Recommend me a new source on American politics

Einhard

I've always been quite interested in American politics, and used to read Slate.com quite extensively. While liberal, I found it to be relatively fair and equitable when covering the topics of the day, and its coverage of the last presidential election was excellent. However, it received a new editor last year, and since then the quality of the coverage has, IMO, suffered greatly. There are fewer and fewer substantive articles, and the whole site seems to have dumbed down quite a bit.

So...I'm on the look out for a replacement. Or two! I'm something of a liberal, but not partisan, and I'd like something that is somewhat grounded in the centre, and can look with skepticism at both sides. Ideally, it's be similar to Slate before its recent nosedive, with articles and reports by a variety of writers on a variety of issues, but focusing predominantly on politics. Hardly a lot to ask, surely? :P

Any recommendations are appreciated.

troposphere

The Atlantic? Covers more that politics though.

southsiderosie

Politico.com is super 'inside the Beltway' but is pretty much a must-read for political junkies. I've read complaints that it skews right, and quite often the comments make my eyes bleed, but it is relentlessly focused on American politics.

MountainSniper

Neither of the above Try http://www.economist.com/

cristoir

When Congress is in session I'd go with: http://thehill.com/ but avoid the mind-numbing comments.

Amerika

I like www.RealClearPolitics.com. Most of the articles are just redirects to their sources. Often RCP will have two articles about the same topic listed after one another... one from the Right and one from the Left point of view. A good source of reading on opinions, analysis and news in order to get both sides of view on a particular matter.

Einhard

Thanks all.

Denerick

The economist is great - buy the magazine and you get an eclectic collection of articles covering all aspects of American politics, economics and society every week. But its lack of depth makes it an inadequate source for the devoted junkie. I'm quite fond of politico.com but a lot of the time its articles seem rather trivial - as in, irrelevant. A bit too niche at times. And the online commentators are officially retarded (I'm sure they've been classified as such somewhere along the way) Realclearpolitics.com is useful as an aggregate site, but beware of the RCP editorials - hopelessly right wing.

Finally, if you occasionally feel a wave of liberal angst overcoming you, dailykos mightn't be a bad idea. The collective smugness can get a bit tiring though (Only to be indulged in when all other options are exhausted).

If you're looking for newspaper coverage which you can buy in Ireland, try getting the International Herald Tribune once in a while. Its the international version of the New York Times and its articles on American politics are much more in depth and understanding that many of the British or Irish newspapers (With the exception of Gary Younge in the Guardian)

I think that about wraps it up!

Duck Soup

It's unashamedly left-leaning, but my go-to source for the outlines of breaking American political stories would be The Rachel Maddow Show. There are a couple of reasons for this. First off, she doesn't try to hide her take on the story; she's whip-smart, explains what she thinks and then substantiates her position with reason and copious amounts of background information. Secondly, she's one of the few US TV show that you can subscribe to for free as a video Podcast on iTunes. Some other shows are on there, but available only as audio podcasts or edited down video form. TRMS is the full show, available for free and in its entirety. Five hours a week of top quality political commentary.

Other sites worth looking at are Salon, Politico and TalkingPointsMemo. Also the NYT political coverage is pretty damned good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28981762/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/free-audio-video-downloaded-your-pc-or-portable-player/

http://www.salon.com/

http://www.politico.com/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

steelcityblues

For left leaning, but not of the mainstream Democrat kind:

http://www.democracynow.org/blog

For right leaning, but not of the mainstream Republican kind:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

Amerika

Okay, seems the left has weighed in... and in the spirit of fair and balance (or for those who would rather be right than wrong), I’d suggest...

The Drudge Report http://drudgereport.com/
Hot Air http://hotair.com/
National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/

Hayte

The Drudge Report? Seriously?

The OP appears to be looking for investigative journalism, which is a primary source of information. That is, it contains original research from the writer. There is a proper method of contesting published original research (peer review and reader comments) and it does not involve counter weighting it with propaganda.

Staffing a team of investigative journalists is expensive because research takes a long time and when it goes above local level it also costs alot in travel time and expenses. Alot of the non local stuff is now syndicated (i.e. via Associated Press).

Of the few print/online publications that do have an investigative journalism unit, ProPublica.org manages to be decent. However the site is not particularly easy to navigate and some pieces in the "Our Investigations" section are not primary sources. They are just collections of secondary sources with a common theme. So the layout needs work and it has done for a long time.

That said, when ProPublica is good they are really good. They do things like make search widgets so you can plug a doctor's name into a field and find out whether your GP has received big pharma money from the database of information they collect. See the Dollars for Doctors series. Their reporting into the financial crisis was excellent. They did stuff like reverse engineer a Magnetar trade.

