"Progressive" news sources that follow the state department line on certain issues such as Syria and China are incredibly useful to the bourgeoisie/government. They act to corral people who are starting to move towards socialism/anti-imperialism.
By affirming some things these potential socialists already knew, they establish reliability. They can then draw a line in their coverage, portraying those who disagree to be dreaded "conspiracy theorists", "russian stooges", or "propagandists"
Perhaps the clearest example of this is The Intercept. The Intercept when first established seemed to be wonderful- a site where the NSA documents Snowden leaked would be published and analyzed.
Some people pointed out immediate red flags however. The Intercept was created by Pierre Omidyar through his company First Look Media. Omidyar is a billionaire who founded eBay and thus also owned many shares in Paypal for a time.
And it gets worse (somehow!). Omidyar founded the Omidyar Network, a "philanthropic investment firm (sic!)". In 2009 the organization donated $2 million to wikimedia, and in return Matt Halpin of the Omidyar Network was named to Wikimedia's board of directors
Omidyar was also involved with predatory microlending in India which ended with a rash of suicides as impoverished Indian people caught in his debt trap saw no way to repay the loans.
Back to The Intercept: Omidyar had an initial reason to intercept (no pun intended) the Snowden Leaks. Some of the leaks likely implicated Paypal working with the NSA. Many documents still have not been released, which seems strange as they'd be useful immediately.
The Intercept got started with Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Laura Poitras. While I'm no huge fan of those three, they're far better than what was to come. Scahill from what I've seen is the best reporter at the Intercept. I'm not too familiar with Poitras.
Greenwald is of course a libertarian turned progressive(?) who still sometimes displays those libertarian tendencies. The hires since have been mostly liberals and libertarians, with stories run on the horrors of Assad and the Russian plot to take over America
Our friend at Moon of Alabama has elaborated on how the Intercept writers not only misrepresented an NSA document, but also burned a source, landing a woman in prison for 5 years moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not…
Intercept brings people in- who doesn't want to read about NSA leaks and the disturbing facts they reveal- but the liberal/libertarian slant of their reporting keeps people from realizing some other disturbing facts.
The area in which the intercept fails the most is foreign policy. This follows a pattern- if you see some problems about how certain agencies are getting out of hand in the US you might vote for "progressive" democrats or third parties
However, if you have a good understanding of foreign policy and cut through the lies against imperialized nations, you have no choice but to conclude that the entire US government and economic system is genocidal and, most importantly, irredeemable
This pattern in "alternative" and "progressive" news sources mirrors the same pattern in politics. Where does Sanders explicitly demonstrate his complete opposition to socialism and support of the US capitalist system? When he votes for sanctions against Iran and Nicaragua.
Where does DSA fail so horrifically? In many chapters towing the line on Russia, Syria, Venezuela (remember the Alex Jones 'Sailor Socialism' video?). In support for US proxies like Rojava. In apathy towards conditions overseas. In supporting the soldiertariat
The way news is reported in the US is not a coincidence. The US is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and as Marx says "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas". That extends even to "alternative news" and we need to be aware of that.
