I'm not saying you shouldn't view mainstream media with suspicion anymore, but coverage is definitely more balanced than it used to be (not everywhere, but in some of the traditionally trustworthy publications like the New York Times). Conversely, social media networks are increasingly divisive and radical, so if that's your alternative I don't recommend it.
If I have to make a recommendation, the Wall Street Journal has been consistently high-quality in my experience.
Yes, as much as the mainstream media went to shit, WSJ is still above the level of NYT, which basically is a tabloid targeting people who consider themselves educated.
Although a lot of the mistrust of mainstream news is well earned, there is also an explosion of doubt and misinformation these days. (How many stories these days are a media story with a strawman? "You'll never believe what [publication] is saying!") The NY Times actually does a lot of good journalism these days. At least at the level of the individual story and/or writer. But people have become so cynical or mistrustful, that a NY Times article is dismissed automatically even when it shouldn't. Feel free to swap out NY Times for any other publication which performs good journalism.
There's a difference between legitimate criticism of a publication, (which nearly any publication would deserve to varying degrees) and lazy, automatic dismissals of the news as "broadly untrustworthy."
(To be clear, and at a personal level, I don't particularly like the NY Times. Their headlines are often politicized and the editorial section is completely awful. However if you get off the front page and just read some of their in depth reporting, you'd be crazy to write them off as wholly biased or untrustworthy.)
I agree, it’s pretty easy to end up in a place where you don’t trust any source of news. Not sure that’s really a bad thing.
I still read the New York Times (though I’m no longer a paying subscriber). I don’t think they are as untrustworthy as like, Newsmax or Info Wars or what have you.
I just typically prefer the Washington Post or WSJ (sans crazy WSJ op-eds) since it’s hard to unsee the NYT slant in everything lately and I find their shrillness and shamelessness exhausting.
HN hates the news media and expects hobbyist bloggers and youtubers to become reliable and comprehensive sources of news any day now...
I guess people still see the WSJ and NYT on opposite ends of a spectrum. But while the ideological differences persist, I think the more significant difference these days is between reputable outlets and those that are not. On that axis, the WSJ and NYT are both fine, as are a few others.
I still highly respect NYT but I agree that the tone of its headlines (if not the actual article text) in general has gotten more sensationalized over time. I now read both NYT and the news section of WSJ to get a more balanced perspective (I steer clear of the opinion section of WSJ because it's a total dumpster fire).
I'm sorry but out of those only the WSJ and Bloomberg are what I consider impartial, with NYT doing a better job than CNN and WP because they at least refrain from loaded language, though are not entirely unbiased in what they choose to report.
The Washington Post and the NY Times are both very fine papers: they take the traditional 20th Century American view of journalism (attempting to be objective and authoritative, and taking accuracy seriously) which is a bit alien to the European print tradition, but that's not a bad thing if you want different perspectives. The Wall Street Journal is also a fine paper if you like your news more economically and financially-focused. The Post is probably better for the inside-baseball of US Politics, the Times probably better overall, and for global coverage. But that's just my opinion - try all three and see which works for you.
The opinion sections are of highly variable quality, as people here keep pointing out. And these have always escaped the objectivity ethic. I'd just avoid reading them.
First, I'm not reading the NYT editorial pages. I trust the reporting at NYT, WaPo, and WSJ about equally.
Second: if this concerns you, subscribe to the WSJ.
Third: the idea that you're getting exposed to valuable non-mainstream news sources from aggregators is pretty dubious. What I think is more likely is that you're being exposed to a lot of marginal stuff that doesn't hit WaPo because it doesn't pan out, and, much more importantly, that the selection of what deserves your attention is being made in a much dumber way than it is at a real paper.
NYT leans slightly left, WSJ leans slightly right, and I feel like reading both gives you a fairly balanced view on the issues of the day.
The opinion sections of each publication can get fringey, but that's just the clickbait that pays the bills - it's obvious that the rest of the articles try hard to adhere to journalistic standards.
I know someone on staff at the Wsj, and know their political views. I have seen their reporting and it is generally balanced. Yes, the papers always have an editorial line they are following, but it's not necessarily biased to push a view, but more so to match their buyers. Running a newspaper is not a public service for the Wsj.
The big surprise for most people is that people at institutions like Wsj and ny times try and be as professional as possible. They aren't acting like click bait interns at gawker.
I'd have thought the WSJ was pretty reliable. I'm not sure whether they permeate lies, but on the other side you have the NYT giving Hilary's campaign team copy-approval on what they write.
If you're after other right-wing UK publications you could try the Daily Telegraph or the Spectator.
Both The Guardian and The New York Times are quite intelligent and useful publications. In fact I don't see what is gained by reading NPR, BBC, or Reuters instead.
On the other hand, while The New York Times gets chastised here as liberally biased, the Washington Post is listed as neutral, whereas I see the reverse as being the case.
But traditional media is incentivized to be biased against social media. So "even the NY Times" isn't particularly compelling. (Not to mention NYT is squarely center right, politically. "Left" of the GOP but not left in any meaningful sense.)
Agreed, I subscribed to NYT since subbing was an option, and read daily for a decade, until they decided to double down on partisan politics (I presume as a business decision over quality) since the last US election. The switch was very noticeable if you were paying attention. Maybe coinciding around the time the new Arthur took over as lead...
I too switched to WSJ and don't mind paying the extra cost. I miss the days when NYT feigned neutrality and focused on the balanced reality of stories over fermenting outrage via opinion pieces packaged as breaking news.
You can still find the good NYT content as the pop up on content filters like HN, Twitter, and Pocket without having to put blinders on to ignore half the other content on the site.
If I have to make a recommendation, the Wall Street Journal has been consistently high-quality in my experience.
reply