4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhat's wrong with the their election coverage (serious question)?
- kough 11y agoSeverely 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 agoNot 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.