Novi Sad

YSK that Politico is a subsidiary of Axel Springer, a right-wing propaganda house

https://feddit.org/post/25816416

YSK that Politico is a subsidiary of Axel Springer, a right-wing propaganda house - feddit.org

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.)

Feb 14 at 7:23pmWeb
Show threadsquirrelFeb 14
Here’s a handy hosts file that blocks all Axel Springer domains.
GitHub - autinerd/anti-axelspringer-hosts: A hosts file which blocks all services from Axel Springer Verlag.

A hosts file which blocks all services from Axel Springer Verlag. - autinerd/anti-axelspringer-hosts

GitHub
Show threadpelespiritFeb 14

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.

www.politico.com

www.politico.eu/?no-geo-redirect

Politics, Policy, Political News - POLITICO

Nobody knows politics like POLITICO.

POLITICO
Show threadceenoteFeb 14
Politico exists to give people in power a way to safely and selectively leak what’s useful to them.
Show threadTropicalDingdongFeb 14
If it’s not independent and visibly so, expect it to be a right wing corporate rag
Show threadJubilantJaguarFeb 14

Reminiscent of dumping on the Washington Post because Bezos.

The reason that quality independent journalism is so hard to find is that nobody much is paying for it. Including you, probably.

I listen to Politico’s EU Confidential podcast and it’s pretty good. The EU’s national medias are too parochial to cover Brussels, with Politico at least somebody’s doing it.

Show threadassemblyFeb 14
I pay for The Guardian and I swear there are dozens of us!
Show threadJubilantJaguarFeb 14
Ha. Actually I believe there are hundreds of thousands who do (and good for you!). It’s a great model IMO. Foundation status with an endowment, free to access and beg banners saying “Pay so that others don’t have to”. Of course, the quirky status was a bit of an accident of history.
Show threadassemblyFeb 14
There is a certain irony with my most trusted source of news (im an American) being a British publication.
Show threadstarlingukFeb 14
The Bylines network is good and free (apart from the necessary ads, of course).
Show threadNovi SadFeb 14

Reminiscent of dumping on the Washington Post because Bezos.

As things have turned out, I don’t think that’s misguided.

The reason that quality independent journalism is so hard to find is that nobody much is paying for it. Including you, probably.

There are several interrelated reasons: Lack of funding (in part due to a lack of an advertising subsidy, which is a good thing), lack of visibility, lack of readership recognizing the value of independent journalism.

The crucial thing is that with everyone who does recognize its value—and the harm caused by a corporate-dominated media landscape—and who therefor starts to make a conscious effort to read independent sources more often, point others to them and support them financially (which I do, for the record), those issues improve in tandem.

“Journalism Deserves Better”: Ex-Washington Post Staffers Slam Billionaire Bezos for Gutting Paper

The Washington Post has laid off more than 300 journalists, dismantling its sports, local news and international coverage. “Everybody is grieving, and it’s a loss for our readers,” says Nilo Tabrizy, one of the paper’s recently laid-off staff, who describes a “robotic” meeting announcing the cuts. “They didn’t have the dignity to look us in the eye.” The shocking staff culling has been widely attributed to the paper’s leadership under Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who bought the nearly 150-year-old institution in 2013. Karen Attiah, the former global opinion editor at the Post, was hired soon after Bezos’s arrival. She recounts how the arrival of a billionaire backer initially revitalized the paper with resources and creative freedom, before souring over the next decade. “We thought [he] shared the same values that we had,” says Attiah, who was fired from the Post last fall over comments she made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. “Journalism deserves better than a billionaire owner who decides that partying in Europe is more important than people’s lives.”

Democracy Now!
Show threadInnerworldFeb 14
Yet Politico leans left.
Breaking News Headlines Today | Ground News

Breaking News Headlines Today | Ground News

Show threadMwaFeb 14
Weird I also checked 2 other fact check sites and they all say they lean left
Show threadInnerworldFeb 14
Fortunately or unfortunately, not everything is black or white.
Show threadnotsosureFeb 14
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.
Show threadsusi7802Feb 14
Exactly! Bild is naturally hard to read; but compared to the britisch Sun or Daily Mail it seems like a leftist pamphlet 😜
Show threadAlfredolinFeb 14
Jfc
Show threadstarlingukFeb 14
Bild is a shitty tabloid. Love, Germany.
Show threadRmDebArc_5Feb 14

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

Show threadMwaFeb 14
That’s why its important to look up company ownership (in my opinion)
Show threadProprietary_BlendFeb 14
Oooo K. Thanks?
Show threadruuster13Feb 14
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.
Show threadPeanutFeb 14

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.

Show threadWrufieotnakFeb 14

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.

Show threadhypnicjerkFeb 14
because big money owns news networks, and communities print newsletters. kinda different scopes.
Show threadMulligrubsFeb 14

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.

Show threadNovi SadFeb 14

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>

US-focussed:

  • jacobin.com
  • 404media.co
  • democracynow.org
  • NPR, PBS

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 (cum grano salis)**
Show threadreddig33Feb 14
Propublica?
Show threadNovi SadFeb 14
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.
Sandler Foundation - Wikipedia

Show threadRestrictedAccountFeb 15

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.

Show threadZombieFeb 14

UK:

Novara Media

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novara_Media
novaramedia.com

The Canary

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canary_(website)
www.thecanary.co

The Big Issue

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Issue
www.bigissue.com

Morning Star

en.wikipedia.org/…/Morning_Star_(British_newspape…
morningstaronline.co.uk

Bella Caledonia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Caledonia
bellacaledonia.org.uk

The Scots Independent

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scots_Independent
scotsindependent.scot

Private Eye

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye
www.private-eye.co.uk

UK and Ireland:

PoliticsJOE

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_(website)
www.joe.co.uk
www.joe.ie

Novara Media - Wikipedia

Show threadRmDebArc_5Feb 14
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?
Show threadNovi SadFeb 14
I meant their special viewpoints by it. Their ownership structure is a co-op (Genossenschaft), so absolutely decent by all I can tell.
Show threadLemmyFeedFeb 15
404 media is killing it these days, they’ve had a ton of banger articles over the last year.
Show threadFundMECFSFeb 15

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.

Show threadmr_noxxFeb 14
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 Check News

We are the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet. There are currently 3900+ media sources listed in our database and growing every day. Don’t be fooled by Fake News sources. Use the search feature above (Header) to check the bias of any source. Use name or URL. Media Bias/Fact Check has been featured in the following: Health Feedback

Media Bias/Fact Check
Show threadZombieFeb 15

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.

Show threaditurnedintoanewtFeb 15
Not to considered BBC left leaning with their coverage of the Gaza bombings. So yeah.
Show threadZombieFeb 14

To back up OP’s point, here’s some choice quotes from Wikipedia:

feddit.uk/comment/22430802

How Trump gets Greenland in 4 easy steps - Feddit UK

>Step 1: Influence campaign to boost Greenland’s independence movement > >Almost immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration began talking up independence for Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. An unshackled Greenland could sign deals with the U.S., while under the status quo it needs Copenhagen’s approval. > >To gain independence, Greenlanders would need to vote in a referendum, then negotiate a deal that both Nuuk and Copenhagen must approve. In a 2025 opinion poll, 56 percent of Greenlanders said they would vote in favor of independence, while 28 percent said they would vote against it. > >Step 2: Offer Greenland a sweet deal > Assuming its efforts to speed up Greenland’s >independence referendum come to fruition, and the territory’s inhabitants vote to leave Denmark behind, the next step would be to bring it under U.S. influence. > >Step 3: Get Europe on board > >Europe, particularly Denmark’s EU allies, would balk at any attempt to cleave Greenland away from Copenhagen. But the U.S. administration does have a trump card to play on that front: Ukraine. > >As peace negotiations have gathered pace, Kyiv has said that any deal with Putin must be backed by serious, long-term U.S. security guarantees. > >Step 4: Military invasion > >But what if Greenland — or Denmark, whose “OK” Nuuk needs to secede — says no to Trump? > >According to Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on Greenlandic security, Washington also has around 500 military officers, including local contractors, on the ground at its northern Pituffik Space Base and just under 10 consulate staff in Nuuk. That’s alongside roughly 100 National Guard troops from New York who are usually deployed seasonally in the Arctic summer to support research missions. > >Greenland, meanwhile, has few defenses. The population has no territorial army, Mortensgaard said, while Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in the capital includes scant and out-of-date military assets, largely limited to four inspection and navy vessels, a dog-sled patrol, several helicopters and one maritime patrol aircraft. > >As a result, if Trump mobilizes the U.S. presence on the ground — or flies in special forces — the U.S. could seize control of Nuuk “in half an hour or less,” Mortensgaard said.

Show threadRetail4068Feb 15
Blatant ads irresponsible abuse of “right wing propaganda” in the current context of fascism. Left eating center shit 
Show threadJordan117Feb 15

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?

Show threadCosmicTurtle0 [he/him]Feb 15
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.
Show threadzenitsuFeb 15
Yeah, pretty sure we wouldn’t see Fox or The Daily Wire release this story
‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat

Thousands of private messages reveal young GOP leaders joking about gas chambers, slavery and rape.

Politico
Show threadZombieFeb 15
feddit.uk/comment/22430802
How Trump gets Greenland in 4 easy steps - Feddit UK

>Step 1: Influence campaign to boost Greenland’s independence movement > >Almost immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration began talking up independence for Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. An unshackled Greenland could sign deals with the U.S., while under the status quo it needs Copenhagen’s approval. > >To gain independence, Greenlanders would need to vote in a referendum, then negotiate a deal that both Nuuk and Copenhagen must approve. In a 2025 opinion poll, 56 percent of Greenlanders said they would vote in favor of independence, while 28 percent said they would vote against it. > >Step 2: Offer Greenland a sweet deal > Assuming its efforts to speed up Greenland’s >independence referendum come to fruition, and the territory’s inhabitants vote to leave Denmark behind, the next step would be to bring it under U.S. influence. > >Step 3: Get Europe on board > >Europe, particularly Denmark’s EU allies, would balk at any attempt to cleave Greenland away from Copenhagen. But the U.S. administration does have a trump card to play on that front: Ukraine. > >As peace negotiations have gathered pace, Kyiv has said that any deal with Putin must be backed by serious, long-term U.S. security guarantees. > >Step 4: Military invasion > >But what if Greenland — or Denmark, whose “OK” Nuuk needs to secede — says no to Trump? > >According to Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on Greenlandic security, Washington also has around 500 military officers, including local contractors, on the ground at its northern Pituffik Space Base and just under 10 consulate staff in Nuuk. That’s alongside roughly 100 National Guard troops from New York who are usually deployed seasonally in the Arctic summer to support research missions. > >Greenland, meanwhile, has few defenses. The population has no territorial army, Mortensgaard said, while Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in the capital includes scant and out-of-date military assets, largely limited to four inspection and navy vessels, a dog-sled patrol, several helicopters and one maritime patrol aircraft. > >As a result, if Trump mobilizes the U.S. presence on the ground — or flies in special forces — the U.S. could seize control of Nuuk “in half an hour or less,” Mortensgaard said.

Show threadJordan117Feb 16
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.
Show threadZombieFeb 16

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]

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]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE

Politico - Wikipedia

Show threadglitchingFeb 15

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.

Show threadRestrictedAccountFeb 15

Wild to me that I already blocked them without knowing this.

Just based on their biased reporting.

Show threadMonkderVierteFeb 15
Btw, any block list of their companies around, that isn’t 3 yeary out of date? Too much search noise with AS fighting adblockers.
Show threadNovi SadFeb 15
See this comment here, or this direct link to the repo: last updated 6–7 moths ago
YSK that Politico is a subsidiary of Axel Springer, a right-wing propaganda house - feddit.org

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.)

Show threadMonkderVierteFeb 15
Yes, thanks!
Show threadDoucheBagMcSwagFeb 15
Don’t also forget Axel Springer is trying to make ad blocking illegal
Show threadNovi SadFeb 15
See this comment here, or this direct link to the repo: last updated 6–7 moths ago
YSK that Politico is a subsidiary of Axel Springer, a right-wing propaganda house - feddit.org

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.)

Show threadArcaneSlimeFeb 15
Makes me want to follow him around screaming about raid shadow legends for his entire life so he gets absolutely no peace.
Show threadHamburgerFeb 15
Sure, but their European reporting from Brussels is by far the best. Euronews has gone down the drain and Euractiv is no match.