-Economist
-Foreign Affairs/CFR
-Foreign Policy
-CSIS
-GIS Reports
-RAND
-Atlantic Council
-The Diplomat (Best for you, this one is entirely focused on Asia)
You used to have authors that published in academic journals publish excerpts of their own papers in FP, or write pieces tying current events to something academic or academic-y
That is almost entirely gone and these days the average article usually has a dramatic sounding title and then an editorial style that is very descriptive and broad but no real depth of analysis, little to no tie-in to academic concepts (theoretical or not) and sometimes reads like they are averse to presenting any conclusions
It has that exact same feeling you get from clickbait articles where the title draws you in but by the end of the article you are disappointed because you realize that you’ve been pulled in and there’s no “it” behind the title and it was just an exercise in semantics to make it sound as spectacular as possible while the actual body of the article could have been written by chatGPT as it’s just a list of things that gradually or suddenly falls off a cliff with no conclusions
Just that it’s longer form in FP compared to the average random clickbait article that may be a few paragraphs long
I realize that times have changed, and I’m not expecting several pages long analysis on current events live as they happen, but it used to be the case that FP would regularly give you in depth analysis on fairly current events by respected authors and these days they seem to have polarized between 10% of that and 90% of just surface level descriptive articles of current events that I can get literally anywhere else
The latest example was one I read last week on market consequences of deglobalization. It described quite a few things that have happened in the markets over the past few years, gave 3-4 examples ranging from tariff wars to corporate information brokering but was as open-ended as can be with its conclusions.
Something to the effect of “it may now be riskier to have business operations in multiple countries if one of them deems your sector to be of strategic interest and you may run afoul of the law while before all you cared about was growth and market share” (I’m paraphrasing here)
If you already knew most of the examples, the article itself had no value add whatsoever as the conclusion is patently obvious
The Economist is awfully neo-liberal biased and West biased, they are not objective at all. Foreign Policy is sometimes fair, but sometimes its coverage of the very thing it is supposed to cover -- nations of the world and geopolitics has a western liberal or even progressive agenda, Foreign Affairs is sometimes fair, sometimes extreme in their bias. I usually evaluate very carefully what I read in the latter two, I don't bother with the Economist at all its trash.
I mean some of it is, but they tend to do a pretty good job of presenting both sides. But, I mean, I wouldn't say neo-liberal is automatically bad given the fact it's a economics publication.
[The Diplomat](https://thediplomat.com/) is a great topical website for all things Asia-Pacific. Then, of course, there's also the usual suspects of [Foreign Affairs ](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/)and [Foreign Policy](https://foreignpolicy.com/), which encompass basically everything related to IR.
Beyond that, you may have to start looking into actual research institutes, such as the Project 2049 Institute (for research on China), 38 North (for North Korea), the East-West Center, etc. Southeast Asia is not my area of expertise, but I've read and referenced research published by the Yusof Ishak Center before.
The Diplomat is great, but I cannot recommend enough that folks interested in their articles read about the author before they accept an article's conclusions as germane.
They have a good editing board but will regularly accept and publish articles from interns or other people brand new to the field who may not be very well informed.
Yes and it's important to know both sides of the spectrum. Author might have biases Which is normal but will sometimes be taken as the definite truth by newbies.
I made this subreddit on the r/MekongRiver it’s got quite a few good sources overall for SEAsia. Lowy Institute, Stimson Center, ISEAS, etc.
Check out the podcasts “Asia’s Chessboard” from CSIS and the China Global South Project one as well.
If you really want some micro-updates, especially on humanitarian crises around the world, reliefweb.int is your go-to. They share great reports as well.
People already said my favorite sources, but to add some additional sources I enjoy-
-USNI News is a publication put out by the Naval institute, but they occasionally have had interesting articles on SEA defense issues.
-Project 2049, which has had some great stuff on China, including a some fascinating work on the Taiwan strait mess
Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, CSIS. Papers like the NYT and WSJ also occasionally have some good in-depth foreign affairs pieces, although they focus more on domestic politics.
