Recommended election coverage

[Blue Velvet]

Where do you guys get your news and views from? Particularly print/web journalism; the written word rather than video.

I'm looking at expanding my reading leading up to November's elections, and was wondering whether people here could recommend some sites and columnists for good meaty and indepth commentary, to me and to each other.

I'm open to looking at anything vaguely substantive and can decide for myself if it's not my cup of tea, so fire away.

Although this list may seem pretty liberal to many here, it's fairly centrist by UK/EU standards but I'm also open to reading quality journalism from the right just to get an idea of what's going on. For interest's sake, my usual haunts currently include:

www.drudgereport.com
www.fivethirtyeight.com
www.salon.com
www.slate.com
www.dailykos.com
www.realclearpolitics.com
www.economist.com
www.nytimes.com
www.politico.com
www.latimes.com
www.chicagotribune.com
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
www.huffingtonpost.com/
www.guardian.co.uk/america

Thanks in advance. I'd be interested to see others' favorites and look forward to exploring them. :)

[Peterkro]

http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://watchingamerica.com/News/

A couple more the latter is good for a international look at the machinations of the US electoral circus,good translations from non english language papers.

+ : http://www.motherjones.com/

+ : http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm

[DeaconGraves]

I always take a quick daily look at www.electoral-vote.com

This site compiles the daily polls to give a fairly good breakdown of how the race looks each day. He also adds a little commentary every day on various subjects regarding the race. This varies from projecting who the VP candidates might be to (like today) the candidates spending habits and voting machine controversies.

Plus, the site actually pays attention to the senate and house races, which tend not to get much notice until election day in mainstream press.

The guy who runs the site admits he leans towards the democrat side of politics, but he tends to be fairly honest and faithful to the numbers he receives.

Not a ton of content to digest here, but still worth a good five minute look everyday.

[EricNau]

Most news organizations also have dedicated sites that address the election:

MSNBC: Decision '08 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18970417/)

ABC News: Politics (http://abcnews.go.com/politics)

CBS: Campaign 2008 (http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/index.shtml)

CNN: Election Center 2008 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/)

FOX News: You Decide (http://elections.foxnews.com/)

[DeaconGraves]

Most news organizations also have dedicated sites that address the election:

MSNBC: Decision '08 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18970417/)

ABC News: Politics (http://abcnews.go.com/politics)

CBS: Campaign 2008 (http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/index.shtml)

CNN: Election Center 2008 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/)

FOX News: You Decide (http://elections.foxnews.com/)

OP wanted "good, meaty, and in-depth commentary," not "gotcha" journalism. :p

[Blue Velvet]

Most news organizations also have dedicated sites that address the election:

True, but they tend to weigh heavily towards video rather than written journalism... regardless of the talking heads and pundits, I find TV analysis doesn't quite 'stick' for me.

[EricNau]

OP wanted "good, meaty, and in-depth commentary," not "gotcha" journalism. :p
Then politics is the wrong subject matter. :D

True, but they tend to weigh heavily towards video rather than written journalism... regardless of the talking heads and pundits, I find TV analysis doesn't quite 'stick' for me.
I must be the complete opposite then. I can't stand reading others' opinions or views on the candidates; especially since most specialty sites are drastically one-sided. I want to hear the issues discussed directly from the horse's mouth, not indirectly where facts have the chance to be perverted.

Although, my disdain for politics probably has something to do with it. :p

[Ugg]

I think you've about got it covered as far as serious journalism goes. dailykos can be pretty reactionary and I've stopped reading it in the run up the election. The same goes for huffington. What's with her obsession with hollywood? I really like her guest writers though.

I started reading the grauniad in 2000. It was the only place to get an honest take on the election. I've begun reading the Independent more frequently though.

The Economist is pretty right wing IMO. Good writing and I read it every week but its lack of humility regarding the global financial meltdown is offputting. I don't trust anyone who can't admit they were wrong.

Probably the only other source I'd recommend is mother jones.

[yg17]

I read and post on Daily Kos. It's pretty good, definitely a liberal bias (so it's great for me). Occasionally, a stupid diary will be posted, but overall, I enjoy reading that site.

[hulugu]

Then politics is the wrong subject matter. :D


I must be the complete opposite then. I can't stand reading others' opinions or views on the candidates; especially since most specialty sites are drastically one-sided. I want to hear the issues discussed directly from the horse's mouth, not indirectly where facts have the chance to be perverted.

Although, my disdain for politics probably has something to do with it. :p

The good sites will have quotes, so you can actually sit and try to parse what was actually said. Television journalism is so interested in the horse race or "gotcha" journalism that it has trouble exploring issues with any depth.

The advantage of print is time, time for the writer to consider their story and research it, and time for you to think about what was said. I like print journalism for this aspect. TV is for immediacy, print is for depth. Both are useful in their own way.


I'd suggest Slate (www.slate.com). They have pretty good coverage and writing, a decent spectrum of writers, and a connection to the Washington Post, which is also a good source, IMHO.

EDIT: I second the vote for Slate, missed that it was already in BV's list.

[Blue Velvet]

Too many people to respond to, so a general thanks for all links. I'll follow them all up this weekend. And yes, hulugu put it most succinctly:

'TV is for immediacy, print is for depth'

I would also add: "If you don't take an interest in politics, sooner or later politics will take an interest in you."

[és:]

http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm

Another shout for this site. A hero of mine.

[skunk]

http://www.counterpunch.org/A favourite of mine, but somewhat erratic.

[it5five]

counterpunch.org is great, thanks for the link.

