(November 14, 2025 at 1:40 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: In the USA it's the liberals who have supported Ukraine and the conservatives who have begrudged every dollar spent and encouraged Ukraine to surrender territory. The Spectator has called for a negotiated settlement and has been critical of Western policy and Ukrainian internal politics. It does say it supports the principle of Ukrainian defense, though.
If you know of a much less biased source that asserts the same things, you could address that.
Well, a lot of people have said that a negotiated settlement is the least bad option at this time. It would take a lot of time to go through the background of each one of these people and quantify their bias.
I also think that a negotiated settlement would be best at this point, since the "more shooting" approach seems not to be anywhere near settling things, and I think it's bad for people to die when they don't have to.
There is A GREAT DEAL about which one could be critical of Western policy. We'd have to specify which of many policies, from which of many spokespeople, in fact deserve criticism.
And internal Ukrainian politics has long been considered to be particularly corrupt, since years before Zelensky got involved, so criticism of that is only reasonable. Whether every single criticism made by the Spectator is reasonable or not I can't judge.
Each and every large-scale news outlet has a bias and a point of view. If the Spectator announces its own political preferences on its first page I see this as a good thing. Not that I agree with their viewpoint, but I think it is far better to be clear than to pretend that one is without bias. The sources which pretend to be neutral are simply dishonest.
The best we can do is to remain aware of each source's viewpoints when reading, and finding those reporters -- particularly small-scale, independent and knowledgeable people -- who have proven through their track records that they don't parrot the current establishment lies.