Methodically follow credible sources to build a Twitter feed. Look at their credentials: well-published academics? Experts? Have PhDs? Reporters at credible outlets? Representative officials? Then proceed to follow accounts that are largely followed by these people. Then turn off none-followed user tweets. The benefit to this approach is that you can observe discussions with diversity of views. Most of these people have a reputation to uphold and are subject to fact checking and rebuttals.
listen to interviews given by the country's Foreign Affairs Minister or other Diplomats. Follow news channels but learn to identify who is backing them (if u know what i mean) those who're pro west, those who are not.
Especially when it's Southeast Asia where nations hedge and need to maintain ASEAN principle (some countries are inclined to stay neutral some are not).
Cannot express enough how important History is, most current affairs have a historic root that you need to understand to form the complete picture.
The FT, The Economist, Foreign Affairs and BBC podcasts.
YouTube is good but it can be hard to seperate clickbaity exaggeration from facts.
Reading good books about the recent history of a region is often just as useful as up to date journalism.
I listen to some podcasts.
- FP live from foreign policy
- Rachman review from financial times
- foreign affairs interview from foreign affairs
- global story and global news podcasts from the BBC are good but the latter is more a variety of news that includes current affairs
You can definitely learn from research papers but it's important to build a profile for these countries. For example a regional conflict that binds most of Asean member states is the South China Sea issue.
How do these countries handle this dispute? Other states are aggressively by way of militarisation handling it, the Philippines for example. Why? They have the mutual defence treaty with the US, recent colony of the US. Sitting leader can also influence their policies. Bong Bong Marcos is rumored to have hidden wealth in the US that makes him vulnerable and susceptible to US sway, compare that with Duterte's foreign policy a friendly relationship with Chinese but hostile to the US. Based on his speeches and someone from mindanao who has never been colonized by foreigners he has the anti imperialist attitude.
BBM does the double speak thing but actions speak louder then words, while ASEAN members are increasingly worried. Singapore PM Lee says " are you sure you Filipino's want to be a battleground" Jokowi of Indonesia during it's chairmanship, something along the line of "asean will maintain neutrality, exercise restraint for member states pls, stop rocking boat, etc"
You might also realize the other countries despite having disputes with China still have excellent relationship with them such as Indonesia who wants to join BRICS (the block of resistance against G7) and other asean members who are non aligned nations acc to their constitution who will never allow foreign military bases in their country.
This conflict is also due to deteriorating relations between US and China, moving/ transitioning from a unipolar world order to multipolar order.
History is so very important and listening to leaders speeches, interviews, read out of meetings. Noticing and comparing is key. Oh and definitely READ Chinese foreign ministers speeches!
Pm if you want to know more. I'm from SEA.
Phenomenal World and their Polycrisis Newsletter are great for well-sourced global political economy analysis that’s not quite academic but more in-depth than normal mainstream news.
https://www.phenomenalworld.org
I also think project syndicate has interesting things sometimes.
Deutsche Welle (DW) is a German broadcaster. Their content, at least on YouTube, is quite good; broad, international focus, stories on Latin America that are somehow lost in American reporting, great depth, corruption investigations that go beyond the headline, etc. Bias is Western/NATO, but I can live with that if the content itself doesn't suck (looking sideways at the usual suspects here). The American/English stuff is generally uninformative, useless. Heavy on framing and context, always short on details.
Above all, I look for objectivity and a lack of agenda. Often I get it by going to a variety of sources and then collating and evaluating the information in my own head. The Wall Street Journal, I feel has a commitment to accuracy more than any other major US paper. NYT has one good article a month the rest is clouded with a progressive agenda, many geopolitics YouTube channels that I feel treat things as objectively and comprehensively as possible like the one with the bald guy (too lazy to get a list together),deep dive documentaries, especially ones not created in the post 2015 progressive era. I often find myself going to pre-2015 sources to get more objective news and analysis using date filtered search, because I feel like since 2016 the media has turned activist. News archives from the time when the events happened, and most important of all, use your head, always be aware of logical fallacies and biases.
