[jasonjayr]

Agreed. And PBS's biases are well known. PBS shines in that most of the content is even tempered and well reasoned.

If I wanted a counterpoint to PBS's left-leaning biases, where could I find content with a right-leaning bias, that isn't sprinkled with religion, screaming hot heads, and other unpleasantness?

[StuffedParrot]

I would call PBS’s bias center to center-left, along with the nytimes, huffpost, the guardian, most late night shows, and most slate writers. It sounds like you are describing the wall street journal, bloomberg, the economist, the washington post. It’s pretty difficult to go further right without bumping into fox news, breitbart, the drudge report, the blaze, rush limbaugh, etc.

For actual left bias, see: the baffler, the intercept, jacobin, mother jones, counterpunch, the nation, and oddly teen vogue. If PBS is left, those are surely falling off the spectrum.

Finally podcasts cater across the spectrum. I can’t help with specific examples here, but you can certainly find anyone from anarchists and communists to democratic socialists to liberals to libertarians to blatant far right wing shit (monarchism?, “racial realists”, “trumpists”).

[boring_twenties]

You must be reading a different Bloomberg than I am.

[StuffedParrot]

What kind of economic critique do you have about Bloomberg?

[boring_twenties]

I don't have any critique about Bloomberg, just your characterization of it as right wing.

I can't remember ever seeing a "right-wing" viewpoint in Bloomberg's opinion pages. As far as I can tell the only op-eds they publish are pro-gun control, anti-income inequality or just generally anti-Trump.

[thanatropism]

> monarchists, racial realists, trumpists

One of those things is not like the others.

[StuffedParrot]

I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about.

[_delirium]

Depends a bit on what you mean by right-wing. The Economist is a fairly level-headed representative of center-right free-market economics, but they aren't cultural conservatives and quite secular. That makes their political positioning in the US a bit ambiguous, though they're more solidly right-of-center in the UK context where they originate. (For example: the only Labour candidate they've endorsed in 50 years is Tony Blair, and even that came with a caveat that they were endorsing him because they preferred "the ambiguous right-winger rather than the feeble one".)

On the U.S. side, intellectually oriented conservative media has really had trouble with the Trump era. The more highbrow outlets were never on board with Trump, but maintaining an anti-Trump or Trump-skeptical line on the U.S. right basically dooms you to irrelevance in the current climate, since only a smallish band of "never-Trumper" conservatives are still tuning in to that political position. There are a few of those, like The American Interest, which keep going on a small circulation.

[mixmastamyk]

Bill buckley and National review carried the flag for the intelligent right for years. Not sure how they are doing in the T era.