve stopped it after a while - of such Identity Politics to shore up support for and deflect criticism of their Genocide)
They’re slippery posh twats at The Guardian who don’t just straightforward lie like populists do and instead use cherry-picking, half-truths and other deceit techniques in their “opinion making” (some of their journalists have openly admitted that their work is making opinion), basically like the New York Times but with the benefits of a more elegant style of dialectics, argument building and word usage that comes for having had a posh education at so-called Public Schools.
They’re “posh” neoliberal shit, so people who never lived in Britain can’t really identify it as just a variant of the same of swindle as the NYT done in the service of a similar kind of elites.
What about ProPublica? They still do pretty hard hitting investigative journalism. They’re the ones that wrote some of the more recent in depth articles about an insurer’s (might have been UHC’s) automated denial system.
Is there any publication left not bought and paid for by our corporate overlords?
Really good question. I think the answer, at least in terms of newspapers, is a big NO. I had realized years ago that the “newspapers of record”, i.e., New York Times and Washington Post, were compromised after seeing how they covered Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In reality, they likely always were compromised. Don’t forget that NYT had a large role in pushing the Iraq invasion that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I’ve heard that they were also involved in the US getting into Vietnam too, but don’t have much detail of that.
I have decided to subscribe to my local metro area newspaper instead, just to get some coverage of local news and events in addition to basic national and international coverage.
Now, magazines should be a different story, if you look at leftist ones like Jacobin, Monthly Review, etc.
Just cancelled my subscription, absolutely disgusting seeing this on the front page. Is there any publication left not bought and paid for by our corporate overlords?
The Onion?
At least the onion has some journalistic integrity
The onion can point to fascism and call it such and consistently oppose it. Might be the only news source that can sadly enough. So yeah I’m willing to put up with learning about mass shootings like this
I can’t vouch for their opinions, because I haven’t read it enough, but The Guardian doesn’t have shareholders and has editorial freedom
The Guardian is decent. Articles can definitely be opinionated and not all columnists are equally good, but I haven’t read anything particularly egregious yet. And their investigative journalism is quite good compared to other media outlets imo.
They also clearly mark articles that are old as being old (warning you to check more recent sources), which I quite like.
It’s one of the few outlets that seems to have an opinion rather than an agenda, if that makes sense. Their viewpoint is left of center, but they make this fairly clear and they’re pretty factual and offer nuanced alternative viewpoints most of the time. They don’t seem like they’re sneakily trying to convince you of stuff, it’s just a “Here’s what we think about what happened”.
I subscribe to the Guardian. They’re not always perfect - nothing is. But they’re good.
First ones I saw to give an actual explanation of what happened in Amsterdam, for example.
As a person who actually lived in the UK and read The Guardian for maybe a decade, in my opinion it’s a neoliberal propaganda outlet and it’s definitely (not just opinion, actual fact) pretty much just maned (last I checked all journalists but 2) by people from a high upper middle class and upper class background (what in the UK is called “Public School Educated”, which curiously doesn’t mean a State School, it means an expensive private school).
All you have to do is look back at the Snowden Leaks - The Guardian did leak the Snowden information but not soon after the Newspaper Editor there who was part of it got kicked out and the coverage of it changed 180 degrees, to the point that whilst the UK Government was busy retroactively making legal all that eavesdropping (unlike the US, were some of it was rolled back) The Guardian was mute about it.
(Whilst I believe The Guardian had genuine Leftwing and pro-Democracy journalists - and last I checked, it still has two of them - they’re the exception rather than the rule as the natural tendency of both its Board and most of its staff is Neoliberalism in very much the same vein as the NYT as well as massivelly pro-System - with their coverage of The Royals being fawning to the point of servilism - which is why the Editor who published Snowden got kicked out as soon as the focus on it moved out)
It also has had some real extreme Fashion-following Upper Class Identity Warrior articles over the years, like the one from a self-proclaimed Feminist criticizing men who use sex dolls (I! Kid! You! Not!) totally oblivious to how her article was in exactly the same pattern as used a decade or two earlier to criticize homosexuality.
Last but not least (I have material here to go all day, but lets not) don’t get me started on how they were a massive part of the campaign to slander Corbyn (a leftwinger who some years ago got elected leader of the Labour party, taking it of the hands of the Neoliberals who led it for 2 decades), a campaign which overwhelmingly relied on anti-semitism accusations, done together with UK based Israeli-linked Jewish groups and which was so ridiculous that they literally accused a Jewish Holocaust Survivor of being anti-semite for comparing some of the actions of Israel with those of the Nazis (this was some years ago) and thus taint Corbyn by association as they were both on the same panel in a conference.
(The present day Zionist Genocide and the use of such anti-semitism accusations to slander critics of their mass murder, really gives us some perspective on the true nature of such slander and those who use it. The anti-Corbyn campaign on which The Guardian so eagerly participated was very much an early trial run of the use by Israel - with again The Guardian eagerly participating, though they’ve stopped it after a while - of such Identity Politics to shore up support for and deflect criticism of their Genocide)
They’re slippery posh twats at The Guardian who don’t just straightforward lie like populists do and instead use cherry-picking, half-truths and other deceit techniques in their “opinion making” (some of their journalists have openly admitted that their work is making opinion), basically like the New York Times but with the benefits of a more elegant style of dialectics, argument building and word usage that comes for having had a posh education at so-called Public Schools.
They still shill be neo lib shite?
They’re “posh” neoliberal shit, so people who never lived in Britain can’t really identify it as just a variant of the same of swindle as the NYT done in the service of a similar kind of elites.
What about ProPublica? They still do pretty hard hitting investigative journalism. They’re the ones that wrote some of the more recent in depth articles about an insurer’s (might have been UHC’s) automated denial system.
Really good question. I think the answer, at least in terms of newspapers, is a big NO. I had realized years ago that the “newspapers of record”, i.e., New York Times and Washington Post, were compromised after seeing how they covered Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In reality, they likely always were compromised. Don’t forget that NYT had a large role in pushing the Iraq invasion that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I’ve heard that they were also involved in the US getting into Vietnam too, but don’t have much detail of that.
I have decided to subscribe to my local metro area newspaper instead, just to get some coverage of local news and events in addition to basic national and international coverage.
Now, magazines should be a different story, if you look at leftist ones like Jacobin, Monthly Review, etc.
I tried last op-ed and they sucked me in with like ten years for thirty cents.