Thus, when you’re tempted to share a Politico article, please look instead for an article from a different source.
(Also, if you’re wondering, know that Axel Springer, the mass media company, has nothing to do with Springer, the science publisher (the one with the chess knight logo; it’s named after Julius Springer; it deserves criticism of its own, but a different kind.)
Don’t also forget Axel Springer is trying to make ad blocking illegal
Makes me want to follow him around screaming about raid shadow legends for his entire life so he gets absolutely no peace.
See this comment here, or this direct link to the repo: last updated 6–7 moths ago
Sure, but their European reporting from Brussels is by far the best. Euronews has gone down the drain and Euractiv is no match.
Btw, any block list of their companies around, that isn’t 6 years out of date? Too much search noise about AS fighting adblockers.
See this comment here, or this direct link to the repo: last updated 6–7 moths ago
Yes, thanks!
valid and no love for those fucks, but you’ll find that practically every media outlet is owned or controlled by the forces of evil. on the other hand, politico didn’t start as an AS wing, it got acquired. plus, there’s not a lot of places real journos can work at.
we’re in deep into the enshittocene, there is no other solution than to treat every source with the same healthy scepticism and distance you’d apply in the school yard - “oh yeah?”, “how come?”, “says who?”, etc.
Wild to me that I already blocked them without knowing this.
Just based on their biased reporting.
Here’s a handy hosts file that blocks all Axel Springer domains.
I’ve seen this criticism a lot, but as somebody who has Politico in their daily news rotation I just don’t see it myself. It definitely has a voice and perspective – insider-y, pro-Western, well connected to internal party drama – but I’ve never really noticed a right-wing editorial bias or agenda. It frequently features stories critical of Trump and Republicans, and doesn’t seem to engage in unreasonable hit pieces on left-wing figures. Worst you can say is they sometimes have sections sponsored by corporations, but these are clearly labeled and not especially shill-y.
Are there particular headlines or stories that people think are examples of the kind of bias that should make people avoid reading them? Axios, for example, feels like a much bigger offender.
How is interviewing EU officials to game out a plausible strategy by which Trump might annex Greenland right-wing propaganda? It’s not arguing that it’s a good thing, or justified. They published many more stories talking about how the Greenland thing was a disaster for American soft power.
I have highlighted the relevant parts. I make and never made no comment on that specific article or story but on the overall credibility of the newspaper as a whole.
The Daily Mail is one of the biggest piece of shit right wing rags to have ever existed, is outright banned by Wikipedia as a source and supported the literal 20th century German Nazi party and still occasionally manages to make credible articles. The occasional good article doesn’t make up for the overall messaging however. The same applies to Politico.
Politico (stylized in all caps), known originally as The Politico, is an American political digital newspaper company founded by American banker and media executive Robert Allbritton in 2007.[4]
In 2021, Politico was reportedly acquired for over $1 billion by Axel Springer SE, a German news publisher and media company.[6] Axel Springer SE’s CEO Mathias Dopfner said that Politico employees would be required to adhere to the company’s principles of support for Israel’s right to exist, support for a United Europe and a free-market economy.[7]
In 2024, Politico was handed leaked confidential materials from the Donald Trump presidential campaign. Politico confirmed that the documents were authentic but refused to report on their contents. The Associated Press wrote that the decision by Politico to not report on the Trump campaign leaks stands “in marked contrast” to Politico’s extensive reporting on the leaked email communications of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, John Podesta.[110]
An investigation by The Intercept, The Nation, and DeSmog found that Politico is one of the leading media outlets that publishes advertising for the fossil fuel industry while failing to adequately distinguish between independent journalism and native advertising.[111] Journalists who cover climate change for Politico are concerned that conflicts of interest with the companies and industries that cause climate change, obstruct action, and engage in greenwashing through sponsored content will reduce the credibility of their reporting on climate change and cause readers to be misinformed.[111]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico
Axel Springer SE (German: [ˈaksl̩ ˈʃpʁɪŋɐ ɛsˈeː]) is a European multinational mass and online media company, based in Berlin, Germany.
with numerous multimedia news brands, such as Bild, Die Welt, Fakt, and the US political news site Politico, which Axel Springer acquired in 2021.[5]
The company generated total revenues of about €3.93 billion and an EBITDA increase of 12.8% in the first half of 2023.[6][7] Following US private-equity firm KKR’s majority-stake acquisition in 2020, Axel Springer’s revenues have increased by a total of approximately €1 billion.[8][9][10] The company, including its subsidiaries, joint ventures, and licenses, operates in more than 40 countries.
In the United States, Axel Springer is ranked among the top four digital publishers, alongside USA Today, News Corp, and The New York Times.[6]
Gudrun Kruip, a scholar associated with the Stiftung Bundespräsident-Theodor-Heuss-Haus, has claimed that Axel Springer SE, along with its subsidiaries, exhibits a pro-American stance, often omitting criticism of US foreign policy.[60] This observation is then backed by allegations made by two former CIA officers in an interview with The Nation, claiming that Axel Springer received $7 million from the CIA.[61] The purpose of this funding, they allege, was to influence the publisher to align its editorial content with American geopolitical interests.[61] Although no conclusive evidence has come to light, Springer’s admission in his autobiography regarding the financial challenges faced at the outset of his publishing venture, suggesting the necessity of external funding for the company’s rapid growth led Kruip to believe that the allegations of CIA financial support are credible.[60] As of 2001, the Axel Springer SE names "solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America" as one of its core principles on its website.[62] This explicit stance has led to critiques from scholars and independent observers regarding the company’s perceived alignment with American interests.[60][63][64][65][66] Furthermore, an article in Foreign Policy has critiqued Axel Springer SE for a history of compromising journalistic ethics to support right-wing causes, implying a longstanding pattern of bias in its publications.[67]
I’m on the same page. I’m a bit of a wonk and, yeah, politico has a perspective but I wouldn’t call it right wing. Centralist, to an extent.
Politico is 90% shit and 10% lucky break. They skew headlines and have obvious skin in the game. A great way to see this is to look at the European version and then compare it to the US version.
Politico exists to give people in power a way to safely and selectively leak what’s useful to them.
That’s why its important to look up company ownership (in my opinion)
To back up OP’s point, here’s some choice quotes from Wikipedia:
What news organization today isn’t owned by some international goliath?
There’s no “objective” source, so you must read from multiple sources and then try to discern what’s really going on by what they DON’T say.
What news organization today isn’t owned by some international goliath?
Excellent question. Here are the ones I could think of; let’s collect links! (Of course, they all have their flaws.)
World at large:
- <please help me out, folks>
US-focussed:
Europe in general:
- Most public broadcasting stations (BBC and the likes of it)
Germany:
- nd-aktuell.de
- jacobin.de
- kontextwochenzeitung.de (Baden-Württemberg)
- taz.de
- jungewelt.de (with a grain of salt)
- netzpolitik.org (digital/privacy/civil rights politics)
Philippines:
- rappler.com (led by Maria Ressa, do watch this speech of hers)
I would just be careful with the state owned ones.
Sure BBC or RFL isn’t owned by corpos but owned by governments and that means they usually favour the narratives of those with power.
404 media is killing it these days, they’ve had a ton of banger articles over the last year. Like real breaking investigative journalism, not just an AP aggregator.
UK:
Novara Media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novara_Media
https://novaramedia.com/The Canary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canary_(website)
https://www.thecanary.co/The Big Issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Issue
https://www.bigissue.com/Morning Star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/Bella Caledonia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Caledonia
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/The Scots Independent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scots_Independent
https://scotsindependent.scot/Private Eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/UK and Ireland:
PoliticsJOE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_(website)
https://www.joe.co.uk/
https://www.joe.ie/Propublica?
Good question, I’ve heard of but never looked into them. ProPublica seem to get most of their money from a charity created by billionaires, so their funding might come with some significant strings attached, but they do some pretty good journalism, it seems.
ProPublica is one of the good guys for sure.
They dig deep on corruption and bring receipts.
Their articles aren’t necessarily fun reads, because they’re thoroughly researched and heavily documented.
They are looking out for us.
Is the grain of salt with the jungewelt because of its “special viewpoints” of certain topics or do they have ties to a international Goliath?
Their special viewpoints are what I meant. Their ownership structure is a co-op (Genossenschaft), so absolutely decent by all I can tell.
This is a fantastic resource to answer that very question, and I rely on it quite a lot: Media Bias Fact Check
Media bias fact checkers have their own biases though. Relying on one is like outsourcing your critical thinking to somebody else.
Looking up Politico on MBFC, for example, paints an entirely different story to that of what Wikipedia says about Politico. To the point that one is clearly outright lying. Considering that Wikipedia is open to all, and requires citations for claims. And MBFC is edited almost entirely by one person. I know which of the two I would be trusting more.
Not to considered BBC left leaning with their coverage of the Gaza bombings. So yeah.
If it’s not independent and visibly so, expect it to be a right wing corporate rag
Well, I can’t say I support or like Axel Springer, as it is definitely conservative, but they are definitely pro-democracy. I wouldn’t say they are populist, or right-wing, eg I don’t see them supporting the AfD. Always consider that US “liberals or democrats” are much more to the right compared to similar parties in the EU: Bill Clinton can easily be considered a conservative in most European countries.
I looked at Welt (their largest newspaper that is considered to be the less right wing populist one compared to Bild), and the second or so article was from the editor and boiled down to: The conservative party not working with the Nazi party (AfD, and Nazi as in literally using Nazi slogans, talking about replacement theory and differentiating between immgrants with German citizenship and real Germans) is really a ploy by the left wing parties to force their ideas on Germany and force the AfD to become more radical.
They are at least at the edge of pro democracy
Exactly! Bild is naturally hard to read; but compared to the britisch Sun or Daily Mail it seems like a leftist pamphlet 😜
Bild is a shitty tabloid. Love, Germany.
Jfc
Blatant ads irresponsible abuse of “right wing propaganda” in the current context of fascism. Left eating center shit
I don’t disagree with this. But why don’t we ever see these disclaimers identifying left-wing bias? Nobody is unbiased. To ignore it on the left is highly problematic.
Because, despite the vague boundings, right now being associated with the right is basically “pro fascism.” While you could argue about traditional republican behaviours, it’s obvious that the “bad” on the left are just rightwing plants.
“left-wing bias” in its most raw form is basic care for people in policy.
As a Canadian, I definitely care about who actually supports the crazy fascists that are threatening to annex my country, and are actively feeding successionist propaganda to the least intellectually robust people in my country.
People don’t care about left wing bias because the left is generally defined by pro social, anti corporate/fascist behaviours. While USA made it legal to bribe democrats into kneecapping leftist intention within their party, and democrats are barely even “left” in policy to begin with.
So people aren’t too worried about the smothered, unfunded, and neglected pro-populous and anti-fascist policy having its bias discretely plant itself anywhere.
There are definitely issues of leftist subgroup communication failures leading to vulnerability to “divide and conquer” tactics, but having a secret bias of “we should give people basic rights and safety” is only a worry for fascist oligarchs and their propagandized cults.
Easy, show me the left aligned billionaires that own media channels.
George Soros is an often used Boogeyman by the far right, but as far as I’m aware he doesn’t own a media empire like Springer, Murdoch and all the other ghouls.
because big money owns news networks, and communities print newsletters. kinda different scopes.
