The Best and Worst Journals

[Spike]

Here we can discuss which journals have obvious biases, unreliability, tabloidism, etc, etc. So we can all learn when to take a pinch of salt when consuming our news. Particularly helpful for those across cultures that may not know that tabloids like The Sun are toilet paper.

I'll start with a few NA journals.

New York Times - Leftist bias with a huge bias towards Latin immigration due to being owned by Mexico's most powerful man; Carlos Slim. Reliable but they have a progressiveness  agenda.

Vice - Former counter-culture zine that is cosplaying as a news network. Used to be funny and interesting, now is just opinion drivel. Imagine the punk rocker in high-school that grew up to be a corporate stooge.

Daily Wire - Conservative  journal that tends to fall towards 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism'. Obviously biased towards conservative culture, isn't pro or anti Trump; generally reliable but their 'smaller' journalists may use contentious sources.

Rebel Media - Conservative Canadian journal headed by Evra Levant. Generally reliable but has very obvious biases towards Canadian oil and manufacturing industries. Their Canadian field reporters do a solid job, but their 'overseas' reporters leave more to be desired.

Breitbart - Former traditional Conservative network manipulated by Steve Bannon into pro-Trump marketing service. Very much worth avoiding.

Infowars - The greatest comedy show in the world. Led by absolute madman Alex Jones, this 1776 LIBERTARIAN journal is sincere but ultimately is a soapbox for Jones' insanity and conspiracy theories. One of my favorite things to consume just solely on the basis of Jones being a lunatic.

Washington Post - Very biased towards leftism. Their slogan is 'democracy dies in darkness'. As Trump obsessed as Breitbart but on the other side of the fence. They play a lot of their articles on the nose without outright aggression but their biases eventually bleed through. Okay, but I'd avoid it.

Huffington Post - Buzzfeed in drag. Possible the worst and most hypocritical journal I've listed. Maybe tied with Breitbart for it's absolute shit published, though Breitbart has the uncanny distinction of not censoring it's own journalists. One journalists had his entire portfolio deleted and banned from the site because he published an article (he had publishing rights to circumvent editors) that question Clinton's health. 

[Cure]

The Sun - a disgrace to all it touches.

[Kowabunga]

Journal of Contemporary History. Solid quarterly academic journal with a decent impact factor. Now easily available with Sci-Hub.

5 hours ago, Spike said:

New York Times - Reliable but they have a cultural-Marxist agenda.

Cultural marxism does not exist. It is the fancy way neonazis cope with liberalism these days. With commies and jews and the evil Frankfurt School. Hopefully in the third iteration they bring the vampires in.

 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Kowabunga said:

Journal of Contemporary History. Solid quarterly academic journal with a decent impact factor. Now easily available with Sci-Hub.

Cultural marxism does not exist. It is the fancy way neonazis cope with liberalism these days. With commies and jews and the evil Frankfurt School. Hopefully in the third iteration they bring the vampires in.

 

Couldn't think of another way to express it, I was hesitant to use it because it's just a buzzword. Also those Neonazis you mention don't really exist either.

[Kowabunga]

Just now, Spike said:

Couldn't think of another way to express it.

How about espousing progressive values?

Just now, Spike said:

Couldn't think of another way to express it. Also those Neonazis you mention don't really exist either.

They exist. They are very few. Key point is it has extended outside the fringe Neo-Nazi scene because it sounds like a fancy and analytical tag (also very fitting for a country with such phobia towards minimal economic changes towards the left such as the US) to describe liberal values that grind your gears.

[Spike]

Besides @Kowabunga 'cultural Marxism' as it used today doesn't have any relation to the Frankfurt School. Kind of like how 'Fascist' is now short hand for 'right winger I hate'. The terms 'cultural Marxism' and 'Fascism' are slurs from opposite sides of the fence. It's just a corruption of another more meaningful term.

[Kowabunga]

Just now, Spike said:

Besides @Kowabunga 'cultural Marxism' as it used today doesn't have any relation to the Frankfurt School. Kind of like how 'Fascist' is now short hand for 'right winger I hate'. The terms 'cultural Marxism' and 'Fascism' are slurs from opposite sides of the fence. It's just a corruption of another more meaningful term.

False equivalences.

Fascism is a set of ideologies not particularly coherent solidly researched both today when it is fringe and when it was in vogue. You can use it as a pejorative term to encompass everything that sounds right wing authoritarian, or if your are a true antifa everything to your right.

As you use it. Don't speak for the world. Cultural marxism is a conspiracy plot with nothing behind, developed by conspiracy theorists from the Far Right to cope with the Fall of the Berlin Wall and focus their hate somewhere now real commies don't look so menacing. It can be also used as word void of meaning.

[Spike]

5 minutes ago, Kowabunga said:

How about espousing progressive values?

They exist. They are very few. Key point is it has extended outside the fringe Neo-Nazi scene because it sounds like a fancy and analytical tag (also very fitting for a country with such phobia towards minimal economic changes towards the left such as the US) to describe liberal values that grind your gears.

No, I think it's more of a term to describe a dislike of changing cultural attitudes (when used the common people) . The value doesn't have to be liberal (it usually given the most common users of the word) but anything deemed 'foreign' (not in the sense of nationality). For instance: Jamie dislikes X newspaper because it eschews anti-America rhetoric while praising open immigration and the acceptance of Y's culture. He then of course would blame it on the Jews.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Kowabunga said:

False equivalences.

Fascism is a set of ideologies not particularly coherent solidly researched both today when it is fringe and when it was in vogue. You can use it as a pejorative term to encompass everything that sounds right wing authoritarian, or if your are a true antifa everything to your right.

As you use it. Don't speak for the world. Cultural marxism is a conspiracy plot with nothing behind, developed by conspiracy theorists from the Far Right to cope with the Fall of the Berlin Wall and focus their hate somewhere now real commies don't look so menacing. It can be also used as word void of meaning.

It isn't at all. Both are just catch-all terms either side fling at eachother to discredit the other. They are rarely used with proper context.

'Meaningful term' doesn't equate to value. 'Cultural Marxism' is a 'meaningful term' but that doesn't mean it has any inherit value. 'Nazism' is a meaningful term but that doesn't mean I derive meaning from it, as is 'Liberalism' or 'Conservatism'. So no, I wasn't speaking for the world, thank you very much.

[Kowabunga]

Well, if you stick to the superficial meaning casually used by people that barely know what Fascism or Marxism is and don't go to scholar usage, you may have a point.

Did I sound elitist here? Hell yes.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Kowabunga said:

Well, if you stick to the superficial meaning casually used by people that barely know what Fascism or Marxism is and don't go to scholar usage, you may have a point.

Did I sound elitist here? Hell yes.

That is what most people use, friendo. You may want to live in an elitist world that uses words correctly, hell, I'd love to as well but it sure isn't going to happen any time soon. Words are corrupted and evolve, it's a fact of life.

[Kowabunga]

36 minutes ago, Spike said:

No, I think it's more of a term to describe a dislike of changing cultural attitudes (when used the common people) . The value doesn't have to be liberal (it usually given the most common users of the word) but anything deemed 'foreign' (not in the sense of nationality). For instance: Jamie dislikes X newspaper because it eschews anti-America rhetoric while praising open immigration and the acceptance of Y's culture. He then of course would blame it on the Jews.

Obviously it can refer to anything you feel alienated from but always from a conservative/reactionary (keep in mind the use of these adjectives in this case just place someone in a relative position to the cause of alienation, nothing more) point of view. Be it the annoying attempts to postmodernly de-construct every cultural manifestation since the Neolithic for the sake of it, the damages to the narrative of nation, the perceived secularization of society or whatever. 

It does not designate anything you feel alienated from a "progressive" point of view. It is a palingenesic narrative more than anything.

[Inverted]

I have a feeling that most of the people who hate "cultural Marxism" aren't exactly saying that they find Adorno and Marcuse disagreeable. 

It's an absolute nothing term in it's common usage. Most of the people that say it generally just mean things like multi-culturalism and progressive attitudes to gender roles etc, which they see as part of a Communist conspiracy to destroy western civilisation or some equally crazy paranoid delusions. 

Like those crazy "white genocide" people you see in YouTube comments sections. Or people who rant about George Soros as if he's an Elder of Zion, secretly pushing the world into Jewish servitude. 

[Spike]

Fuck me, I didn't want to make a topic on fecking cultural marxism. 

[Inverted]

Fine I'll review some newspapers:

Daily Mail, Express, and the Sun: demented shite. Panders to deluded Little Englanders. 

Telegraph: the more dignified version of the above. Occasionally offers some good comment, but mostly is nothing more than a reliable mouthpiece for the mainstream Tory line.

Guardian: well-intentioned and pretty decent analytically, but also dilutes its content with painfully bourgeois cultural commentary and lots of hipster wankery nonsense. 

 

[Panflute]

Journalists are among the lowest creatures on Earth.

[RandoEFC+]

Can't think of any newspaper I would actually read in Britain. They're all either red top shite, the printed equivalent of click bait or pretend to be a high brow publication but actually make a terrible effort of hiding their biased political agendas. 

[Inverted]

The thing about newspapers is that the only way to get a reasonably balanced and informative experience from them, is to buy two or three of the more conscientious publications. Which means pumping more money into their industry. 

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, Inverted said:

The thing about newspapers is that the only way to get a reasonably balanced and informative experience from them, is to buy two or three of the more conscientious publications. Which means pumping more money into their industry. 

I don't buys newspaper but I pretty much do what you say. If a Right journal says X, I'll check the equivalent lefty journal to see where the story meets in the middle, and of course vice-versa. Usually, Ill have to check a third or fourth because the bastards leave out so much information to suit their agenda.