SOURCES FOR THE POLITICALLY INTERESTED READER 2017
LUCY WARNER
JANUARY 26, 2017


AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THIS TIME OF CHANGE, DON’T LIMIT YOUR NEWS SOURCES TO JUST CNN, OR INDEED ANY OTHER. SAMPLE OTHERS OUT OF CURIOSITY. I HAD BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION, FOR INSTANCE THAT AL JAZEERA WAS A RADICAL SITE, BUT WHAT I HAVE FOUND THERE DOESN’T SEEM TO ME TO BE, AND THEY DO PUBLISH SOMETHINGS THAT CNN, ETC. IN THEIR WISDOM, OR PERHAPS THEIR FEAR, HAVE NOT PUBLISHED. HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTED SOURCES FOR THE IN DEPTH AND COURAGEOUS COVERAGE THAT WE NEED THESE DAYS. THE DAILY KOS LISTING BELOW IS EXCELLENT.

MY OWN FAVORITES FROM THE LEFT (PROGRESSIVES, GREENS, SOME INDEPENDENTS) AND CENTER – POLITICO; DAILY KOS; RACHEL MADDOW; LA PROGRESSIVE; COPBLOCK; ACLU; SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER; BROOKINGS.EDU/BLOG; MICHAEL MOORE; OUR REVOLUTION (SANDERS); NPR; CBS; AND MORE. FROM THE RIGHT AND CENTER (MODERATE REPUBLICANS, AND ABOUT HALF OF DEMOCRATS THESE DAYS) – SEE THE EXHAUSTIVE LISTING BY DAILY KOS BELOW. I’M NOT CONVINCED ON SOME OF THEM, FOR INSTANCE I HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED CNN AND WASHINGTON POST TO FIT ON THE RIGHT RATHER THAN THE CENTER. ITS STILL USEFUL TO HAVE SO MUCH INFO IN ONE SOURCE.

IN SAMPLING THE SITE “MEDIAITE,” JUST NOW (NO, THAT IS NOT A MISSPELLING), I FOUND A SHOCKING STORY WHICH I’M GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO IMMEDIATELY FOR MY DAILY NEWS BLOG AND YOU MAY WANT TO AS WELL:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/entire-state-department-senior-management-team-resigns/ “BREAKING: Entire State Department Senior Management Team Resigns”
by Alex Griswold | 12:36 pm, January 26th, 2017



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/2/1274385/-A-List-of-Political-News-Sources-Left-to-Right

A List of Political News Sources: Left to Right
By Auriandra
2014/02/02 · 09:50

Several years ago, I started this list for my high school and college-aged kids to give them a sense of how news sources line up politically. I've kept adding to it as more online sources have become available.

I thought I'd share it, in case there's an interest & also to get feedback, as I likely have some in the wrong place. It's organized from Most Left to Most Right to Crazy.

LEFT
Campaign for America's Future http://bit.ly/...
Firedoglake http://bit.ly/...
CounterPunch http://is.gd/...
Daily Kos http://bit.ly/...
Democratic Underground http://bit.ly/...
Crook & Liars http://bit.ly/...
Political Carnival http://bit.ly/...
Alternet http://bit.ly/...
Mother Jones http://bit.ly/...
Nation http://bit.ly/...
ThinkProgress (wonkroom) http://bit.ly/...
Progressive http://bit.ly/...
Rolling Stone Politics http://bit.ly/....
American Prospect http://bit.ly/....
Center for American Progress http://bit.ly/....
Salon http://bit.ly/....
Msnbc http://on.msnbc.com/....

Full list below the squiggle...

Political News Sources: Left to Right

LEFT

Campaign for America's Future http://bit.ly/...
Firedoglake http://bit.ly/...
CounterPunch http://is.gd/...
Daily Kos http://bit.ly/...
Democratic Underground http://bit.ly/...
Crook & Liars http://bit.ly/...
Political Carnival http://bit.ly/...
Alternet http://bit.ly/...
Mother Jones http://bit.ly/...
Nation http://bit.ly/...
ThinkProgress (wonkroom) http://bit.ly/...
Progressive http://bit.ly/...
Rolling Stone Politics http://bit.ly/...
American Prospect http://bit.ly/...
Center for American Progress http://bit.ly/...
Salon http://bit.ly/...
Msnbc http://on.msnbc.com/...
Media Matters http://bit.ly/...
New Republic http://bit.ly/...
BusinessInsider http://is.gd/...
Huffington Post http://huff.to/...
Daily Beast http://bit.ly/...

MIDDLE

Foreign Policy http://bit.ly/...
National Journal http://bit.ly/...
Mediaite http://bit.ly/...
Talking Points Memo TPM http://bit.ly/...
Guardian (UK) http://bit.ly/...
AP http://bit.ly/...
New York Times http://nyti.ms/...
Bloomberg http://bloom.bg/...
TheWeek http://is.gd/...
MSN News http://is.gd/...
Reuters http://reut.rs/...
RealClearPolitics RCP http://is.gd/...
BBC (UK) http://bbc.in/...
Washington Examiner http://bit.ly/...
Washington Independent http://bit.ly/...
Politics Daily http://aol.it/...
Al Jareeza http://bit.ly/...
Newser http://bit.ly/...
The Hill http://bit.ly/...
Politifact http://bit.ly/...

RIGHT

Washington Post http://wapo.st/...
CNN http://bit.ly/...
Economist http://econ.st/...
Financial Times (UK) http://on.ft.com/...
Politico http://politi.co/...
Slate http://www.slate.com/
American Conservative http://bit.ly/...
Wall Street Journal http://on.wsj.com/...
Forbes http://bit.ly/...
National Review http://bit.ly/...
FoxNews http://fxn.ws/...
Free Republic http://bit.ly/...
Weekly Standard http://bit.ly/...
Washington Times http://bit.ly/...
Newsmax http://bit.ly/...
Blaze (Glenn Beck) http://bit.ly/...
World Net Daily http://bit.ly/...
Big Government (Breitbart) http://bit.ly/...

======

Others (neutral)

Esquire http://bit.ly/...
New Yorker http://nyr.kr/...
Vanity Fair http://bit.ly/...

Newsweek http://bit.ly/...
Time http://ti.me/...
This Week http://bit.ly/...
US News & World Report http://bit.ly/...

Gawker http://is.gd/...
RawStory http://is.gd/...

==============

Conspiracy/Paranormal:

AboveTopSecret http://bit.ly/...
Godlike Productions http://bit.ly/...
InfoWars http://bit.ly/...
Earthfiles http://bit.ly/...
Exopolitics http://is.gd/...



MSNBC OFFERINGS TODAY FROM RACHEL MADDOW


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/ppp-poll-trump-base-deluded-by-false-facts-862955075875

PPP poll: Trump base deluded by false facts
Rachel Maddow gives an exclusive first look at the latest PPP poll showing Donald Trump with historically low approval ratings and that most Americans do not believe his lies about inauguration numbers, though his supporters do. Duration: 11:38

http://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/trump-s-comments-on-torture-ricochet-across-the-globe-862980163696

THE 11TH HOUR WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS 1/25/17
Trump's comments on torture ricochet across the globe
With Pres. Trump's comments on torture again grabbing headlines, UK's Prime Minister was pressed on the topic by her own party. MSNBC's Brian Williams discusses with terror expert Jeremy Bash. Duration: 2:34

1/25/17
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/voter-fraud-this-is-a-lie-trump-told-himself-862954051594
Voter fraud: 'This is a lie Trump told himself'
Trump is vowing to investigate his unsubstantiated voter fraud claim, but he may have to investigate a member of his senior staff, one of his cabinet nominees, and his daughter if he follows through. Lawrence discusses with Eugene Robinson, Jason Kander, and ... more Duration: 16:34

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/rather-on-unease-over-trump-we-ve-never-had-this-before-862969411919

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 01/25/17
Rather on unease over Trump: 'We've never had this before'
Dan Rather, host of The Big Interview on AXS TV, talks with Rachel Maddow about the truly unprecedented aspects of the Donald Trump regime and the advent of "alternate facts." ... more Duration: {{video.duration.momentjs}}

