5 ms·

I don't know, the WaPo article adds some useful context, like links to stories about previous, unofficial information sharing. Of course, the usefulness hinges

by scribu 11y ago

I don't know, the WaPo article adds some useful context, like links to stories about previous, unofficial information sharing. Of course, the usefulness hinges on whether you trust that WaPo is being impartial. (I have no opinion on that, since I don't follow US politics that closely.)

kough 11y ago
Yeah, it's not like the NYTimes is impartial either. Read their election coverage for example. I've been thinking about this recently because I was considering adding some more news sources to my feeds, but I'm fairly content because at this point I understand and notice the biases in the sources I do read, and I'm worried it would take a long time to build up a similar understanding of a new source.
- jonas21 11y ago
  What's wrong with the their election coverage (serious question)?
  - kough 11y ago
    Severely biased in favor of Hillary. Makes sense – their main demographic is bankers, got to appease the customer. When he was in the race, they were hugely in favor of Jeb Bush, too. For instance, this [1] was on the front page of the website for at least a day. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/politics/hear-the-one-about-jeb-bushs-humor-you-have-to-listen-closely.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/politics/hear-the-one-a...
  - bmelton 11y ago
    Not OP, but as a paper & digital subscriber of the Washington Post (which I subscribed to for the Volokh Conspiracy, when they migrated), I have decided not to renew my subscription as I find the editorial board too opinionated. I have zero problems with op-ed pieces being opinionated, but when those opinions seep into the actual news, I have a hard time calling it journalism, and an even harder time giving them my money. That said, I can think of literally zero unbiased sources, especially as Circa's shut down. It doesn't seem to be a feature that many people are willing to pay for.

by scribu 11y ago

kough 11y ago

Yeah, it's not like the NYTimes is impartial either. Read their election coverage for example. I've been thinking about this recently because I was considering adding some more news sources to my feeds, but I'm fairly content because at this point I understand and notice the biases in the sources I do read, and I'm worried it would take a long time to build up a similar understanding of a new source.

jonas21 11y ago
What's wrong with the their election coverage (serious question)?
- kough 11y ago
  Severely biased in favor of Hillary. Makes sense – their main demographic is bankers, got to appease the customer. When he was in the race, they were hugely in favor of Jeb Bush, too. For instance, this [1] was on the front page of the website for at least a day. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/politics/hear-the-one-about-jeb-bushs-humor-you-have-to-listen-closely.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/politics/hear-the-one-a...
- bmelton 11y ago
  Not OP, but as a paper & digital subscriber of the Washington Post (which I subscribed to for the Volokh Conspiracy, when they migrated), I have decided not to renew my subscription as I find the editorial board too opinionated. I have zero problems with op-ed pieces being opinionated, but when those opinions seep into the actual news, I have a hard time calling it journalism, and an even harder time giving them my money. That said, I can think of literally zero unbiased sources, especially as Circa's shut down. It doesn't seem to be a feature that many people are willing to pay for.