2 ms·

> I do agree that the print-oriented news groups seemed to have their head more screwed on than the cable-oriented ones. Interestingly, I've had the (very broa

> I do agree that the print-oriented news groups seemed to have their head more screwed on than the cable-oriented ones. Interestingly, I've had the (very broad, over-generalized) hypothesis that the longer the period between publication dates, the better the quality tends to be. Cable news, with it's minute by minute updates, is the worst. Daily newspapers are better; weeklies better yet (The Economist); monthlies and journals are the best periodicals; and then books are best. Of course, daily newspapers now update 24/7, weeklies are disappearing, and no theory holds universally. > A lot of blather has gone on about Real Journalism I haven't heard it - I wish there was more. But I think it's dangerous and false to say it's all equivalent and no source is better and significantly more accurate than others.

pnathan 10y ago
> I haven't heard it - I wish there was more. But I think it's dangerous and false to say it's all equivalent and no source is better and significantly more accurate than others. Quite so. But there's been a cycle of "bob's a real journalist, not like the others; sally's a real journalist, not like the others" a LOT this year.... regrettably it related to whatever dirt they released. Very No True Scotsman-esque. It's been super clear that certain news orgs: NYT, WaPo, and a few others, have been on the ball, focusing on real issues, real dirt, real ethics. Other orgs (Breitbart, HuffPo) are largely organs of ideologies. Vox is somewhere in the middle: real news (more so than HuffPo), but with an avowed Left play. Right now I happen to be a subscriber to the NYT and the New Yorker. WaPo might also get my $$$ in the next few months or so.