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/retooled-voa-set-to-be-trump-run-us-state-media-network-862993475674

VOA BECOMING TRUMP’S OWN PLATFORM FOR NEWS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE US
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 1/25/17
Retooled VOA set to be Trump-run US state media network
Rachel Maddow reports on how a restructuring of the Voice Of American broadcast network means that Donald Trump has the unique opportunity to staff a state-run media operation broadcasting inside the United States. Duration: 6:57



MADDOW REFERRED TO “PPP POLLING.” WHO ARE THEY? I HADN’T SEEN THE NAME BEFORE, BUT WIKIPEDIA GIVES THEM GOOD REFERENCES ON THEIR FAIRNESS AND SURPRISING ACCURACY, AT LEAST IN POLLING.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

Public Policy Polling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is a U.S. Democratic[1] polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[2][3][4] PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman Dean Debnam, the firm's current president and chief executive officer.[5]

In addition to political issues, the company has polled the public on topics such as the approval rating of God,[6] whether Republican voters believe President Obama would be eligible to enter heaven in the event of the Rapture,[7] whether hipsters should be subjected to a special tax for being annoying,[8] and whether Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer.[9][10]

Elections[edit]

2008[edit]

PPP first entered prominence through its performance in the 2008 Democratic primaries between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The company performed well, producing accurate predictions in states ranging from South Carolina to Wisconsin, many of which featured inaccurate results by other pollsters.[11][non-primary source needed][12] After the November election, PPP was ranked by the Wall Street Journal as one of the two most accurate firms, among those who were most active in the presidential swing states.[13]

2010[edit]

PPP was the first pollster to find Scott Brown with a lead over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate special election; Brown ultimately won in a major comeback, and PPP's final poll in that race predicted Brown's winning margin exactly.[14]

2011[edit]

PPP was praised[by whom?] for its accuracy in polling primaries and special elections, which are notoriously hard to predict. The contests they accurately predicted include the West Virginia gubernatorial primaries, special elections in New York and California,[15][16] as well as all eight Wisconsin recall elections.

2012[edit]

A study by Fordham University found that, of 28 firms studied, PPP had the most accurate poll on the presidential national popular vote, both its independently conducted poll and the one it does in collaboration with the Daily Kos and the SEIU.[17][18] PPP correctly called the winner of the presidential election in all 19 states it polled in the final week of the election, as well as the winners of all the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races it surveyed.[19][20][21][22][23]

2014[edit]

Political research firm YouGov found PPP’s gubernatorial polls to have the lowest average margin of error among national firms that polled in at least five gubernatorial races in the month preceding the election.[24]

Methodology[edit]

The company's surveys use Interactive Voice Response (IVR), an automated questionnaire used by other polling firms such as SurveyUSA and Rasmussen Reports.[25] The journalist Nate Cohn has criticized the company's methodology as being "unscientific".[26]

In 2013 columnist Nate Cohn described PPP as a liberal pollster,[27] although according to statistician Nate Silver, PPP had a tendency to slightly lean Republican as of September 2016.[28]



MORE ABOUT THE FRIGHTFUL “FAKE NEWS,” OPINION/BIAS, GOVERNMENT CONTROL, PROPAGANDA, TRUMP TIDBITS, AND OTHER MEDIA MATTERS IS FOUND IN THE BROOKINGS ARTICLE BELOW. I WISH I COULD SAY THAT I BELIEVE “FAKE NEWS” CAN’T POSSIBLY MAKE ITS’ WAY INTO AN OTHERWISE TRUTHFUL NEWS SOURCE, BUT JUST FOLLOW SOME BASIC STEPS. ON FAKE NEWS, FIRST ASK YOURSELF WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE SOUNDS POSSIBLE. IF IT IS, THEN GO TO GOOGLE AND SEARCH FOR MORE ON THE SUBJECT.

