I have recently came into conclusion that the news sources I follow are almost all either left-leaning or not biased at all. However, I don’t really have many right-leaning sources that I follow. I would like to change this to broaden my spectrum of viewpoints.
However, I am looking for sources that are credible. I have tried looking at r/conservative on Reddit, however literally all the news sources that they use there show up as “mixed” or “low” under the factual reporting category on media bias check: example (and I’ve checked like 15).
So here comes the question: what credible right-leaning news sources are there that actually publish factual information? Right-center are also fine
You must log in or register to comment.
New York Times?
I’m not being facetious here. They have made a big rightward lurch, and are basically sitting where the WSJ used to sit.
No, not in any real sense. Not since the Clinton administration.
Im going to assume positive intent here, as my knee jerk reaction is to say no, there are not any right leaning sources that are calling Trump a nazi, nor are they calling Israel genocidal maniacs.
Barring that, this isnt really a one-sentence answer kind of question. What is “right-leaning”? What was “right” 30 years ago barely crosses into center now. So news sources that you see labeled as center would have been your primary sources for right wing news.
As far as factuality goes, there is a deep seated campaign around for profit, national multimedia companies to spoonfeed the masses straight up lies, and its working. I want to emphasize that this is a propaganda machine designed to divert pressure from the blatant robbing of the majority of America to feed the top 0.1% of people. You will not find truthful right leaning sources, and moreover, it will be difficult to find truthful LEFT leaning sources, especially around Gaza.
Smartest comment in the thread imo. There can be good reasons for seeking a variety of ideologically leaned sources, but even the question of who is biased is a politicized question, and it won’t necessarily have anything to do with truth.
And as you noted, they change over time. E.g. “iraq war was bad” used to be considered an extreme far left position, though now it’s closer to a bipartisan consensus. “We need to avoid regulatory uncertainty”, “we need to curb judicial activism”, “deficits are bad” used to be right wing positions.
I suspect that what you want to check out is the tangle newsletter.
They report on one major story each day, share several viewpoints from each side, and then the personal take of Isaac Saul, the creator of the newsletter.
MBFC is funnily a right-wing biased source of ratings btw. Shift all their ratings to the right for a more accurate idea of things.
They count the guardian, a respectable centre-left news organisation as the same level of factuality as Breitbart, the literal nazi rag.
That tells you everything you need to know
the guardian, a respectable centre-left news organisation
I don’t think The Guardian hasn’t been centre for at least 5 years now. It used to be a respectable news origanisation, yes, but today the vast majority of their articles are opinions posts.
What do you think it is if not centrist? It’s certainly not solidly left-wing and it’s certainly not right-wing, nearly all of its reporting (excluding the insert magazines like the TV guide and food mag) is pretty firmly liberal capitalist centrism with some token left wing bits in there very occasionally.
As someone who reads the paper a few days a week, probably only a quarter of their output is opinion pieces, which I’d say is a pretty standard ratio.
It’s “British establishment left”. So slight left unless we’re talking about transgender people, then they align fully with Fox News.
The Economist
It’s definitely fairly conservative, with a healthy dash of neoliberalism and corporatism.
It’s British “liberal”, meaning free market economic right in the British frame of reference.
I readily accept that fact that to a modern day American audience, this is just your average Democrat.
I think with the right going hard right since 2016, in order to get access to any of the high level right-wing talking heads you have to be “loyal”. The second you are not Trump/MAGA will turn on you.They also make money hand over fist selling FUD that is much harder when just presenting facts.
I mean, MAGA sources work fine for me, as long as they actually just cover MAGA-friendly stories. I am fine with them manipulating me with the story choice as I follow a lot of news sources, I am just not fine with them manipulating me with the facts. I am looking for sources that I can be sure that the story covered is actually reputable and don’t really need to double-check it for the factual correctness
Unfortunately, facts have a left leaning bias.
We’re already seeing it now, but any and all storehouses of previously uncontroversial institutional knowledge will just get labeled “liberal” over time.
It happened to Wikipedia, it happened even to the weather, it’s happening to nutrition, and given enough time it will start happening to things like astronomy, air traffic control, earthquake detection, scuba diving, etc.
I see now I wasted my time with my comment on this thread. The answer is no, your bubble does not contain facts and you should look in a mirror about that.
You seem pretty invested in third party bias raters. Personally I think they’re crap because they just follow the overton window and in the US that means they count center right content as leaning left, e.g. The Economist.
But if that really floats your boat, you should use Ground News as one of your collators
I suggest starting with Ground.News and looking at their chart for who is covering a story on the right, and then going with that as a starting point.
I heard some good things about ground news.
They basically aggregate links to news sources covering a specific event.
I don’t really use them, but I know a couple people who do, and they appreciate the different views
I use GroundNews. Their biggest value to me is that I can see the headlines for the same coverage from different sources before I read the text. A lot of times this alone is enough to tell me if there is actual content there or just speculation/alarmism. If I do decide to read the content, it’s a very easy way to get a few different perspectives on the same matter, and over time I start to recognise patterns in the reporting styles even when I’m not reading through GroundNews.
Another useful feature is that you can past an article link or headline and it will show you alternative sources for the same coverage. This doesn’t always find useful alternatives, but it’s a simple, easy way to do basic fact-checking.
And while most people here might not appreciate it, when they aggregate multiple sources, they also have an LLM-written summary of the content of the articles. The (somewhat ironic) thing about these summaries is that often they’re the least biased, most factual interpretation of the news compared to all the sources covering it. This is because the summaries are generated from all the content, so when the LLM finds weak or contrasting information, it won’t report it as a fact; when most of the sources agree, then it will summarise the conclusion. This is an excellent use for LLM in my opinion, but you can use GroundNews perfectly fine without it.
That’s a brilliant idea actually, thanks!
The question you’re asking is actually very complicated. Pretty much every for-profit media company will have a bias to the right since their goal is to profit today and survive to profit tomorrow. Lowering the taxes for the company and for the wealthy who own large portions of the company are obviously something that the company and the people running the company want, and the platform of the right is consistently to lower taxes on businesses and the wealthy.
The wild thing is the way that the right has shifted in the past 30 years or so. Politicians would stir bigoted voters up with dogwhistle rhetoric while maintaining some level of deniability so that non-bigots would also still feel okay voting for them. This all changed with trump. Suddenly, it was possible to say the quiet part out loud and still get elected. Rather than using mild bigotry as a tool to get into office and then make bank off of bribes and carving out loopholes and conduct insider trading, now moron bigots themselves are running and winning, and they don’t actually know what to do or how to do it, so they mostly just shitpost and grandstand because they don’t actually know shit about governing.
We’re now coming to a point where these companies are hopefully starting to realize that the right is so bad at governing and so damaging with their shitposting that they’re actually hurting these companies’ bottom line. I wouldn’t dare call Democrats “the left” because they’re factually a center-right party; the Democrats were posturing to be a sane, safe, profitable alternative. Like it or not, Biden steered our economy back in the right direction, and Harris would’ve continued on that track while also letting these companies continue to amass wealth. Media companies who saw the forecast and reported with some bias towards Democrats are absolutely not left-leaning. A real left-leaning media company would not be structured like a corporation or traded on the stock market. A real left-leaning media company would be advocating to eradicate the systems as they are and remake them with equity in the foundations. We live in a very right-wing America, and any positive reporting of capitalist America, or gentle criticism of small details of the colonial capitalism of America needs to be understood as right bias. Every time somebody puts the stock market or companies or government contracts or “the economy” over feeding the hungry and housing the unhoused and treating the sick, that is right bias. RATM hit on this perfectly in Bulls On Parade:
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal
I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library
Line up to the mind cemetery now
What we don’t know keeps the contracts alive and movin’
They don’t gotta burn the books they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells
Rally 'round the family, pockets full of shellsTL;DR: the litmus of whether your news is biased to the left cannot be determined by whether they nudge for the center-right or the far-right candidate.
You shouldn’t be looking for a news source that directs you one way or another at all. You should be looking for a news source that presents facts. If you can’t find a strictly factual interpretation of the events being reported, then you should focus on understanding the bias in that information and determining why is is there, what the presenter is telling you, and how they want you to feel or react.
