Asklemmy

Great list! Thank you!

And you, asking for neutrality:

I see the question differently.

Tl;Dr:

I think OP is hoping to read the 21st century equivalent to Muck Rakers.

Long version:

A whole lot of improvement in American quality of life came about as a result of publications and journalists called Muck Rakers in the 19th and 20th centuries.

They didn't cover false stories. They simply covered stories that newspapers owned by capitalists tried to cover up. Things like, "physical abuse inside of Factory A" or, "employees at factory B reject union contract."

It's similar with r/antiwork. Most of America never realized why PopTarts were shipped with serious defects for a few months in late 2021. To most people, the quality declined out of nowhere, with no explanation.

And I don't think most people realized the real reason California's ports got congested. (It was a bill designed to protect gig workers -- it required shipping companies to pay truck drivers for the time they spent waiting for their trucks to be loaded (instead of just the time they spent driving)).

People didn't know because, even if current events directly impact everyone's lives, all it takes is a few corporations deciding, "you don't need to know about that" and access to the information through mainstream channels is shut off.

Everyone using r/antiwork knew though. They knew why there was a shipping crisis, and they knew why the glue that was supposed to seal the outside of the box of Cheez-its was now instead gluing the individual Cheez-its together.

News that wasn't considered, "newsworthy" outside of r/antiwork got intense coverage on that subreddit.

And yeah, the subreddit was certainly biased against those corporations. But biased or not, its users were more up-to-date on those events than anyone outside of the sub.

I don't think OP is asking for a leftist perspective on the same current events everyone else is covering. I think OP is asking for true, well-investigated stories that capitalists simply won't air on the major networks.

You know: Muck raking.

Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn't always a good thing.

Neutrality in this case is a news source that doesn't have a editorial position that explicitly favors a certain political party, it is not splitting the two opinions down the middle and sticking to that as it is so often misrepresented.

A good news source will follow the following guidelines when reporting news.

1: Due impartiality , this is not the same as full impartiality where abhorrent points of view are given the same importance as valid points of view , DUE impartiality differs in that the news source will consider multiple VALID points of view to give the audience a closer representation of the truth.

2: Broad perspective , the news source will attempt to contact as many valid perspectives as they can from as broad of a cross section of society as is possible to represent the opinion of society as fairly as possible.

3: Editorial freedom , the news source can and will produce content for any subject as long as it is within the public interest to do so, this will involve scrutinizing arguments and questioning consensus to hold those in power over others in some way accountable for their actions.

4: Avoiding endorsements , the news source will take care not to endorse politicians or products , nor allow their content to be used in such a way without challenge.

5: Democratic values , the news source itself is not value free , but instead incorporates the core values of democracy and civil society into its editorial policy in place of partisan political values.

6: It will reflect the diversity of its audience , it will make an effort to continually be aware of the demographics that view it and produce a wide range of content to ensure that no group is either underrepresented not over represented.

7: Transparency, when reporting opinions of others that some people may find distasteful it will be made clear that these opinions belong to the person being interviewed or reported on and not to the news source that is only committed to reporting the truth.

Such a news source would be neutral , in that their only loyalty is to accurately reporting the news as it happens without spinning it to make anyone look any better or worse than they already are.

Okay so let’s rephrase the question:

Those if you who consider yourself leftists, what news sources do you follow?

To me this falls more under the category of non profit independent news, primarily local news where all the corruption happens. Report for America, reportforamerica.org, assists these local newsrooms and has a spot on their site that you can search for sites local to you. These local papers are interesting because their individual sponsors are often influential people in your community who believe in democracy and are concerned about the power of corporate media. I just checked out our local online paper like this and see the same names that I recognize for people I know who support the arts.

https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu

More than just a former Valve employee.

I too like to listen to the political opinions of Fenton Mulley from Home Movies.

(To be clear, this isn't a dig at Sam Seder. I loved him in Home Movies and on The Majority Report)