I love supporting independent non-partisan news sources - MoNews Premium and SmartHer News. Such great and reliable sources. I also like supporting more opinion publications- The Preamble for left leaning community and The Free Press for right leaning. We are fortunate to have many options.
Also like the suggestion of print newspapers. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
I love supporting independent non-partisan news sources - MoNews Premium and SmartHer News. Such great and reliable sources. I also like supporting more opinion publications- The Preamble for left leaning community and The Free Press for right leaning. We are fortunate to have many options.
Also like the suggestion of print newspapers. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks for sharing your media diet, Amy! I appreciate how you balance sources across the spectrum - that's something we could all benefit from. If there’s anything to be optimistic about in today’s landscape of journalism, is the ability to seek out independent voices who have more of a platform than they could have had before the Internet Age. Whether or not we personally think that’s a good thing probably depends on whose voice we are discussing, but I tend to think it’s overall a good thing that will hopefully come back into the realm of sanity as we figure out how to use these new tools to discuss the world.
Your comment has me thinking about how categorizing media organizations by perceived political slant can be tricky these days. I think your label of the Preamble community leaning left in the comments is accurate, even as the newsletter itself aims for nonpartisan coverage. But our perception of media outlets often shifts depending on who's in power and who they're critiquing. A hypothetical journalist who consistently investigates people in power regardless of party affiliation will get perceived as biased in either direction based on the politics of who is running things. That’s not to say that organizations don’t have their customers’ politics in mind when choosing their stories, that will always happen with journalism that's bound by pressures of a capitalist system. But I just find the topic fascinating because our reaction to the news and their supposed biases is so based on our personal perspectives.
I'm curious, given your thoughtful approach to news consumption: what's your take on the FCC investigations described in Sharon's article? Do you see any concerning patterns, or do you view the situation differently? I think one reasonable person’s cause for alarm could be another reasonable person’s cause for celebration, if they are used to a system that seemed corrupt in the previous status quo. Your perspective always adds valuable balance to these conversations.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with you on how media is categorized is perceived differently depending who is in power. I have learned, from this educated group, to check Ad Fontes for evaluations of media sources. One commenter said once that reliability is often more important than biases, which I agree with. I have submitted a few Preamble articles to Ad Fontes (this is a paid feature 🤓) and they have come back as left leaning and good reliability. I look forward to seeing The Preamble on the Ad Fontes dashboard one day!
In regards to this article, I am concerned with different treatment for outlets that support Trump. I think it should be equal treatment by the FCC. I admit to feeling fatigued by all the lawsuits involving Trump- whether he is suing or being sued. My only reaction to that is overwhelm.
That’s interesting! Sharon’s Insta or podcast (not sure which one) showed up on there once and it was center and reliable.
I’m not surprised the Preamble leans left, mostly because of how critical she has been of the current administration. But I personally think she’d be as critical if it were a liberal administration doing the exact same thing.
I agree that Ad Fontes' use of reliability as well as political bias gives a much clearer picture than the efforts other organizations have been making to determine bias. It's one of my favorite charts to explore in my down time (which is very nerdy).
I'm always struck by how much more sparse the right-leaning reliable quadrant is than on the other side, and I'm genuinely curious why that's the case. It doesn't speak terribly well of the conservative news media. Any thoughts on that?
I love exploring the chart too! Lol :) I have noticed the same and I’m not sure why. But it is concerning if people only get news from right leaning and low reliability ranking. I see it on social media- people sharing stuff from both extremes and low reliability sources. Hopefully if Ad Fontes gets more exposure- people will seek media sources that are high in reliability.
I appreciate the ability to view news stories from Allsides.com which regularly updates its media bias chart and actively elicits user feedback on their rankings. It helps me view the same story from left-, center- and right-leading outlets and form my own opinion. It also helps me see more clearly the hyperbole and emotive language designed to cause a partisan reaction.
I liked Allsides for a while, but I felt their use of user feedback wasn't entirely helpful. That system (obviously) depends heavily on the users, and that community never seemed very diverse - causing a rating system that also was not diverse. That said, it's been a few years since I followed, so maybe they've improved the process and their community reach.
I love supporting independent non-partisan news sources - MoNews Premium and SmartHer News. Such great and reliable sources. I also like supporting more opinion publications- The Preamble for left leaning community and The Free Press for right leaning. We are fortunate to have many options.
Also like the suggestion of print newspapers. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks for sharing your media diet, Amy! I appreciate how you balance sources across the spectrum - that's something we could all benefit from. If there’s anything to be optimistic about in today’s landscape of journalism, is the ability to seek out independent voices who have more of a platform than they could have had before the Internet Age. Whether or not we personally think that’s a good thing probably depends on whose voice we are discussing, but I tend to think it’s overall a good thing that will hopefully come back into the realm of sanity as we figure out how to use these new tools to discuss the world.
Your comment has me thinking about how categorizing media organizations by perceived political slant can be tricky these days. I think your label of the Preamble community leaning left in the comments is accurate, even as the newsletter itself aims for nonpartisan coverage. But our perception of media outlets often shifts depending on who's in power and who they're critiquing. A hypothetical journalist who consistently investigates people in power regardless of party affiliation will get perceived as biased in either direction based on the politics of who is running things. That’s not to say that organizations don’t have their customers’ politics in mind when choosing their stories, that will always happen with journalism that's bound by pressures of a capitalist system. But I just find the topic fascinating because our reaction to the news and their supposed biases is so based on our personal perspectives.
I'm curious, given your thoughtful approach to news consumption: what's your take on the FCC investigations described in Sharon's article? Do you see any concerning patterns, or do you view the situation differently? I think one reasonable person’s cause for alarm could be another reasonable person’s cause for celebration, if they are used to a system that seemed corrupt in the previous status quo. Your perspective always adds valuable balance to these conversations.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with you on how media is categorized is perceived differently depending who is in power. I have learned, from this educated group, to check Ad Fontes for evaluations of media sources. One commenter said once that reliability is often more important than biases, which I agree with. I have submitted a few Preamble articles to Ad Fontes (this is a paid feature 🤓) and they have come back as left leaning and good reliability. I look forward to seeing The Preamble on the Ad Fontes dashboard one day!
In regards to this article, I am concerned with different treatment for outlets that support Trump. I think it should be equal treatment by the FCC. I admit to feeling fatigued by all the lawsuits involving Trump- whether he is suing or being sued. My only reaction to that is overwhelm.
That’s interesting! Sharon’s Insta or podcast (not sure which one) showed up on there once and it was center and reliable.
I’m not surprised the Preamble leans left, mostly because of how critical she has been of the current administration. But I personally think she’d be as critical if it were a liberal administration doing the exact same thing.
I agree that Ad Fontes' use of reliability as well as political bias gives a much clearer picture than the efforts other organizations have been making to determine bias. It's one of my favorite charts to explore in my down time (which is very nerdy).
I'm always struck by how much more sparse the right-leaning reliable quadrant is than on the other side, and I'm genuinely curious why that's the case. It doesn't speak terribly well of the conservative news media. Any thoughts on that?
I love exploring the chart too! Lol :) I have noticed the same and I’m not sure why. But it is concerning if people only get news from right leaning and low reliability ranking. I see it on social media- people sharing stuff from both extremes and low reliability sources. Hopefully if Ad Fontes gets more exposure- people will seek media sources that are high in reliability.
I appreciate the ability to view news stories from Allsides.com which regularly updates its media bias chart and actively elicits user feedback on their rankings. It helps me view the same story from left-, center- and right-leading outlets and form my own opinion. It also helps me see more clearly the hyperbole and emotive language designed to cause a partisan reaction.
I liked Allsides for a while, but I felt their use of user feedback wasn't entirely helpful. That system (obviously) depends heavily on the users, and that community never seemed very diverse - causing a rating system that also was not diverse. That said, it's been a few years since I followed, so maybe they've improved the process and their community reach.
Same. Ad Fontes is my go to now.
They’ve gotten worse. I chose to unfollow them last year.