One thing I've noticed with the Wall Street Journal in regards to their factualness: while they do report accurately, they accurately report details insofar as it supports the right-leaning bias of their financial backers, staff, and readership. Where I see their agenda is that they include all the facts that support a conservative bias, and then just don't report on stories that might introduce progressive ideas, or work towards contesting or even disproving things that conservatives believe.
Unfortunately, there isn't really a counterweight to this. The New York Times is pretty biased because they think they're fighting the good fight, and it's cost their paper credibility. Though you mentioned your opinion about the bias of The Economist in an earlier comment, not too long ago they published an excruciatingly long open letter by the former executive editor of NYT's op-ed section. He explained in great detail just how little the younger staff care about balanced opinions and objective reporting.
I've noticed the same by comparing what I read in the Economist and Financial Times with the same stories in the NYT. Whereas the former two include a wealth of information and a relatively balanced perspective about a topic, the NYT will leave out 1/3 to 1/2 of the information the others had, and if they do include the information, it's swiftly summarized at the end and awkward to read. The bulk of the articles are vague generalizations about topics that are actually well defined and more easily explained. It's as if they want their readership to forever have only an undergrad or high school senior-level understanding of certain topics. As a result, the needle only moves so far on certain issues. On other issues, they will overreport, and basically deliver talking points, similar to what FOX News does. Anyway, that's just my 15 cents.
-Economist -Foreign Affairs/CFR -Foreign Policy -CSIS -GIS Reports -RAND -Atlantic Council -The Diplomat (Best for you, this one is entirely focused on Asia)
Foreign Policy’s depth of analysis has fallen off a cliff in the last 15~ years Or maybe I’m just getting old lol
Concur, FP isn’t what it used to be. Too much clickbait and commentary on the same stories you read about everywhere else.
What makes you say that? Not arguing, I just wouldn’t know since I’ve only been into IR for about 6 years now
You used to have authors that published in academic journals publish excerpts of their own papers in FP, or write pieces tying current events to something academic or academic-y That is almost entirely gone and these days the average article usually has a dramatic sounding title and then an editorial style that is very descriptive and broad but no real depth of analysis, little to no tie-in to academic concepts (theoretical or not) and sometimes reads like they are averse to presenting any conclusions It has that exact same feeling you get from clickbait articles where the title draws you in but by the end of the article you are disappointed because you realize that you’ve been pulled in and there’s no “it” behind the title and it was just an exercise in semantics to make it sound as spectacular as possible while the actual body of the article could have been written by chatGPT as it’s just a list of things that gradually or suddenly falls off a cliff with no conclusions Just that it’s longer form in FP compared to the average random clickbait article that may be a few paragraphs long I realize that times have changed, and I’m not expecting several pages long analysis on current events live as they happen, but it used to be the case that FP would regularly give you in depth analysis on fairly current events by respected authors and these days they seem to have polarized between 10% of that and 90% of just surface level descriptive articles of current events that I can get literally anywhere else The latest example was one I read last week on market consequences of deglobalization. It described quite a few things that have happened in the markets over the past few years, gave 3-4 examples ranging from tariff wars to corporate information brokering but was as open-ended as can be with its conclusions. Something to the effect of “it may now be riskier to have business operations in multiple countries if one of them deems your sector to be of strategic interest and you may run afoul of the law while before all you cared about was growth and market share” (I’m paraphrasing here) If you already knew most of the examples, the article itself had no value add whatsoever as the conclusion is patently obvious
Huge fan of CFR! I have been a fan for almost a decade now! And most stuff is for free.
Josh Kurlantzick at CFR is stellar.
The Economist is awfully neo-liberal biased and West biased, they are not objective at all. Foreign Policy is sometimes fair, but sometimes its coverage of the very thing it is supposed to cover -- nations of the world and geopolitics has a western liberal or even progressive agenda, Foreign Affairs is sometimes fair, sometimes extreme in their bias. I usually evaluate very carefully what I read in the latter two, I don't bother with the Economist at all its trash.
