How do I keep up with politics?

[Iliena]

Associated Press and Reuters both are considered to be unbiased in reporting world political news.

[tehdang]

Can't stress enough that opinion writers are pure garbage and you should stick to factual reporting not some dippers thought of the week or paid op ed.

I disagree. Anyone thinking about starting in on following political news needs to include the kind of long-form political opinion that columnists can give. I’m talking about what the left believes and why they believe it, what the right believes and why they believe it, and the tons of nuance that makes right/left distinctions a partial lie. Intra-ideology fights in opinion pages are instructive.

News stories have their own bias, and the best ones can only touch on what certain politicians or selected “experts” feel is important. No chance to state and argue the point with counterfactuals and rebuttal of common comebacks.

Most political commentary I read I disagree with. I am still benefitted from knowing why people disagree with me and what they consider the principal areas and reasons for disagreement.

[cubby]

Associated Press and Reuters both are considered to be unbiased in reporting world political news.

Agreed. These two are good sources of factual reporting, without the commentary we see from other organizations.

[Elegiac]

I disagree. Anyone thinking about starting in on following political news needs to include the kind of long-form political opinion that columnists can give. I’m talking about what the left believes and why they believe it, what the right believes and why they believe it, and the tons of nuance that makes right/left distinctions a partial lie. Intra-ideology fights in opinion pages are instructive.

No, they really aren't.

Political theory and political history, as Mihalik pointed out, are instructive as to what X or Y believes and for what reason. Opinion pages are largely sensationalist garbage designed to drive engagement.

[uuuhname]

yeah, the only bit of advice I'd give is do not ever bother reading opinion pieces. they are all garbage, even the ones that agree with me.

[Drutt]

yeah, the only bit of advice I'd give is do not ever bother reading opinion pieces. they are all garbage, even the ones that agree with me.

Quite.

I'm not interested in opinion-as-news, I'm interested in facts.

Options can be (and frequently are) complete horseshit.

[postman1782]

WSJ Opinion pages and NYT Opinion pages. Free news sites for just what's happening, with whatever slant to the reporting, fills in the rest.

I can't really recommend a good substitute other than grabbing both sides of slanted political opinion in among your news browsing habits. It'll cost money for easy access; the workarounds are a little cumbersome for daily readers. Some educational institutions, should you be enrolled, will provide access.

No. Absolutely not. Opinion articles mean nothing. The old saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I won't even use opinion articles as sources from people I like.

[ati87]

Agreed. These two are good sources of factual reporting, without the commentary we see from other organizations.

Arguably you could just read stuff to get some overal understanding but keep certain things in mind.
When a article spends more time trying to make you angry an afraid then actually covering the subject then you should stop reading that website completely.

I just went to Fox news and the first big article was about how Biden "open border policy is responsible for killing 46 people"
below that was a article about "Drug traffickers arrested in California with 150,000 fentanyl pills released after just days in jail"
And then something about how saying "F--- Clarence Thomas’" is equal to calling for violence.

All three are just about making you angry and afraid go to the Guardian or Politico for example and you may find some articles which are a bit more colourful (read not outright reporting but also deep dive in the certain subjects) but always professional and never a outright propaganda peace.

With some exceptions ofc, I've seen enough articles on Politico that are outright questionable. . First everything happens before Biden becomes VP, Joe Biden has zero involvement in this deal and nobody did anything illegal as far as the author is aware of but that didn't stop him from writing a massive piece of with allot of speculation without outright speculating.

[Kuntantee]

WSJ Opinion pages and NYT Opinion pages. Free news sites for just what's happening, with whatever slant to the reporting, fills in the rest.

I can't really recommend a good substitute other than grabbing both sides of slanted political opinion in among your news browsing habits. It'll cost money for easy access; the workarounds are a little cumbersome for daily readers. Some educational institutions, should you be enrolled, will provide access.

Is this a joke or what? Opinion articles should be taken with a truck ton of salt.

- - - Updated - - -

I have come to the realization that politics for the most part is waste of time. It breeds conflict. If you like conflict, be my guest. This is why I have stopped following GenOT for the most part. This place is rabidly political, constant headache no less. People who do not follow politics are observably happier around me. Ignorance is a bliss.

[Biglog]

Generally you want to stick to reliable long-time news sources that have been around for many decades with a long history of accuracy. You'll get 10 different answers if you ask 10 people on what those reliable sources are, but sites like AP, Reuters, etc. are the ones most commonly used. The catch in that is that is one reason they are more accurate is because they tend to wait for verification on stories, which makes them a bit slower on news than some other outlets like Twitter.

The main thing is there is LOTS of misinformation out there. Just in the last 2 days there have been untrue viral stories for example about inflation. One claiming Arizona Iced Tea was raising their price to $1.29 a can, which was done by showing a Canadian Arizona Ice Tea can (where due to the currency value difference with the US has always been $1.29). The Arizona Iced Tea company confirmed this was misleading and that they have not increased their price. Another was a photoshopped picture showing a 7-11 gas station with gas at $7.11/gallon which was also proven to be untrue. People do this for political reasons, to exaggerate the effects of inflation on prices and/or the Russian/Ukraine war on gas prices to increase negativity towards the current administration. So you have to really be aware of all of the misinformation out there and filter that out if you use less reputable news sources, since it has an agenda to shift your political view to theirs. And those people have proven daily that spreading misinformation is something they have no problem doing to achieve that.

Also, watch out for commentary on Youtube pretending to be news. It's fairly easy for someone to setup a green screen in their basement, put on a dress shirt and tie, and pretend to be a reputable "news outlet" while disseminating their personal opinions or farming for YT views/likes. That's where you'll be misinformed the most. And if someone tells you news secondhand, like "have you heard..." be skeptical, because often they are just spreading misinformation unknowingly like the Arizona Iced Tea $1.29 story.

[Forogil]

No. Absolutely not. Opinion articles mean nothing. The old saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I won't even use opinion articles as sources from people I like.

I disagree a bit.

Actual news articles are more important - since they describe what has happened.

Opinion articles and political speeches are still somewhat relevant - not for figuring out what happened and not to be confused with actual news, but to see what political stand-points people are pushing for, and thus where we might be headed. Obviously some opinion makers are irrelevant, and some have hidden agendas - but too often many seem surprised even when something goes from opinion to the proposed action.

[tehdang]

No. Absolutely not. Opinion articles mean nothing. The old saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I won't even use opinion articles as sources from people I like.

No better place to start for people just getting into politics. For the reasons cited.

He wasn't asking for articles that he can source from. He wants to get started keeping up with politics. You'd be a fool to miss columnists in major newspapers like the WSJ and NYT.

Is this a joke or what? Opinion articles should be taken with a truck ton of salt.

- - - Updated - - -

I have come to the realization that politics for the most part is waste of time. It breeds conflict. If you like conflict, be my guest. This is why I have stopped following GenOT for the most part. This place is rabidly political, constant headache no less. People who do not follow politics are observably happier around me. Ignorance is a bliss.

Well, this is a thread about keeping up with politics. I wouldn't suggest GenOT or its Poli subforum for your headache or happiness, much less for keeping up with politics.

[postman1782]

No better place to start for people just getting into politics. For the reasons cited.

He wasn't asking for articles that he can source from. He wants to get started keeping up with politics. You'd be a fool to miss columnists in major newspapers like the WSJ and NYT.

Well, this is a thread about keeping up with politics. I wouldn't suggest GenOT or its Poli subforum for your headache or happiness, much less for keeping up with politics.

No it is not. Again, opinions are like assholes and everyone has one. And yours is often wrong. And I NEVER read opinion articles for sources for ANYTHING.

[Ripster42]

yeah, the only bit of advice I'd give is do not ever bother reading opinion pieces. they are all garbage, even the ones that agree with me.

Especially not the WSJ. The only reason to read the WSJ editorials is because you want to know what dipshits are going to be spouting later that day. The NYT has a pretty feckless opinion page, but that's more abdication of duty to the truth in search of some kind of middle ground, as opposed to the malice present in the WSJ's opinion contributors.

[tehdang]

No it is not. Again, opinions are like assholes and everyone has one. And yours is often wrong. And I NEVER read opinion articles for sources for ANYTHING.

Yeah yeah suit yourself. I'm not telling you to benefit yourself by consuming more opinion commentary in prominent national newspapers. I'm telling OP. And you'd have a point if I sent him to 4chan or mmo-c.

Especially not the WSJ. The only reason to read the WSJ editorials is because you want to know what dipshits are going to be spouting later that day. The NYT has a pretty feckless opinion page, but that's more abdication of duty to the truth in search of some kind of middle ground, as opposed to the malice present in the WSJ's opinion contributors.

It's doubly true for anybody that thinks the WSJ is only useful for dipshits or shows malice. I know that contrary opinions and other points of view is frowned upon around these parts, but its necessary for any maturity about these subjects nonetheless. Many people consume political news, but stick to views they already agree with, and only consume contrary opinions as reductive summaries written by friendly hack writers.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

I disagree. Anyone thinking about starting in on following political news needs to include the kind of long-form political opinion that columnists can give. I’m talking about what the left believes and why they believe it, what the right believes and why they believe it, and the tons of nuance that makes right/left distinctions a partial lie. Intra-ideology fights in opinion pages are instructive.

News stories have their own bias, and the best ones can only touch on what certain politicians or selected “experts” feel is important. No chance to state and argue the point with counterfactuals and rebuttal of common comebacks.

Most political commentary I read I disagree with. I am still benefitted from knowing why people disagree with me and what they consider the principal areas and reasons for disagreement.

If you start by getting someone else's opinion rather than starting with the facts and then forming your own opinion you are not becoming informed politically, you're merely learning how to parrot someone else's opinion.

If you like being a parrot who relies upon other people's opinions, your advice is great.
If you want to become informed politically, it is downright terrible.

