0

This would probably make more sense for liberal users: in order to see opposing points of view, what would be a "good" source of reality-driven (as opposed to stereotypes / prejudice / lies), non-religious conservative news / commentary?

1
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – yannis
    Oct 27 '14 at 9:42
0

Short version: your best bet is blogs (for a variety of reasons I won't expand into). More often than not, more libertarianish bent than strictly conservative. Libertarians generally have non-religious viewpoint yet arrive to many of the same conclusions as conservatives from their own angles. Some sources:

  • The granddaddy of them all: Instapundit

    Not really "consirvative" (not that someone as deeply biased and opinionated and liberally brainwashed as your question's wording implies would know the difference) but Instapundit is a link aggregator blog from mostly libertarian viewpoint.

    Upsides:

    • the blogger is a whip smart law professor, very well established in the niche and well respected.

    • reading a bit extensively (even opinion pieces linked) will give you good exposure on what non-liberal people are saying about the news.

    • The blog itself can be viewed as news summary, without actually reading linked pieces, often enough.

    Downsides: He doesn't actually bother classifying his links into "straight up news"/"opinion blog pieces" or "libertarian"/"conservative" etc... That exercise is left to the reader.

  • I haven't actually consumed Vodkapundit's blog but seems to be popular and clearly distinguishes his own opinions from news he's commenting on.

  • Samizdata is frequently content from non-US point of view (seems to be heavily UK based)

16
  • 1
    @user44212 - Stimulus causing job losses - WAY more complicated than you present. Most of the studies that are any good did NOT take into account the fact that stimulus spending raised taxes and/or deficit. They merely measured whether stimulus money had stimulative effect >1. Which means that if you look at ALL the real world effects of stimulus, they don't tell you if there was an AGGREGATE job loss from that money being unavailable to taxed private sector to create jobs. Of course, like most people disliking fox, you think moneyt grows on trees.
    – user4012
    Oct 26 '14 at 14:49
  • 1
    @user44212 - "most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit" - proven false by now - CBO stopped projecting that now that reality caught up with fantasy.
    – user4012
    Oct 26 '14 at 14:50
  • 1
    @user44212 - the point is, there's a significant reason for even expert disagreement, so stating that there is some "truth" consensus (that just happens to dovetail to your political preference) and that anyone non-expert who listens to and believes different experts are misinformed, is disingenuous at best. That study you linked basically cherry picked or misrepresented most of its questions as clear-cut "correct answer is X" whereas only one of those you listed (auto bailout under Bush) is anywhere near as clear-cut. You can always design any study and survey to achieve desired result.
    – user4012
    Oct 27 '14 at 0:25
  • 1
    @user44212 - Someone can spend a day and design a set of very similar questions tailored to show that MSNBC viewers are deeply mis-informed about important topics, based simply on a set of facts I observe left wing people not knowing just on this site.
    – user4012
    Oct 27 '14 at 0:47
  • 1
    @DA. - the level of effort put into the question is commesurate with level of effort I put into the answer. Fair criticism on your part, of course, but I just don't want to write a dissertation on modern media for a question that will be closed.
    – user4012
    Oct 27 '14 at 15:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .