Salon
Salon has a far left bias in its daily reviews of domestic politics and provocative cultural topics. The American Journalism Review described Salon's political views as provocative and liberal, while many readers have noticed a uniquely progressive, Northern California style in the website’s content. Accordingly, the AllSides Bias Rating™ for Salon is far left, a rating we have a medium confidence level in. A majority of nearly 3500 AllSides community members agreed with this rating, while 29 of those who disagreed gave Salon an average bias rating of 70. This score falls in the middle of the lean left bias, but it is not enough evidence to change Salon's rating.
More on Salon
In addition to politically liberal commentary, Salon covers a variety of topics including reviews about books, films and music; articles about modern life, including relationships and sexuality; and reviews about technology. Founded in 1995 by David Talbot, it was created by former San Francisco Examiner staff members who departed the newspaper looking to explore digital journalism. The website has maintained its progressive style over the years, producing stories in the format of a “smart tabloid” in order to reach popular audiences, as Talbot said in 2008. Although it has historically been unprofitable, Salon offers both free and premium content, with about 15 new articles posted per day.
Sources:
Wikipedia: Salon
Headline Roundup
Type of Content
Approved Story
1
Format
Region
News Item Format
Standard
Image Caption
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Ethan Miller/Getty Images, Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images, George Frey/Getty Images, and supremecourt.gov.
Autocurated
0
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority carved a huge loophole into the federal prohibition against machine guns on Friday, striking down a bump stock ban first enacted in 2018 by the Trump administration. Its 6–3 decision allows civilians to convert AR-15–style rifles into automatic weapons that can fire at a rate of 400–800 rounds per minute. One might hope a ruling that stands to inflict so much carnage would, at least, be indisputably compelled by law. It is not. Far from it: To reach this result, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the court tortures statutory text beyond all recognition, defying Congress’ clear and (until now) well-established commands. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in dissent, the supermajority flouts the “ordinary meaning” of the law, adopting an “artificially narrow” interpretation that will have “deadly consequences.” This Supreme Court will be squarely at fault for the next mass shooting enabled by a legal bump stock.