I see a lot of politico links in this sub and I’d just like to say:
POLITICO Europe is a subsidiary of Axel Springer SE.
That’s a right leaning and pretty unethical publisher and politico has already been caught several times spreading reactionary propaganda. I also suspect they publish undisclosed opinion pieces as news. Like some fossil fuel investor explaining how wind turbines could be hacked by China without providing any compelling evidence. Many articles are well written so it’s hard to spot the grift sometimes. Just stay vigilant.
Agreed. But it’s one of the more harmless sources people often share here. People share right wing billionaire owned sources all the time. It really ticks me off.
the Telegraph by right wing billionaires Barclay brothers, the Times (UK) owned by far right billionaire Rupert Murdoch, notorious friend of Trump and owner of Fox News
EuroNews, bought by shell corp strongly linked to Victor Orbán’s, authoritarian government.
HuffPost I think was recently bought by right wing billionaire who is friends with Trump. (not sure about this one)
Axel Springer SE is owned by billionaires, too, and they’re obviously far right, too. They also own BILD, which is probably Germany’s most popular “newspaper” (legally not allowed to call itself “newspaper” due to low quality) and it’s very far right.
We probably need a comprehensive list of common news sources’ political allignments. Fits the current spirit anyway.
I’ll start: The Guardian (UK) is self-owned (owned by an organization whose purpose is the long term economic viability and editorial independence of the Guardian).
I was confused there and thought you were saying that they were bought by the Shell corporation. But after doing some searching and reading, I see what you mean: a shell corporation.
There’s definitely concern around Victor Orban’s influence. And
your own newsEuronews have had Clickbait headlines for quite awhile already. I prefer DW now myself.DW is operated by the German government with the goal to further the “German viewpoint” internationally. It is not a public broadcaster, but explicitly operated by the federal government.
It’s a bit exhausting. I use https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to see biases and credibility of different websites. Anything that’s not at least Center-X and High I pretty much dismiss. Rest I take with heaps of salt.
How do I know that site is trustworthy? I don’t 🫠
The public discourse shifted (/was engineered to shift) so far right in the last 10-20 years, that you have to assume:
Right = extremist
Center = right
Left = center
Radical left = left
Left-leaning media is usually written based on facts. Which, somehow, in these times is accused to be „biased“.
MBFC is run by some dude whose evidence basically is also just “trust me bro”.
At the end of the day you won’t get around reading multiple sources and trying to understand for yourself what is going on. Also there is issues that are systematically ignored or downplayed by the “center” and “trustworthy” media, in particular when it comes to the consequences of western politics in “poorer” countries or when a government appointed but not official, but still pretty influential guy makes a nazi salute on stage, twice, but it is not declared to be that, despite hundred of millions of people having seen it on video.
Could be worse
It’s not right leaning, it’s neoliberal (like a lot of centre-left). They’re predictably evil and biased so they’re a reasonable source of news, as long as you ignore their „scoops” which are usually made up.
Axel Springer is totally a right wing press. And Matthias Döpfner, its CEO, totally went on record to celebrate the speech of Vance in Munich. Their german flagship journal, BILD, is reguarlly spreading propaganda and is pushing campaigns against migration and “the greens”. They are scum and shouldn’t be read.
This.
Ahh wondered why euronews had become so shit
Euronews is even worse: It was bought by some shell company belonging to the Victor Orban circle.
What kind of right wing? Christian democrats? Why is Politico for cutting welfare then? Stop oversimplifying things please.
Christian democrats? Why is Politico for cutting welfare then?
Because they are part of the Springer imperium. Which Is about as far right as you can get without supporting the far right too obviously.
Every neoliberal supports far right because the goal of neoliberalism is inequality which always leads to fascism.
What kind of right wing? Christian democrats?
Neoliberalism.
Why is Politico for cutting welfare then?
Because part of neoliberalism is to weaken welfare so that people are pressured into accepting exploitative labour conditions.
Wait, do you think chistian democrats are pro welfare? Do you think, neoliberalism is a left leaning ideology?
Stop oversimplifying things please.
I might be wrong but your comment reads as if you think a political opinion automatically aligns with political parties (which would be massively oversimplifying the process of opinion making and political procedure).
I’m fairly sure you won’t dispute that Christian democracy is a right wing ideology. What commonalities to neoliberalism do you see between both? You probably won’t find much so it makes little sense to group them together as „right wing”. I’m beating the drum here again so that people wake up and recognise who the centrists really are.
I’m not a conservative by any means but I don’t mind true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good. True right wing is very rare these days because they were replaced by populists who can’t be even categorised as conservatives. They’re just bullies. Liberals are bullies very often too.
Axel Springer isn’t centrist. They are openly right wing and call out progressive positions as “woke bullshit” and stuff like that. They openly say that they are right wing.
You can be a neoliberal and against wokeness. Neoliberalism is about money. You don’t need to accept their label, they are using it because it serves their needs at the moment. Look at what they do rather what they say.
One day people will connect dots between „centrism” and far-right, it’ll be too late then based on what I’m seeing here though ;)
Do you know the general difference between progressive and conservative or “left” and “right” wing policies? Both see differences in people most of which are innate. Progressivism (left wing) generally aims to level the playing field so that these differences do not affect your chances to be a member of society and live the life you want. Conservativism (right wing) infers hierarchies due to said differences and aims to build a society based on those hierarchies. Religious groups (like christian democrats) work with their religion, often arguing with “god’s plan” or divine punishment, neoliberalism works with money and hustle culture.
true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good
No, it doesn’t. It’s the opposite of that.
So now we have one axis, progressivism. You can have a progressive right wing (Tories legalised gay marriage arguing it’s for families), progressive neoliberals (Democratic party) and progressive left (like Zapatero in Spain). How do we differentiate between them? Their attitude towards wealth inequality, authoritarianism etc. That’s why liberals are distinct from left or right, there’s as much difference between a liberal and a conservative as between a liberal and a leftist, but those are differences on other axis. There are other dynamics at play but boiling things down to progressivism is why poor were abandoned and are now turning to fascists.
No, it doesn’t. It’s the opposite of that.
Don’t treat your opponents as evil caricatures. They might be smarter than you while being wrong and they’ll win because you let them.
Yes, it’s more complex than an on-off-switch. Congratulations. Different liberal movements focus on different aspects. Neoliberalism is a radical economic movement building hierarchy on wealth and ability. Some liberal movements focus on individual freedoms (and when everyone is to have the same individual freedoms, differences must be compensated).
But this isn’t about liberalism, it’s about how neoliberalism is a right wing ideology. And that is because it builds and enforces hierarchies.
I’m fairly sure you won’t dispute that Christian democracy is a right wing ideology. What commonalities to neoliberalism do you see between both? You probably won’t find much so it makes little sense to group them together as „right wing”.
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
I’m not a conservative by any means but I don’t mind true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good.
Quite honestly – is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
Yes and no. Conservatives lost relevance in a world of meritocracy, most of their points were on a losing side eventually. People who come to power now, on the backs of conservative voters, don’t even try to be factually correct and therefore offer a way to continue ideological left-right war (hence the post-truth moniker used by some people). The hard pill to swallow about this is that maybe extreme meritocracy is not sustainable, or at least not sustainable in a system that doesn’t benefit the largest possible majority in practice. And maybe that politics can’t be means of changing societal norms as those have to happen naturally. A political force attempting such thing would need to have high legitimacy and current elites don’t have it because they usually prioritised interests of the largest businesses over regular people.
What I’m trying to say is that no matter which perspective you use to try to look into the future, there’s no positive outcome if neoliberalism is involved. I’m arguing with people online in an effort that sometime in the future they’re not deceived by neoliberals pretending to be right or left wing politician and that’s why I insist on making the distinction.
Quite honestly – is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
Christian democrats in Western Europe adapted many things from social democrats, mostly on welfare state which is critical element of societal cohesion. Those parties were since then eaten from the inside by neoliberalism that corrupted both right and left but for a time whole world aspired to European quality of life. We might not agree on societal norms with Christian democrats but things like Catholic social teaching is solid stuff to build upon.
You might want to read a little bit about Axel Springer - they’ve bought Politico a while ago and I’m not reading it, because it is owned by them. Might be that they haven’t been gutted totally, but I know what they are putting out here in Germany and how they are meddeling in german politics. The recent elections really saw hardcore anti-migrant headlines from them.
Why do you assume I don’t know this? Can’t neoliberals be evil? I thought it was default.
Neoliberalism is a right wing ideology, not center-left.
Neoliberalism is neither left nor right although by nature it can only lead to far right rule. Centrist parties pretend to have balanced ideas because it allows them to push inhumane policies that benefit the most wealthy. Aka neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is a pro capitalism, free markets and deregulation ideology. That makes it inherently right wing.
Do you have to be an ancap to be considered right wing in your viewpoint?
Isn’t Christian Democracy inherently right wing too? How do you reconcile that?
What is there to reconcile?
They are not part of the left. They are more moderate than neoliberals since they do (in theory) believe that capitalism must be at least somewhat regulated unlike neo liberals.
Political views are more than a single axis. Not being left doesn’t mean right, especially today when we have politician businessmen who don’t even have to concern themselves with ideologies.
Even in those systems the positions on capitalism are on the horizontal, left to right axis. Because when talking about politics left and right are used to describe positions on capitalism.
Neoliberalism is a pro capitalism ideology therefore it’s a right wing ideology.
That people may not hold political ideologies is irrelevant to neoliberalism being a right Wong ideology. Its also not a new phenomenon by any means.
Right now it’s a bit of a mixed bag but once they’re a more established news source they’ll 100% go all in with the grifting. That’s the most predictable thing about this publisher.