[postman1782]

Yeah yeah suit yourself. I'm not telling you to benefit yourself by consuming more opinion commentary in prominent national newspapers. I'm telling OP. And you'd have a point if I sent him to 4chan or mmo-c.

It's doubly true for anybody that thinks the WSJ is only useful for dipshits or shows malice. I know that contrary opinions and other points of view is frowned upon around these parts, but its necessary for any maturity about these subjects nonetheless. Many people consume political news, but stick to views they already agree with, and only consume contrary opinions as reductive summaries written by friendly hack writers.

Nope. Still absolutely not. Again, still, opinions are like assholes. And nothing from opinion articles helps the conversation, except set a bias, and be wrong in a lot of cases.

[tehdang]

If you start by getting someone else's opinion rather than starting with the facts and then forming your own opinion you are not becoming informed politically, you're merely learning how to parrot someone else's opinion.

If you like being a parrot who relies upon other people's opinions, your advice is great.
If you want to become informed politically, it is downright terrible.

First, in reading opinion columnists you gain knowledge of which facts they consider most helpful to their arguments, and which facts they consider most destructive to their opponent's arguments. This starts additional investigations, if you are not a nincompoop. Second, by applying your mind to opinions in august newspapers, you gain additional perspectives into which political arguments are ascendant as they speak to current events. You can form your own opinion on them, and begin googling the primary source materials for certain claims or stories.

See, for instance, that Janet Yellen has ideas to starve the Putin regime via an oil price cap. WSJ Editorial Board is opposed, citing certain aspects of Chinese and Indian trade, exploring buyer's cartels, informing on European counter-proposals, problems with cooperation and retaliation, and so forth. Further investigation should be directed at the actual White House statement, and actions from Boris Johnson, Victor Orbin, not to mention Chinese and Indian joy at buying Russian crude at a discount. One short opinion story, several prongs for continued investigation, and forming your own opinion afterwards (not to mention, finding an opposing op-ed to see which can be questioned)

Altogether, I think you should use your brain a little more on what this investigation entails. Maybe you can do better than judging the best way to read an opinion article is to adopt it entirely. Maybe you can also weigh value in seeking an opposition of opinions to grab a better understanding of which facts are considered most dear to each, and which are in active dispute. If the limit of your imagination is parroting the opinions of others, then of course you can't comprehend further!

Nope. Still absolutely not. Again, still, opinions are like assholes. And nothing from opinion articles helps the conversation, except set a bias, and be wrong in a lot of cases.

Contrasting opinions have a helpful effect of pushing biases against each other. Your third repetition of an assholes analogy makes me think you intend to be very dull.

[postman1782]

First, in reading opinion columnists you gain knowledge of which facts they consider most helpful to their arguments, and which facts they consider most destructive to their opponent's arguments. This starts additional investigations, if you are not a nincompoop. Second, by applying your mind to opinions in august newspapers, you gain additional perspectives into which political arguments are ascendant as they speak to current events. You can form your own opinion on them, and begin googling the primary source materials for certain claims or stories.

See, for instance, that Janet Yellen has ideas to starve the Putin regime via an oil price cap. WSJ Editorial Board is opposed, citing certain aspects of Chinese and Indian trade, exploring buyer's cartels, informing on European counter-proposals, problems with cooperation and retaliation, and so forth. Further investigation should be directed at the actual White House statement, and actions from Boris Johnson, Victor Orbin, not to mention Chinese and Indian joy at buying Russian crude at a discount. One short opinion story, several prongs for continued investigation, and forming your own opinion afterwards (not to mention, finding an opposing op-ed to see which can be questioned)

Altogether, I think you should use your brain a little more on what this investigation entails. Maybe you can do better than judging the best way to read an opinion article is to adopt it entirely. Maybe you can also weigh value in seeking an opposition of opinions to grab a better understanding of which facts are considered most dear to each, and which are in active dispute. If the limit of your imagination is parroting the opinions of others, then of course you can't comprehend further!

Contrasting opinions have a helpful effect of pushing biases against each other. Your third repetition of an assholes analogy makes me think you intend to be very dull.

Nope. You just don't like that I am right and everyone has shown you to be wrong.

[Endus]

First, in reading opinion columnists you gain knowledge of which facts they consider most helpful to their arguments, and which facts they consider most destructive to their opponent's arguments. This starts additional investigations, if you are not a nincompoop. Second, by applying your mind to opinions in august newspapers, you gain additional perspectives into which political arguments are ascendant as they speak to current events. You can form your own opinion on them, and begin googling the primary source materials for certain claims or stories.

If you want depth of analysis, and academic rigor, opinion columns aren't the place to look. The best you can usually hope for is someone useful writing an opinion and pointing you to where their real work can be looked through. Opinion columns are generally even less informative than the abstract for a paper. Particularly given how unlikely it is that they'll cite sources.

Opinion columns are like watching a 5-minute Youtube video. If you're getting any significant amount of your information that way, you need to seriously address your research methods.