I see a lot of politico links in this sub and I’d just like to say:
POLITICO Europe is a subsidiary of Axel Springer SE.
That’s a right leaning and pretty unethical publisher and politico has already been caught several times spreading reactionary propaganda. I also suspect they publish undisclosed opinion pieces as news. Like some fossil fuel investor explaining how wind turbines could be hacked by China without providing any compelling evidence. Many articles are well written so it’s hard to spot the grift sometimes. Just stay vigilant.
Agreed. But it’s one of the more harmless sources people often share here. People share right wing billionaire owned sources all the time. It really ticks me off.
the Telegraph by right wing billionaires Barclay brothers, the Times (UK) owned by far right billionaire Rupert Murdoch, notorious friend of Trump and owner of Fox News
EuroNews, bought by shell corp strongly linked to Victor Orbán’s, authoritarian government.
HuffPost I think was recently bought by right wing billionaire who is friends with Trump. (not sure about this one)
Axel Springer SE is owned by billionaires, too, and they’re obviously far right, too. They also own BILD, which is probably Germany’s most popular “newspaper” (legally not allowed to call itself “newspaper” due to low quality) and it’s very far right.
I was confused there and thought you were saying that they were bought by the Shell corporation. But after doing some searching and reading, I see what you mean: a shell corporation.
There’s definitely concern around Victor Orban’s influence. And
your own newsEuronews have had Clickbait headlines for quite awhile already. I prefer DW now myself.We probably need a comprehensive list of common news sources’ political allignments. Fits the current spirit anyway.
I’ll start: The Guardian (UK) is self-owned (owned by an organization whose purpose is the long term economic viability and editorial independence of the Guardian).
It’s a bit exhausting. I use https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to see biases and credibility of different websites. Anything that’s not at least Center-X and High I pretty much dismiss. Rest I take with heaps of salt.
How do I know that site is trustworthy? I don’t 🫠
The public discourse shifted (/was engineered to shift) so far right in the last 10-20 years, that you have to assume:
Right = extremist
Center = right
Left = center
Radical left = left
Left-leaning media is usually written based on facts. Which, somehow, in these times is accused to be „biased“.
MBFC is run by some dude whose evidence basically is also just “trust me bro”.
At the end of the day you won’t get around reading multiple sources and trying to understand for yourself what is going on. Also there is issues that are systematically ignored or downplayed by the “center” and “trustworthy” media, in particular when it comes to the consequences of western politics in “poorer” countries or when a government appointed but not official, but still pretty influential guy makes a nazi salute on stage, twice, but it is not declared to be that, despite hundred of millions of people having seen it on video.
It’s not right leaning, it’s neoliberal (like a lot of centre-left). They’re predictably evil and biased so they’re a reasonable source of news, as long as you ignore their „scoops” which are usually made up.
Axel Springer is totally a right wing press. And Matthias Döpfner, its CEO, totally went on record to celebrate the speech of Vance in Munich. Their german flagship journal, BILD, is reguarlly spreading propaganda and is pushing campaigns against migration and “the greens”. They are scum and shouldn’t be read.
What kind of right wing? Christian democrats? Why is Politico for cutting welfare then? Stop oversimplifying things please.
What kind of right wing? Christian democrats?
Neoliberalism.
Why is Politico for cutting welfare then?
Because part of neoliberalism is to weaken welfare so that people are pressured into accepting exploitative labour conditions.
Wait, do you think chistian democrats are pro welfare? Do you think, neoliberalism is a left leaning ideology?
Stop oversimplifying things please.
I might be wrong but your comment reads as if you think a political opinion automatically aligns with political parties (which would be massively oversimplifying the process of opinion making and political procedure).
I’m fairly sure you won’t dispute that Christian democracy is a right wing ideology. What commonalities to neoliberalism do you see between both? You probably won’t find much so it makes little sense to group them together as „right wing”. I’m beating the drum here again so that people wake up and recognise who the centrists really are.
I’m not a conservative by any means but I don’t mind true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good. True right wing is very rare these days because they were replaced by populists who can’t be even categorised as conservatives. They’re just bullies. Liberals are bullies very often too.
I’m fairly sure you won’t dispute that Christian democracy is a right wing ideology. What commonalities to neoliberalism do you see between both? You probably won’t find much so it makes little sense to group them together as „right wing”.
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
I’m not a conservative by any means but I don’t mind true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good.
Quite honestly – is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
Yes and no. Conservatives lost relevance in a world of meritocracy, most of their points were on a losing side eventually. People who come to power now, on the backs of conservative voters, don’t even try to be factually correct and therefore offer a way to continue ideological left-right war (hence the post-truth moniker used by some people). The hard pill to swallow about this is that maybe extreme meritocracy is not sustainable, or at least not sustainable in a system that doesn’t benefit the largest possible majority in practice. And maybe that politics can’t be means of changing societal norms as those have to happen naturally. A political force attempting such thing would need to have high legitimacy and current elites don’t have it because they usually prioritised interests of the largest businesses over regular people.
What I’m trying to say is that no matter which perspective you use to try to look into the future, there’s no positive outcome if neoliberalism is involved. I’m arguing with people online in an effort that sometime in the future they’re not deceived by neoliberals pretending to be right or left wing politician and that’s why I insist on making the distinction.
Quite honestly – is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
Christian democrats in Western Europe adapted many things from social democrats, mostly on welfare state which is critical element of societal cohesion. Those parties were since then eaten from the inside by neoliberalism that corrupted both right and left but for a time whole world aspired to European quality of life. We might not agree on societal norms with Christian democrats but things like Catholic social teaching is solid stuff to build upon.
Axel Springer isn’t centrist. They are openly right wing and call out progressive positions as “woke bullshit” and stuff like that. They openly say that they are right wing.