[Thomas Veil]

What happened:
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/) and/or MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/).

What else happened:
McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/)
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
The New York Times (http://nytimes.com/)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/america).

Why it happened:
Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/)
Tom Paine (http://www.tompaine.com/)
The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/index.mhtml)
In These Times (http://www.inthesetimes.com/)
The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/)
Slate (http://slate.msn.com/)
Jim Hightower (http://www.jimhightower.com/).

I could probably add...

How it didn't happen:
Rush Limbaugh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html)

...but that would just be being droll. :D

[SMM]

BV - You have been getting some good referrals. I may repeat some, as I am going to take them from my 'Forums List'. Thomas Viel made a very good referral to McClatchy. They are exceptional in their reporting, especially their WA DC Bureau. If you ever watched Bill Moyers "Buying the War", they were very a large part of the story, as they refused to buy into the WH's lies, and they got the story right - the only ones.

Scholarsandrogues (http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/)
commondreams (http://www.commondreams.org/)
cynicsparty (http://cynicsparty.com/)
digby (http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/)
NationalSecurityNetwork (http://www.nsnetwork.org/)
TPMMuckRaker (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

I think the other members have already covered the majority of my other forums and websites. I also have some very speciality sites, but you would probably not derive much benefit from them. They mainly focus on the world of intelligence, or veteran affairs.

[atszyman]

I always take a quick daily look at www.electoral-vote.com


They've just redone www.pollster.com to include the electoral map as well.

No commentary or other news on the main page but there are comments available on the recent polls. Their results are based on the trends they see across as many polls as they can get their hands on, and their results were fairly close in most of the primary races.

[Saluki Alex]

I usually have CNN (or sometimes MSNBC) on, and I check http://www.cnn.com several times a day. But one website that I check everyday, and have for several years is http://www.politics1.com

Politics1 doesn't really consist of in-depth coverage, but does post recent polls and has some broad news summaries. The owner of the site is liberal, and there are occasional biases editorials, but it's still one of my favorite sources for a quick run-down of political news.

I should also note that I'm a Political Science student, so I want to have relatively constant political coverage, which is why I go with CNN.

[yojitani]

I usually have CNN (or sometimes MSNBC) on, and I check http://www.cnn.com several times a day. But one website that I check everyday, and have for several years is http://www.politics1.com

Politics1 doesn't really consist of in-depth coverage, but does post recent polls and has some broad news summaries. The owner of the site is liberal, and there are occasional biases editorials, but it's still one of my favorite sources for a quick run-down of political news.

I should also note that I'm a Political Science student, so I want to have relatively constant political coverage, which is why I go with CNN.

Wouldn't a pol sci student go to CSPAN? Or at least tune into the news on public tv? ... I guess I have a problem considering CNN a legitimate news source. It's where you go to get the latest gossip, I suppose.

I'd prefer a 10 min segment on Newsnight myself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

[Thomas Veil]

Actually, I've been checking out Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/) a lot the last few days, and I'm impressed. Straight news, easy-to-look-at design, not a lot of flash and junk news. It reminds me of what CNN used to be, back when CNN was still a real news organization.

I'm sure I'll check CNN at times, because they occasionally do have a good, timely news article, but I have a feeling that Reuters is going to displace it as one of my primary sources. I blanch when I check CNN's "Latest News" and find headlines like "Pitt-Jolie guards scuffle with paparazzi". Reuters has that story too, but it's way down the page under "Entertainment", not "News".

[solvs]

Can't really add too much to what's already been posted, but I thought I'd toss in some of my opinions on it all.

I stay away from Drudge. They tend to kinda post a lot of anything goes type stuff, even if it turns out to be not so true. I've heard they do corrections, but in my experience, they mostly just seem to delete it even if the damage has been done. Also stay away from the MSM types like CNN. I have the same reasons as anyone else here, it seems so sensationalistic at times. I watch MSNBC some times, but it is too. Even CBS, which has caught slack recently for once again for manipulating evidence (before it was Rather with the memo about Bush's military records, this time is was rearranging an interview with McCain to make it seem like he didn't make a huge misstatement when he clearly did), is hardly trustworthy. As I posted in another thread, even the AP has decided to be more partisan and biased than it used to be, which is sad, but not surprising anymore.

Still mostly read regurgitated AP and Reuters though. Even if on sites like Huff Post. I try to stay away from the opinion and entertainment pieces there, but they tend to link to a lot of other stuff from places like McClatchy, Muckraker, Politico, Slate, etc. Even stalwarts like Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, NY Times, and the like. I read a ton of other stuff too, but most of it has been named.

[Macky-Mac]

Too many people to respond to, so a general thanks for all links. I'll follow them all up this weekend.....

now that you've had time to take a look at it all, what's your reaction? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what those of you in the UK think of this process.

[mactastic]

I note that you have Salon on there. Make sure you read Glenn Greenwald's columns.

Most of the sites I read have been mentioned, but I do have a few more to offer up.

I occasionally peruse John Cole's Balloon Juice site. He's a former Republican turned Obama supporter due to disgust with the current state of the GOP. Also, for a highly profane (but often with insight few others have) view of the events of the day, check out The Rude Pundit. Firedoglake does some excellent law-related work.

[OutThere]

I find much of internet political blog news to be bulls--t written by self important blowhards...though Slate (http://www.slate.com/), RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/) and Electoral-Vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com) are solid. I typically go to the New York Times and Washington Post, though, for straightforward political news.



Although this list may seem pretty liberal to many here . . . but I'm also open to reading quality journalism from the right . . .

www.drudgereport.com<----:confused: