Slashdot Mirror
Getting Accurate Political Information?
XMorbius asks: "With the elections coming up in a few months, I (along with other Slashdot readers, I hope) want to get more informed about the candidates. But, where does one turn to get accurate (or as accurate as possible) information about them, while at the same time not having to review long logs and records of various hearings over the last decade or so? This seems like a nice compilation of information, but something tells me that it may not be very accurate. I've seen factcheck.org but I feel like there is more knowledge out there to be acquired. What does the Slashdot community recommend?"
you can get it delivered right into your living room.
opensecrets.org has a great amount of information on campaign contributions. Since we're nearing the end of the 2004 Presidential Elections, it's a great time to take a look at the top contributors to Bush and Kerry. (Note, the site doesn't list Bush's acceptange of $75 million in federal funds yet).
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Disinfopedia
They're pretty good, or as I have heard. They link their stuff to sources so you can check it out yourself. Some people say they have a liberal bias since they released a book called "Banana Republicans" which is not flattering to the party in question.
I have to admit though, it's difficult to find good non-biased political info on the net. Maybe the best thing would be to just read both sides instead and in that way make up your mind. It's tougher than just getting from one source, but I think it's the only good way right now...
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
I don't think you're going to find any single source that's never been accused of bias. There's just too many viewpoints out there-- and any source that tries to go straight down the middle of the road, like CNN, tends to be pretty dry.
So, my solution: Read a lot. I mean, a lot, and, by exposure to many viewpoints, you'll be better off when it comes time to form your own opinions.
If you're asking about specifics, I try to take in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Drudge Report, Slate, Salon, Al-Jazeera, the International Herald-Tribune, and the Guardian. Of course, all of the above have their strengths and weaknesses.
If you don't want to spend the time on all of those, though, I recommend Slate. It leans slightly left, but has good analysis from both sides of the aisle.
Read, read, read. Don't assume you're getting the whole story from a single source.
The Washington Monthly
The Daily Kos
The Columbia Journalism Review Campaign Desk
The Center for American Progress
Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall
Tom Toles political cartoons
Ben Sargent cartoons
Pat Oliphant cartoons
Jamie Zawinski's freinds
Ed Fitzgerald's blog
more to follow-up...
Please.. also read other media than the American. Every country's media is probably biased in one way or another, but a good mix can give you more details so that you can decide yourself what is more likely to be the truth...
:-)
In my recent vacation in the US I was stunned that nobody saw a world-famous picture with US troops guarding the ministry of oil. It was printed in a lot of world press newspapers. A quick search on google couldn't turn up the image, but there is a reference here. No idea what this source is (I did a very quick search). Apparantly US media is biased or censured, so make sure you check all possible sources of information... It is hard to convince Europeans that the Iraqi war is not about oil when a picture like that is in the paper...
I loved NYC & New England, and I'm not an anti-American guy...just want the facts straight
Which is exactly the point. The more expensive the oil, the more money Bush and his cronies make.
The article that you're quoting isn't talking about the price that consumers pay for oil--it's talking about the price that the oil companies pay. If you read a bit further, you get to the part that says "oil was cheaper for US oil companies and the world as a whole under the UN's Oil-for-Food program. Now that Saddam is gone, this program no longer exists. If this war was about oil, you'd see either an extension of the program, or even sanctions lifted (in return for secret deals to use Iraq's oil). Yet, neither happened."
In other words, it now costs US oil companies more to buy oil that they can process and sell to the consumer. Sure, the oil companies will pass that excess price on to the consumer, but they won't be making more money because of it.
http://www.vote-smart.org/
They have biographical information, issue positions provided by the candidates (where available), campaign finance information (links over to Open Secrets), interest group ratings, voting records, speeches and statements in an organized format.
-- Mr. Furious
especially if one of those secret deals were made.
If the Big Oil players wanted to make secret anticompetitive deals to widen their profit margins, they would not have needed a war in order to do so. I'm pretty sure that a a controversial war which puts their business practices under the microscope and could seriously affect their supply of crude is precisely what they would not want.
If you think that The National Review is "unintelligent" but Andrew Sullivan, Slate, or The New Republic are more "intelligent" or more inherently reliable, then you're not getting it. You're a parrot.
If you think Rich Lowry, George Will, or Jonah Goldberg are more "intelligent" than Andrew Sullivan or TNR, then you're still not getting it. You're still a parrot.
If you read Daily Kos or Free Republic and think either one is particularly accurate, you're not getting it.
When you stop thinking that people on one side are fools and the other side is the only one that has morality or truth on its side, then you'll be getting it.
The site you are thinking of is already cited in the Slashdot story: FactCheck.ORG from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Great site, but very limited focus. There is no examination of the underlying problems. In this case, that is a BIG shortcoming.
By far the biggest issue is one about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
The problem he warned us about has been happening big time for many years. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.
Every important speaker at the Republican convention spoke of keeping America safe. Every important speaker was reading speeches written for them by marketing consultants like Karl Rove. "Keeping America Safe" is code for "keeping America fearful by promoting violence so the rich can get richer". It was despicable when Bill Clinton did it, and it continues to be despicable now that George W. Bush is doing it. Possibly many of the nation's leaders are not fully aware of the circumstances. It seems that only a very small percentage of citizens realize the extent of the violence of the U.S. government.
The only really good way to educate yourself about the U.S. government is to read books about it. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. It's necessary to gather enough information that you can make your own informed conclusions, and not just copy the conclusions of others.
Don't like the books I found? Find your own. It's your duty as an adult to participate in the political issues of your country.
www.freerepublic.com
This'll probably get modded down, but consider that there are more than 2 points of view. Now, you may feel that the left is being underrepresented and all the media is pro-Bush - but the Free Republic people feel otherwise, and will show you the other side. Even if you don't like it, it's interesting to see what kind of stories are out there.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
If you read books about the issues, you may come to the conclusion that by far the biggest underlying issue in the present political campaign is U.S. government violence. You probably won't know this unless you read books.
The present system of violence in the U.S. and Britain started in the 1940s. In the 1940s, it was decided that the U.S. government could act in secret in foreign countries to preserve the profits of U.S. and British companies. It was decided that the U.S. government could not only act in secret, it could break the laws of the foreign country. It was decided the the U.S. government could even arrange the murder of the leaders of foreign countries. Agencies like the CIA were created for secret accomplishment of largely secret foreign policy.
Only an estimated 2% read non-fiction books not connected with work. The system of violence works partly by keeping U.S. citizens ignorant. It is not necessary that all citizens be ignorant, just a large percentage of the voters. Actually, there is plenty of information freely available in books, but only an estimated 2% of American citizens read non-fiction books not connected with their work. It is easy to understand why. United States citizens are the hardest-working in the world, with the exception of the Japanese. Many U.S. citizens have only two weeks of vacation every year, and they need that to rest. They simply don't have time to read books.
However, the only way to understand something as complicated as politics is to read books extensively. The issues are too complicated to express in a few words.
By far the biggest issue in the present political campaign is this fundamental one, about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
The problem he warned us about has been a major influence on both the politics and quality of life of the United States. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.
Very few U.S. citizens know the full history of the war against Iraq. This short article is a summary: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.
The events leading up to the present "war on terror" and the two wars against Iraq began in the 1950s, when hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran.
The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran, supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners of U.S. weapons companies. To give a present example, the Bu
Spinsanity is a good site that takes some pretty hard swipes at each side.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
It's funny you mention that, as I have been surfing their webpage all day today (in fact, I had it up in another tab when I went to slashdot and saw this story). My system for surfing their site is to use konqueror 3.3, go to the page where the video should be embedded, use View->View Mode->Embedded Text Editor, search for "wmv", copy and paste that line into wget in konsole, grep for mms in the resulting file and then copy&paste that into mplayer. Works like a champ! Who says *nix isn't user friendly!??!? :-P In all seriousness, it sucks horribly but doesn't take as long to do as it does to describe.
Usually the LOUDER an organization proclaims its objectivity - the more biased it is. Most old media (large city papers, network TV, PBS) tilt left. CNN, MSNBC tilt left, Fox tilts right. Talk radio - right, NPR left.
My two cents is to look for news sources that are up front about their biases. Then fact check them your self. Personally I like a weekly called "The Economist". Their reporting on science and technology is usually pretty accurate - which is fairly rare in the mainstream media. On political matters they tilt towards the (British) conservatives. Their coverage of world news and of U.S. news is excellent.
[Insert pithy quote here]
That's actually sort of true. I wasn't terribly worried about Saddam having non-nuclear WMDs. Here's why.
The US military also deposed one of the world's terrible dictators. That alone should have been reason enough to justify military action.
Okay, which thugocracy should we go after next? Can you even name one of the ones in the Middle East, or Africa, or even South America? Personally, I think we should have stuck to rebuilding Afghanistan from the thugocracy we'd already overthrown, but nobody even remembers them anymore.
Would you rather fight the war in NYC?
The whole point is that Saddam wasn't going to invade the US. Please, please, come up with any kind of scenario (I won't even ask you to come up with a plausible one) that has Iraqi tanks rolling down Wall Street.
And if you read enough about Iraq trying to get nuclear weapons, there is a substantial back story that may indicate they were looking into African uranium. I really don't know.
No, you really don't.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!