Another print publication whose investigative journalism I admire is National Geographic although their subject matter is perhaps outside of what the OP is looking for. I can't comment on their online content as I still buy it in print (and whatever ink they use still comes off on my thumbs whilst smudging the beautiful photography).

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, seems the left has weighed in... and in the spirit of fair and balance (or for those who would rather be right than wrong), I’d suggest...

The Drudge Report http://drudgereport.com/
Hot Air http://hotair.com/
National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/

Other than the DailyKos (which Denerick explicitly said was left-wing) and the kind of nerdy Atlantic, what on the above list constitutes 'lefty' news sources? Or are you just tagging all of us as lefty posters who would never be interested in reading straightforward political coverage?

Honestly, the digs at the imagined 'loony left' on these boards is beyond tiresome at this point. Do your posts have to be so relentlessly partisan all of the time?

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Other than the DailyKos (which Denerick explicitly said was left-wing) and the kind of nerdy Atlantic, what on the above list constitutes 'lefty' news sources? Or are you just tagging all of us as lefty posters who would never be interested in reading straightforward political coverage?

Honestly, the digs at the imagined 'loony left' on these boards is beyond tiresome at this point. Do your posts have to be so relentlessly partisan all of the time?

DailyKos, Salon, talkingpointsmemo... that’s three. I listed three... seems fair. How was my comment on RealClearPolitics partisan? And is there a problem with partisanship in a political board? I may be mistaken, but I haven’t seen you offer the same disdain to the constant and relentless “lefty” posting posters?

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

Other than the DailyKos (which Denerick explicitly said was left-wing) and the kind of nerdy Atlantic, what on the above list constitutes 'lefty' news sources? Or are you just tagging all of us as lefty posters who would never be interested in reading straightforward political coverage?

Honestly, the digs at the imagined 'loony left' on these boards is beyond tiresome at this point. Do your posts have to be so relentlessly partisan all of the time?

You really are being 'precious'.

The majority of posters here are pro-Democrat or centre left - not saying that is essentially bad or good, but it is definitely true.

He was simply providing some centre-right, pro-Repub sources to counterbalance, rather than this imagined attack you seem to have.

KyussBishop

There's no such thing as 'balance' brought about by counterpointing supposedly 'left' news sources with 'right' ones; that is not a balance in any way, as the left/right labels are so arbitrary.

Either news articles are factual, honest and accurate, or they are not.


Usually after a short while of reading from any particular news source, it's pretty easy to pick apart which ones are partisan or dishonest; if it's hard to tell, doesn't hurt to brush up on common logical fallacies or critical thinking in general every now and then, to make spotting it easier.

I usually research news sources for criticism before paying them any attention, and usually only read specific writers instead of particular sites, as most news sources have some very poor authors.

Denerick

You're talking about objectivity which doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. Everyone is coloured by bias and political inclination, to suggest that an unbiased news source is possible betrays a deep philosophical juvinility. I prefer my news sources to be forthright and fair minded as opposed to 'unbiased', because I don't believe it really exists in any media form (Or is even possible)

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

DailyKos, Salon, talkingpointsmemo... that’s three. I listed three... seems fair. How was my comment on RealClearPolitics partisan? And is there a problem with partisanship in a political board? I may be mistaken, but I haven’t seen you offer the same disdain to the constant and relentless “lefty” posting posters?

steelcityblues wrote: »

You really are being 'precious'.

The majority of posters here are pro-Democrat or centre left - not saying that is essentially bad or good, but it is definitely true.

He was simply providing some centre-right, pro-Repub sources to counterbalance, rather than this imagined attack you seem to have.

Really?

It is one thing to note the ideological leanings of any given publication, but please tell me how throwing in the "those who would rather be right than wrong" jibe is not partisan. That kind of stuff stopped being funny the first two hundred times it was trotted out in this forum.

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, seems the left has weighed in... and in the spirit of fair and balance (or for those who would rather be right than wrong), I’d suggest...

KyussBishop

Denerick wrote: »

You're talking about objectivity which doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. Everyone is coloured by bias and political inclination, to suggest that an unbiased news source is possible betrays a deep philosophical juvinility. I prefer my news sources to be forthright and fair minded as opposed to 'unbiased', because I don't believe it really exists in any media form (Or is even possible)

It's pretty easy to see when a news source (author or whatnot) is lying or being dishonest, and it's pretty easy to check up past history on an author to see what criticisms there are against them.

This is an objective way of determining the level of bias from an author (even if no author is 100% objective); the rest of it (down to disputed political theories that you agree/disagree with) is down to your subjective opinion of course.


In addition to that, it's easy enough (over time) to reduce most supposedly subjective political theories down to facts (both supporting and against), which is a good way of determining their validity, and a good way of objectively judging authors based on their reaction to (or deliberate ignoring of) evidence/facts.

Everyones entitled to their own subjective opinion etc., but not their own facts, so it's another good way of determining bias from a news source.
There's not nearly enough scientific evaluation of individual policies in politics, it too often is put down to a matter of opinion, when it is not (in my opinion ).

matthew8

southsiderosie wrote: »

Really?

It is one thing to note the ideological leanings of any given publication, but please tell me how throwing in the "those who would rather be right than wrong" jibe is not partisan. That kind of stuff stopped being funny the first two hundred times it was trotted out in this forum.

It's a joke, I smiled. Anyway, despite my right wing leanings, the first presidential blog I was introduced to (in 2004) was/is electoral-vote. Covers the big political stories briefly in one post per day made at noon our time. It's democratic-leaning but it's hardly shoved down your throat. One of the best maps in the business too with all the polls.

As for Drudge, that place is laughable, I remember the headline "Romney wins Mississippi" (primary) based on some secret exit poll. He came third.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Really?

It is one thing to note the ideological leanings of any given publication, but please tell me how throwing in the "those who would rather be right than wrong" jibe is not partisan. That kind of stuff stopped being funny the first two hundred times it was trotted out in this forum.

Even though a sense of humor seems to be on life support here... while hyperbole is alive and well , some of what you comment about is dully noted. But partisanship rules US Politics and is sometimes an unpleasing but effective reality, and if your wish is to deny it here you might as well close down the section and just channel all comments into Political Theory.

Amerika

I tried to find the most non-partisan, non-biased source, which provides factual and corroborated information on the comparisons between the two presidential candidates. Not a news source but a good reference for the 2012 election IMO. This is what I could find... I hope it helps.

http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/

Dave!

Real Time with Bill Maher!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Dave! wrote: »

Real Time with Bill Maher!

nigga please



his show used to be great, you'd have a good mix of political opinion week by week and the debates were generally interesting enough .. maybe it's good again but for the year or so after obama got elected he just dropped all pretense of debate and started having 90% left leaning guests. it got ridiculously tiring after a while.

he does get props for being one of the few hosts to tell his audience to stfu from time to time though.

James Cessna

Einhard wrote: »

I've always been quite interested in American politics, and used to read Slate.com quite extensively. While liberal, I found it to be relatively fair and equitable when covering the topics of the day, and its coverage of the last presidential election was excellent. However, it received a new editor last year, and since then the quality of the coverage has, IMO, suffered greatly. There are fewer and fewer substantive articles, and the whole site seems to have dumbed down quite a bit.

So...I'm on the look out for a replacement. Or two! I'm something of a liberal, but not partisan, and I'd like something that is somewhat grounded in the centre, and can look with skepticism at both sides. Ideally, it's be similar to Slate before its recent nosedive, with articles and reports by a variety of writers on a variety of issues, but focusing predominantly on politics. Hardly a lot to ask, surely? :P

Any recommendations are appreciated.

Here is a very good source with a lot of good information,both liberal and conservative. I believe you will like it a lot!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/welcomead/?ref=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Amerika

Dave! wrote: »

Real Time with Bill Maher!

Good one!!! Made me laugh.

Brian?

steelcityblues wrote: »

You really are being 'precious'.

The majority of posters here are pro-Democrat or centre left - not saying that is essentially bad or good, but it is definitely true.

This actualy made me laugh out load. The majority of people posting on here are certainly not left leaning.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

This actualy made me laugh out load. The majority of people posting on here are certainly not left leaning.

They clearly are at the very least centre-left democrats.

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

They clearly are at the very least centre-left democrats.

Which, in the rest of the industrialized world, puts you in the center-right.

Memnoch

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'balance' brought about by counterpointing supposedly 'left' news sources with 'right' ones; that is not a balance in any way, as the left/right labels are so arbitrary.

Either news articles are factual, honest and accurate, or they are not.


Usually after a short while of reading from any particular news source, it's pretty easy to pick apart which ones are partisan or dishonest; if it's hard to tell, doesn't hurt to brush up on common logical fallacies or critical thinking in general every now and then, to make spotting it easier.

I usually research news sources for criticism before paying them any attention, and usually only read specific writers instead of particular sites, as most news sources have some very poor authors.

What he said.

I don't know if any of you have watched 'Newsroom,' the latest TV show by Aaron Sorkin, creator of West Wing. There was something really interesting in the first episode that was said:

The media is obsessed with 'balance.' In fact the news media is prejudiced towards balance. This might seem like an oxymoron. The way they explained it was something like this.

If tomorrow, 200 Republicans in congress voted for an amendment saying 'The Earth is flat,' the media would report it as 'Democrats and Republicans disagree on whether the Earth is flat or round.'

This is the problem with modern news coverage and politics. The lending of credence to things that are just wrong or plain untrue in order to not be seen as being biased. This is the greatest propaganda victory achieved by the American right, the shifting of debate and the deemphasisation of fact.

So they can portray someone like obama as some kind of revolutionary, far left socialist, marxist. Which is a complete distortion of any kind of reality but hey, if enough people on the right say it then it's only good balance to report it as 'their view,' as opposed to the ridiculous nonsense it truly is.

Of course if the media point that out, all the lunatics on the right would immediately start crying about how the entire 'lamestream media,' is somehow against them and biased to the extreme, because sticking to the facts rather than trotting out viewpoints, no matter how unfounded they may be, is now BIASED. Considering true context and applying judgement and weight to evidence so that we arrive at the best and most accurate information is not good enough anymore. You must give legitimacy to 'views,'

P.S. Another good example of this is how MSNBC is constantly trotted out as being the lefty equivalent of Fox News. 'They are just as bad.' I wonder if they REALLY objectively are though? I don't dislike fox news because they are right wing. I dislike them because they are liars, manipulators and propagandists who constantly distort and obfuscate. They have been shown time and time again to disabuse the facts and their viewers have been demonstrated as being the least well informed. I seriously doubt the same applies to MSNBC. Okay, I barely ever watch their coverage, but have they been documented, found out as lying or engaging in bare faced hypocrisy with anywhere near the frequency of Fox?

Hayte

Who cares about left and right? Theres more to politics and society than which side of this rhetorical divide you cast your lot in.

Its like climate change advocates versus deniers all over again. You have people shilling for both sides in a discussion that shouldn't even be about sides. Nobody should placate individuals who play that game. All you need to look at is the quality of their argument and if its dregs then just ignore it. If they were capable of forming a logical and reasoned argument (which is actually worth reading) then they would have done it already instead of shilling and cherry picking before finally getting to the point.

I thought this would go without saying but now I'm seeing moderators (ones I happen to hold in high esteem) getting dragged into this sorry back and forth. You are all better than this.

20Cent

Democraticunderground is good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Amerika

Here’s a nice test to see which US presidential candidate for 2012 you side with. I aslo like how you can weigh the responses, and even add your own.
http://www.isidewith.com/

(My results show Mitt Romney on top, with Ron Paul a close second on the majority of issues.)

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

They clearly are at the very least centre-left democrats.

The Democrats are not centre left.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Here’s a nice test to see which US presidential candidate for 2012 you side with. I aslo like how you can weigh the responses, and even add your own.
http://www.isidewith.com/

(My results show Mitt Romney on top, with Ron Paul a close second on the majority of issues.)

Only in America is belief in evolution a political view point.

96% for Obama and 85% Jill Stein. This tells me there is something wrong with the quiz, there is no way I agree 96% with Obama. He's a centre right President and I'm a socialist.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

The Democrats are not centre left.

Yeah, but their supporters here are.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Only in America is belief in evolution a political view point.

96% for Obama and 85% Jill Stein. This tells me there is something wrong with the quiz, there is no way I agree 96% with Obama. He's a centre right President and I'm a socialist.

I'm sure if you clicked on the other options you could have gone more left wing. But really the quiz is only about how you side with certain candidates as opposed to others, rather than how much you agree with a candidate on.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

I'm sure if you clicked on the other options you could have gone more left wing. But really the quiz is only about how you side with certain candidates as opposed to others, rather than how much you agree with a candidate on.

ThI see what you're saying, but I still think the quiz is balls.

There is a socialist candidate after all. The reason we don't see eye to eye was that he wanted to expand medicare and I want to reform it. Wouldn't expansion be a form of reform? I want to see it reformed and expanded.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

Yeah, but their supporters here are.

Maybe.

Are you pegging me as a Democract supporter?

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Maybe.

Are you pegging me as a Democract supporter?

In the same way that I might be pegged as a republican. If I had to choose between the 2, I would pick republican, and you would pick the democrats.

Killer Wench

I get my news from npr.org.