Petition to add Politico (and Axel Springer media in general) to the banned media list

You're so deep down the Overton Window that none of those things register as explicitly far right to you?

US European alliance

America is snatching people off the streets, silencing dissenting voices, threatening countries with both economic and military attack, and building concentration camps.

support for Israel

Israel is a genocidal ethno-state.

---

The 2025 letter has been signed by over 7500 citizens, 400 academics, including 31 Nobel Prize winners.

As in 1925, we scientists, philosophers, writers, artists and citizens of the world, have a responsibility to denounce and resist the resurgence of fascism in all its forms. We call on all those who value democracy to act:

• Defend democratic, cultural and educational institutions. Call out abuses of democratic principles and human rights. Refuse preemptive compliance.
• Join collective actions, locally and internationally. Boycott and strike when possible. Make resistance impossible to ignore and costly to repress.
• Uphold facts and evidence. Foster critical thinking and engage with your communities on these grounds.

https://stopreturnfascism.org/english/

In your list, Politico is classified as a reliable source specifically on the topic of american politics.

Yes, that's correct. "Base" Politico is a publication about American politics. For European politics, we turn to the sister publication Politico Europe. We use Politico Europe all the time as a reliable source for European politics. The reason it's not mentioned on that perennial sources list is because the list is for oft-discussed sources, and Politico Europe isn't that discussed, mainly because "base" Politico has functionally the same reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and is therefore treated as a proxy.

And if I understand your definition of a reliable source correctly it is about whether events and relevant topics are mentioned and not about how they are framed, right? So take the facts out of sources but do not automatically accept the framing of the facts from the source, am I correct?

You have the right basic idea, but it's more complicated than that. We acknowledge that literally every source we're going to use has a bias; what we don't tolerate is a source letting its bias interfere with factual accuracy – not just on the individual points but the cohesive whole of the work. Dishonest framing that takes verifiably true individual points and turns them into an inaccurate whole makes for a bad source, and we try not to use sources that do this.

We also strongly examine conflict of interest, what other sources with good reputations for reliability are saying, etc. If we feel a biased source has reliability for accuracy, the rest falls more into our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. It's hard to summarize, because the RS and NPOV pages, despite their length, already summarize these source guidelines about as well as you can without stripping away important nuances.

not my experience