SOME OF WHAT YOU FIND WILL BE TOTAL PROPAGANDA OR SOME OTHER FORM OF BILGEWATER, BUT JUST DISENTANGLE THAT FROM THE REST AND GO ON. LOOK FOR SIGNS OF ONE SOURCE ONLY, AND TRY TO TRACK THAT FIRST STORY DOWN. IF IT COMES FROM BREITBART, IT IS TOTAL TRASH. DON’T FAIL TO GOOGLE TERMS, GROUPS OR WORDS THAT ARE UNFAMILIAR. YOU CAN’T HELP LEARNING THAT WAY, AND YOU WON’T HAVE TO FEAR “BELIEVING” THE WRONG THING.

I WAS TOLD IN HIGH SCHOOL TO “ASK QUESTIONS” OF ANY READING MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FACTUAL. AS A SOCIETY IN GENERAL, WE HAVE BEEN TOO PASSIVE AND CREDULOUS FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, AND THAT “GOES BACK A WAYS.” START PARTICIPATING IN THE NEWS ACTIVELY. GO FOR IT!



https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2016/12/16/top-political-journalists-discuss-covering-politics-in-a-post-truth-america/

BROOKINGS NOW
Top political journalists discuss covering politics in a “post-truth” America
Eric Bull
Friday, December 16, 2016

To say that the political media is under the microscope would be the understatement of the year. After the most tumultuous election in a generation, the media has found itself under attack from all sides over its reporting on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Politico’s Susan Glasser recently tackled this issue head-on in the latest edition of the Brookings Essay, “Covering Politics in a Post-Truth America.” In this essay she makes the controversial claim that U.S. political journalism is better than ever, and that the real problem is that people seemed to not care about the facts they were being presented.

On Tuesday, December 15, Glasser and some of her peers in political journalism met at Brookings to discuss the essay, the implications of the election for the media, and the path forward for journalists trying to break through in an era of disinformation. Here are some of the highlights:

“Our emotions are much stronger than our reason”

James Glassman is a veteran journalist and editor, and now the executive director of the George W. Bush Public Policy Institute. He talked about some of the underlying human instincts that have given rise to the situation that we now find ourselves in.

“You can’t have this conversation without talking about Facebook”

Shani Hilton, executive editor of Buzzfeed News, gave an overview of how fake news has evolved over the past two years, and made it clear that more than any other platform, Facebook has been integral to the phenomenon.

“We found out that the bad guys have Facebook, too”

Glasser recalled how in recent years she and many of her colleagues were techno-optimists who saw the start of the Arab spring and embraced the potential of social media and the internet to organize the forces of good against dictatorial regimes. Then as the months and years went by it became clear that the reality was far more complicated.

“We have to wrap facts around a brick and throw it through peoples’ windows”

There was wide agreement on the panel that “fact-checking” alone is insufficient to combat the disinformation being propagated in today’s political environment. Glenn Thrush, longtime Politico reporter, said that reporters today need to “weaponize facts” in the way that Donald Trump and others have weaponized falsehood.

Thrush also recommended that his brethren in print journalism need to be harder on their colleagues in cable and broadcast news who have the power to give Donald Trump an “unmediated platform” through the course of his administration.

Make sure to watch the full event video, and check out Glasser’s Brookings Essay, “Covering Politics in a Post-Truth America.”



https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/02/26/can-explanatory-journalism-cure-the-internet/

FIXGOV
Can explanatory journalism cure the internet?
Richard FawalFriday, February 26, 2016

This post is part of our project examining the importance of explanatory journalism. The first post in the series is available here.

Last December The Washington Post shuttered its online column “What was fake on the Internet this week.” For a little over eighteen months, columnist Caitlin Dewey, with a wry smile and a wink to the fantastic urban legends our society is capable of creating and our citizens are eager to believe, humorously debunked each week’s most entertaining and outrageous online hooey. However, as she perused the Internet for outrageous claims, she realized that misinformation isn’t just an innocent manifestation of the human penchant for mystery and myth; it’s also big business.

Today’s online hoaxers aren’t just after a laugh. Their brand of bunk has a clear purpose: generating Internet traffic by appealing to people’s deepest emotional biases. Sometimes they do it for political purposes, as when the “fiercely conservative” website Revive America published an article claiming that ABC had aired “A Charlie Brown Christmas” with a disclaimer that the program contained “strong Christian messages and may be offensive to some viewers.” Other times it’s for profit, often disguised as good will, such as self-titled “Food Babe” Vani Hari’s campaign to get Starbucks to stop selling pumpkin spice lattes because they contain no pumpkin. Enough people believe these ridiculous falsehoods to share them on Twitter and Facebook over and over again, gaining Revive America a flood of new readers and Vani Hari temporary star status.

For Dewey and The Post, playing whack-a-mole with this kind of Internet misinformation wasn’t what they had set out to do. “This column wasn’t designed to address the current environment,” Dewey said about “What was fake…” in her final post. “This format doesn’t make sense.”

The demise of the feature is indicative of one of the more frustrating challenges faced by traditional media in the Information Age. In a world where myth and misinformation can travel quite literally at the speed of light, traditional media struggle to keep up with digital competitors who use “click bait” tactics to capture readers, and who have little regard for the accuracy of their content. In this environment, how does solid, fact-based journalism survive? Is there even an audience for that kind of content anymore?

Increasingly, players from media icons to entrepreneurially minded journalists believe the answer to the latter question is “yes,” and they see serving that audience as a new opportunity for explanatory journalism—a style of reporting that explains an issue in a straightforward, accessible style. Ezra Klein’s Vox, “The Upshot” at The New York Times, and BuzzFeed are a few examples, but there are prominent examples outside of traditional news as well.

For example, one could be forgiven for assuming the podcast Stuff You Should Know, with episode titles like “How does a diving bell work?” and “How Mortgage-backed Securities Work,” is popular with only the nerdiest of nerds. In fact, it is one of the most listened-to podcasts in the world, and it is pure explanatory journalism. The hosts, Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant, chat about topics from the fascinatingly morbid (“What is a body farm”) to the completely obscure (“How Electroconvulsive Therapy Works”). The show is so popular it has spawned live tours and even a short-lived television series. It’s hard to look at SYSK’s success and argue there’s no market for explanatory content.

Aside from pure market considerations, the renewed interest in explanatory journalism—and it is by no means a new phenomenon: there’s been a Pulitzer for the category since 1985—is a rational and necessary response to the overwhelming levels of misinformation on the Internet. Consider, for example, coverage of the January 2015 measles outbreak linked to the Disneyland amusement park, in which scores of people across several states were diagnosed with the disease. Vox addressed the issue with a story titled “There’s a measles outbreak at Disneyland. Here’s what you need to know.” It had three main points: Measles is extremely infectious, the anti-vaccine movement may contribute to the uptick in cases, and global traffic may also be a factor. The reporting clearly and accurately described the disease and the most important facts about it and the outbreak.

Meanwhile, over at NaturalNews.com, the headline was “Afraid of the Disneyland measles outbreak? Don’t be fooled by Mickey Mouse science—READ THIS FIRST.” The article offered little information about measles or the outbreak, apart from mentioning that “only 644 people” had contracted measles in 2014, and that “the Disneyland outbreak, at last count, was just 39 people.” What it did offer was a detailed breakdown of the language in an informational insert from a chicken pox vaccine (the kind of small-print pharmaceutical details you often find in prescriptions) calling out every single potential side effect and any precautionary legalese to convince the reader that vaccines are just a big, scary lie.

It’s important to understand that this difference in reporting isn’t rooted in competing opinions or alternative viewpoints. It’s rooted in money. Vox is a news site. Reporting news is its business. NaturalNews.com, despite its name, is not a news site. It’s a commerce site that sells alternative health care products. Its writings are not meant to inform. They’re meant to enrage, so that its readers will trust the products it sells instead of mainstream health care.

Caitlin Dewey was right: blog posts aren’t the right format for addressing the phenomenon of money-driven online misinformation. A more comprehensive solution to poppycock-for-profit is necessary. Explanatory journalism could be that solution by fulfilling one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the press: fact-based, rational reporting that helps all of us better understand and participate in our world.