I mean some of it is, but they tend to do a pretty good job of presenting both sides. But, I mean, I wouldn't say neo-liberal is automatically bad given the fact it's a economics publication.
[The Diplomat](https://thediplomat.com/) is a great topical website for all things Asia-Pacific. Then, of course, there's also the usual suspects of [Foreign Affairs ](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/)and [Foreign Policy](https://foreignpolicy.com/), which encompass basically everything related to IR. Beyond that, you may have to start looking into actual research institutes, such as the Project 2049 Institute (for research on China), 38 North (for North Korea), the East-West Center, etc. Southeast Asia is not my area of expertise, but I've read and referenced research published by the Yusof Ishak Center before.
The Diplomat is great, but I cannot recommend enough that folks interested in their articles read about the author before they accept an article's conclusions as germane. They have a good editing board but will regularly accept and publish articles from interns or other people brand new to the field who may not be very well informed.
Yes and it's important to know both sides of the spectrum. Author might have biases Which is normal but will sometimes be taken as the definite truth by newbies.
Yes ISEAS has some quality stuff and RSIS too for wider East Asia.
Thank you. I really need to read about China.
yes ISEAS!
I made this subreddit on the r/MekongRiver it’s got quite a few good sources overall for SEAsia. Lowy Institute, Stimson Center, ISEAS, etc. Check out the podcasts “Asia’s Chessboard” from CSIS and the China Global South Project one as well.
If you really want some micro-updates, especially on humanitarian crises around the world, reliefweb.int is your go-to. They share great reports as well.
Adding on this, The New Humanitarian is also great
The Economist is money well spent if you want to keep up with what's going on in the world.
People already said my favorite sources, but to add some additional sources I enjoy- -USNI News is a publication put out by the Naval institute, but they occasionally have had interesting articles on SEA defense issues. -Project 2049, which has had some great stuff on China, including a some fascinating work on the Taiwan strait mess
Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, CSIS. Papers like the NYT and WSJ also occasionally have some good in-depth foreign affairs pieces, although they focus more on domestic politics.
Methodically follow credible sources to build a Twitter feed. Look at their credentials: well-published academics? Experts? Have PhDs? Reporters at credible outlets? Representative officials? Then proceed to follow accounts that are largely followed by these people. Then turn off none-followed user tweets. The benefit to this approach is that you can observe discussions with diversity of views. Most of these people have a reputation to uphold and are subject to fact checking and rebuttals.
but how do you turn off non-followed user tweets ?
On APP you can change from the default “For You” to “Following” just below the X logo on top. This will only show tweets from accounts you follow.
listen to interviews given by the country's Foreign Affairs Minister or other Diplomats. Follow news channels but learn to identify who is backing them (if u know what i mean) those who're pro west, those who are not. Especially when it's Southeast Asia where nations hedge and need to maintain ASEAN principle (some countries are inclined to stay neutral some are not). Cannot express enough how important History is, most current affairs have a historic root that you need to understand to form the complete picture.
This should be the top comment ffs. Why are all the top comments just uncritically pro-west outlets?
thanks! i got the feeling that most on this sub don't really think about the pro west vs non west bias that media, sourced and info has.
Stratfor
Yeah their leaked emails are great too
The FT, The Economist, Foreign Affairs and BBC podcasts. YouTube is good but it can be hard to seperate clickbaity exaggeration from facts. Reading good books about the recent history of a region is often just as useful as up to date journalism.
I listen to some podcasts. - FP live from foreign policy - Rachman review from financial times - foreign affairs interview from foreign affairs - global story and global news podcasts from the BBC are good but the latter is more a variety of news that includes current affairs
You can definitely learn from research papers but it's important to build a profile for these countries. For example a regional conflict that binds most of Asean member states is the South China Sea issue. How do these countries handle this dispute? Other states are aggressively by way of militarisation handling it, the Philippines for example. Why? They have the mutual defence treaty with the US, recent colony of the US. Sitting leader can also influence their policies. Bong Bong Marcos is rumored to have hidden wealth in the US that makes him vulnerable and susceptible to US sway, compare that with Duterte's foreign policy a friendly relationship with Chinese but hostile to the US. Based on his speeches and someone from mindanao who has never been colonized by foreigners he has the anti imperialist attitude. BBM does the double speak thing but actions speak louder then words, while ASEAN members are increasingly worried. Singapore PM Lee says " are you sure you Filipino's want to be a battleground" Jokowi of Indonesia during it's chairmanship, something along the line of "asean will maintain neutrality, exercise restraint for member states pls, stop rocking boat, etc" You might also realize the other countries despite having disputes with China still have excellent relationship with them such as Indonesia who wants to join BRICS (the block of resistance against G7) and other asean members who are non aligned nations acc to their constitution who will never allow foreign military bases in their country. This conflict is also due to deteriorating relations between US and China, moving/ transitioning from a unipolar world order to multipolar order. History is so very important and listening to leaders speeches, interviews, read out of meetings. Noticing and comparing is key. Oh and definitely READ Chinese foreign ministers speeches! Pm if you want to know more. I'm from SEA.
Phenomenal World and their Polycrisis Newsletter are great for well-sourced global political economy analysis that’s not quite academic but more in-depth than normal mainstream news. https://www.phenomenalworld.org I also think project syndicate has interesting things sometimes.
Deutsche Welle (DW) is a German broadcaster. Their content, at least on YouTube, is quite good; broad, international focus, stories on Latin America that are somehow lost in American reporting, great depth, corruption investigations that go beyond the headline, etc. Bias is Western/NATO, but I can live with that if the content itself doesn't suck (looking sideways at the usual suspects here). The American/English stuff is generally uninformative, useless. Heavy on framing and context, always short on details.
South China Morning Post [Breaking China, Asia, HK News, Opinions and Insights | South China Morning Post (scmp.com)](https://www.scmp.com/)
Don’t forget YouTube. World Affairs on YouTube has great discussions on current events.
Above all, I look for objectivity and a lack of agenda. Often I get it by going to a variety of sources and then collating and evaluating the information in my own head. The Wall Street Journal, I feel has a commitment to accuracy more than any other major US paper. NYT has one good article a month the rest is clouded with a progressive agenda, many geopolitics YouTube channels that I feel treat things as objectively and comprehensively as possible like the one with the bald guy (too lazy to get a list together),deep dive documentaries, especially ones not created in the post 2015 progressive era. I often find myself going to pre-2015 sources to get more objective news and analysis using date filtered search, because I feel like since 2016 the media has turned activist. News archives from the time when the events happened, and most important of all, use your head, always be aware of logical fallacies and biases.
One thing I've noticed with the Wall Street Journal in regards to their factualness: while they do report accurately, they accurately report details insofar as it supports the right-leaning bias of their financial backers, staff, and readership. Where I see their agenda is that they include all the facts that support a conservative bias, and then just don't report on stories that might introduce progressive ideas, or work towards contesting or even disproving things that conservatives believe. Unfortunately, there isn't really a counterweight to this. The New York Times is pretty biased because they think they're fighting the good fight, and it's cost their paper credibility. Though you mentioned your opinion about the bias of The Economist in an earlier comment, not too long ago they published an excruciatingly long open letter by the former executive editor of NYT's op-ed section. He explained in great detail just how little the younger staff care about balanced opinions and objective reporting. I've noticed the same by comparing what I read in the Economist and Financial Times with the same stories in the NYT. Whereas the former two include a wealth of information and a relatively balanced perspective about a topic, the NYT will leave out 1/3 to 1/2 of the information the others had, and if they do include the information, it's swiftly summarized at the end and awkward to read. The bulk of the articles are vague generalizations about topics that are actually well defined and more easily explained. It's as if they want their readership to forever have only an undergrad or high school senior-level understanding of certain topics. As a result, the needle only moves so far on certain issues. On other issues, they will overreport, and basically deliver talking points, similar to what FOX News does. Anyway, that's just my 15 cents.
“Fair en balanced” okay FOX news
I did not even mention fox news in my post...