/lit/ - Literature

Is The Economist the best one to read if i'm just going to have one source of news?

>>11721872
No, you've got to have brain damage to think they're "minimal partisan bias or balance of biases".

>>11721860
That image is way off. Slate further to the left than Jacobin? I don't so.

>>11721899
whats the best one then?

>>11721872
>>11721904
Financial Times

>>11721904
The Wall Street Journal

>>11721860
>npr
>minimal partisan bias
hahahahahahahahhaha

>>11721860
Lol, imagine thinking that The Atlantic and Vox are pretty much as left-wing as Jacobin and The Nation

>BBC , NBC , ABC CBS
>Neutral
I don't think so.

>>11721932
Nigga your looking at a chart that thinks the Hill skews conservative.

>>11721872
Yes, this retard >>11721899 hasn't actually read it, because if he had he would know that 99% of the articles are written in a pros-cons format, outlining both sides of the story. The Economist is as neutral and high-quality as you're gonna get outside of just data.

That, or he's so left-wing that he thinks anything left of centre is "literally Hitler".

These two are also right >>11721911 >>11721916 both FT and WSJ are factual and great for your daily news.

t. subscriber of over 5 magazines and 4 newspapers.

>>11721941
>5 magazines and 4 newspapers
How the fuck do you got time to read that?

>>11721962
I'm unemployed and never leave the house.

>>11721965
what do you subscribe to?

Op-ed writers are a blight on society and you should take a long hard look at yourself for trying to be one. Nothing of value has ever been written in an op-ed.

>>11721971
Magazines: London Review of Books, Paris Review, The New Yorker, The Economist, Philosophy Now

News: FT, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian

Online: Foreign Affairs, New Scientist, British Medical Journal

And some other minor ones. I wouldn't recommend this though, I feel like I have a news addiction. "News junkie" is usually used in a joking manner, but I can't seem to stop spending my days reading this shit.

>>11721941
The Economist aren't anywhere near neutral, socially they're left-wing as fuck and economically they're fucking Ancaps.

>>11721962
Magazines aren't daily and not all are even weekly. I also imagine few people read every single article in a daily newspaper.

>>11721994
Literally neoliberalism, super concerned with social issues but only insofar as it stands to benefit capitalism.

>>11721994
>socially left-wing as fuck
>economically ancaps
I hope you're exaggerating for effect. Or maybe you just have a skewed perception of what neutrality is. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter - because of the prevalence of the two-party political system, most people assume anything that slightly deviates from mainstream ideas is "extreme".

Anyway, I'm not here to defend the publication, I just want to say that they seem to treat issues individually, although yes, there is a vague underlying ideology, and it resembles classic liberalism. This month they are actually doing a series on liberal philosophy, and you can see they are not dogmatic at all about it.

>>11721860

Who decided this graph was the truth and why should I listen to them?

>>11722112
i don't follow the news at all but i'd like to imagine there is one newspaper that's the best for getting information and seeming smart but at the end of the day i really don't care that much

>>11722112
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

also this is the website

>>11722112
You don't

>>11721872
>>11721911
I like Reuters. Takes out the American slant

>>11721860
I thought The Economist was left leaning

>>11723522
Anything not American is left-leaning by American standards. In Europe the Democratic Party would be considered right wing.

>>11721972
This. Op-ed writers are the embodiment of mediocrity. They are. That's their entire raison d'être, to embody the voice of the common mediocrity. Their opinions are not original or interesting. In fact, to the extent that you present any idea that is, you can be sure they are going to ignore you.

The entire point of the Op-ed section is to "keep up the fight." That's why people read the Op-ed section in the first place. So your opinion cannot sincerely engage with the problem at hand, and present a workable solution, because that would spoil the game. You must give them an opinion that is only a further contribution to the problem. That way they can call up some other jackass to quibble with you.

In other words, to be an Op-ed writer you must, almost by definition, be a ideological hack job. A miserable, worthless grumbler, someone interested in smearing the world with your shit, so editors can make their investors happily; meanwhile, decent people are left to clean up the mess, and find common ground with each other.

Please do better.

>farthest left is "extreme liberal"
yikes

>>11723647
What? No the purpose of an op Ed is to get someone's opinion. If you just read people you agree with than that's on you

>>11723681
*then lol

>>11721860
>Mother Jones
>Fair persuasion

>>11721860
Right wing, all of them

>>11723707
cringe and bluepilled

>>11723707
this, so much this

>>11721860
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo