This is my opinion feel free to share yours:
Talking about US politics I think watching TV stations is a total waste of time if the goal is unbiased information. The corporate news world is poisoned by advertiser money. However, to get a grasp of the propaganda they spread one should have watched it a little bit once in a while.
I live in Germany and I mostly read German publications. The choice begins with which newspaper I should choose. Personally, I read one mainstream outlet "Der Spiegel" which is similar to the NYT. But I decrease the time I spend on reading it. There a long personalized articles about single individuals. I just read an article about Kamala Harris and I have to say it was a better one to understand the media hype around Harris. But there are many narratives which could turn out to be completely false. In 2-3 weeks a huge part of this article is totally outdated.
"Der Spiegel" has good interviews with experts. However, newspapers label too many individuals experts. There is often no transparency which interests these so called "experts" have. Sometimes it is ironic that they ask bascially lobbyists or members of thinktanks for interviews. These biases are not always mentioned.
Most journalists are no scientists. If it is an article about technology writen by a journalists they often remain at the surface or contain mistakes. The role of the media is to mediate and to simplify intricate topics for a mass audience. Members of the media have to act as if they were omniscient. Careful anaylsis usually don't attract enough attention. Usually media goes with the vibes of whether this or that narrative sounds plausible and rational. But trusting your intuition can easily deceive your perspective. The empirical evidence behind phenomenons like the filter bubble is usually not talked about. Moreover, the media exaggerates it's own impact. The media does not control what exactly the people think instead they have an influence about which topics the average consumer thinks.
My experience is that I skip any article that is sponsored. There are sometimes articles sponsored by financial advisors and they sound sus as fuck. I would never trust these. "Der Spiegel" gets money from the Melinda and Bill Gates foundations like many other Western news outlets. The articles themselves seemed to have a good quality. However, one can easily see how billionaires buy influence in politics. Ironically "Der Spiegel" is very soft on billionaires and specifically Bill Gates.
Whereas when I read the NZZ which is a very conservative outletsyou get the impression the fossile fuel industry is giving them a lot of money. I don't know whether there is a direct influence but the opinion editorial is full with people who use identity politics, the culture war to divide and conquer the masses. And on climate change they use narratives that hide the responsiblity of the utlra rich and companies for destroying the planet. However, the left in Germany is not very smart at marketing sustainability. One has to label it as great chance for profits and not solely as an attempt to save the world. In Germany it is a saying that the weakest members of the society get played off against each other. And this is very common for conservative outlets.
I am not sure about independent media. There are good and bad channels. From my experience the German independent outlets are way worse than American outlets. I think because Germany has better mainstream media compared to the US. The conspiracy pandemic is worse in the US. Also because of the emphasis on freedom of speech while profits fully rule the media landscape.
I have heard that Twitter/X can be a unique source for information if one follows the right people. There is also a science community. In my experience Twitter/X is also a great place to waste your time. I don't know how people can use this platform efficiently I could not handle it that way. It is good for live reporting and to be uptodate in the second something happens (or horse race journalism). However, this is usually mostly for the entertainment purpose which is not the goal of my thread. In general media is very often focused on the maximum of entertainment and spectacle.
I like to read Foreign Affairs from time to time but it is filled with hawks and the establishment with its own biases.
I really like to read contrarian news reports that go against the mainstream narratives. The NZZ and unherd deliver that. However, unherd is too corporate in my experience. PBS is too much both side bullshit. Neutrality is not something good if it is neutrality between corporate Democrats and right-wing extreme Republicans.
There are also good arguments to leave out media consumption completely. But I don't know whether it might be better to combine political science with media consumption to get the full picture/stay informed. I think media outlets are too scared to attack the powerful and many good science articles do that. But there also biased scientifical articles for sure.
Many outlets differentiate between opinion and informational/neutral articles. Though I think the information articles are not neutral usually. Most outlets follow an agenda. I like to read opinion editorial articles from scientists. The language in newspapers is easier to understand fully. In Germany there is like a central for politicial education. They post extremely good articles for free. The articles are scientifical and the language is more sophisticated than in newsoutlets but not as difficult as in other journals.
I probably missed out on a lot of nuances and details. Feel free to share your own approach.
Talking about US politics I think watching TV stations is a total waste of time if the goal is unbiased information. The corporate news world is poisoned by advertiser money. However, to get a grasp of the propaganda they spread one should have watched it a little bit once in a while.
I live in Germany and I mostly read German publications. The choice begins with which newspaper I should choose. Personally, I read one mainstream outlet "Der Spiegel" which is similar to the NYT. But I decrease the time I spend on reading it. There a long personalized articles about single individuals. I just read an article about Kamala Harris and I have to say it was a better one to understand the media hype around Harris. But there are many narratives which could turn out to be completely false. In 2-3 weeks a huge part of this article is totally outdated.
"Der Spiegel" has good interviews with experts. However, newspapers label too many individuals experts. There is often no transparency which interests these so called "experts" have. Sometimes it is ironic that they ask bascially lobbyists or members of thinktanks for interviews. These biases are not always mentioned.
Most journalists are no scientists. If it is an article about technology writen by a journalists they often remain at the surface or contain mistakes. The role of the media is to mediate and to simplify intricate topics for a mass audience. Members of the media have to act as if they were omniscient. Careful anaylsis usually don't attract enough attention. Usually media goes with the vibes of whether this or that narrative sounds plausible and rational. But trusting your intuition can easily deceive your perspective. The empirical evidence behind phenomenons like the filter bubble is usually not talked about. Moreover, the media exaggerates it's own impact. The media does not control what exactly the people think instead they have an influence about which topics the average consumer thinks.
My experience is that I skip any article that is sponsored. There are sometimes articles sponsored by financial advisors and they sound sus as fuck. I would never trust these. "Der Spiegel" gets money from the Melinda and Bill Gates foundations like many other Western news outlets. The articles themselves seemed to have a good quality. However, one can easily see how billionaires buy influence in politics. Ironically "Der Spiegel" is very soft on billionaires and specifically Bill Gates.
Whereas when I read the NZZ which is a very conservative outletsyou get the impression the fossile fuel industry is giving them a lot of money. I don't know whether there is a direct influence but the opinion editorial is full with people who use identity politics, the culture war to divide and conquer the masses. And on climate change they use narratives that hide the responsiblity of the utlra rich and companies for destroying the planet. However, the left in Germany is not very smart at marketing sustainability. One has to label it as great chance for profits and not solely as an attempt to save the world. In Germany it is a saying that the weakest members of the society get played off against each other. And this is very common for conservative outlets.
I am not sure about independent media. There are good and bad channels. From my experience the German independent outlets are way worse than American outlets. I think because Germany has better mainstream media compared to the US. The conspiracy pandemic is worse in the US. Also because of the emphasis on freedom of speech while profits fully rule the media landscape.
I have heard that Twitter/X can be a unique source for information if one follows the right people. There is also a science community. In my experience Twitter/X is also a great place to waste your time. I don't know how people can use this platform efficiently I could not handle it that way. It is good for live reporting and to be uptodate in the second something happens (or horse race journalism). However, this is usually mostly for the entertainment purpose which is not the goal of my thread. In general media is very often focused on the maximum of entertainment and spectacle.
I like to read Foreign Affairs from time to time but it is filled with hawks and the establishment with its own biases.
I really like to read contrarian news reports that go against the mainstream narratives. The NZZ and unherd deliver that. However, unherd is too corporate in my experience. PBS is too much both side bullshit. Neutrality is not something good if it is neutrality between corporate Democrats and right-wing extreme Republicans.
There are also good arguments to leave out media consumption completely. But I don't know whether it might be better to combine political science with media consumption to get the full picture/stay informed. I think media outlets are too scared to attack the powerful and many good science articles do that. But there also biased scientifical articles for sure.
Many outlets differentiate between opinion and informational/neutral articles. Though I think the information articles are not neutral usually. Most outlets follow an agenda. I like to read opinion editorial articles from scientists. The language in newspapers is easier to understand fully. In Germany there is like a central for politicial education. They post extremely good articles for free. The articles are scientifical and the language is more sophisticated than in newsoutlets but not as difficult as in other journals.
I probably missed out on a lot of nuances and details. Feel free to share your own approach.
Last edited:
