4 ms·

Apparently gaslighting works. I'm kind of shocked that NYT and Atlantic ranks so low, while WSJ and local news rank very high. That doesn't bode well for an inf

by croon 9y ago

Apparently gaslighting works. I'm kind of shocked that NYT and Atlantic ranks so low, while WSJ and local news rank very high. That doesn't bode well for an informed populace with Sinclair's expansion.

arjie 9y ago
I wouldn't be described as a conservative, but I've subscribed to both the NYT and the WSJ. At one point, I subscribed to both. The NYT has one redeeming factor: it publishes high quality articles occasionally across the centre page (I remember the one where the US soldiers reported incidents of cruelty and violence against the local population in Afghanistan). The prose in the reviews section is also very entertaining. As for the rest, it's a pretty rubbish newspaper. For the WSJ, I stay away from Opinion pieces except in the Business section. Those can be hopeless. But the rest is exemplary. And they have equivalent work as well (the fate of the Cossacks, how one US company was stuck on a road due to insurgents with clever use of US RoE). I've noticed that lots of people defend the NYT and when I first subscribed I thought that was because people knew it was a good newspaper. It turns out it's cultural identification. You're supposed to support the NYT if you're a Democrat. Few actually subscribe. I gave it a shot despite the Judith Miller fiasco but it's really a rubbish newspaper. I subscribed for eight months to the NYT and ten to the WSJ, with one month overlapping.
- evgen 9y ago
  The Journal used to be a good source of quality analysis and factual reporting, which is not surprising when you are trying to serve a market of people who use your reporting to make trading decisions. These people tend to get upset if the reporting tries to put in spin that diverges from reality. Unfortunately, things have been going downhill since Murdoch took over and their reputation in the community is suffering as a result.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    As far as I can tell it's FT that does the good business reporting now. Good on them for strictly enforcing their paywall, too. None of this "free but it isn't" shit.
- Retric 9y ago
  WSJ had significant factual errors on any story I had deep knowledge of, so I assume the rest of it is just as terrible. Why exactly do your rate it highly?
  - arjie 9y ago
    Hmm, perhaps I have a false confidence in it because I was unable to detect the factual errors. The number one use I had for it was news on business and it seemed helpful there. Would you mind sharing some examples? I haven't subscribed in quite a while (I live in the UK now).
    - Retric 9y ago
      It's been a few years (edit: over a decade), but the usual factual errors like names where not bad though I noticed a few. But, technical details around Java seemed to be a game of telephone where what they said was at best vaguely true if you ignored what was said and tried to decode what someone else said. Which seems to be the basic problem with using reporters who don't understand the subject matter. Now, they have a good reputation. But, I don't know where it comes from exactly as I have heard similar issues with their coverage of DNA editing etc.
lin_lin 9y ago
What's wrong with local news? In my experience, it's the most trustworthy, agenda-free source of info. It's the nature of its scope, but I don't see what you're getting at.
- croon 9y ago
  1) Because "local news" by its very nature doesn't mean anything (or anywhere). Since it is a ubiquitous term, anything can be local news. 2) Since local news doesn't have a defined head, it's hard to scrutinize, whereas national/global news is at least exposed for what it is (regardless of whether people recognize that or not). 3) What I mainly wanted make a point about was the future of local news in regards to Sinclair buying up Tribune Media stations [1]. That would make it "local news" with quite a blatant, pointed agenda. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-...
  - lin_lin 9y ago
    I think most people know what's meant by "local news". Fair enough about State side events, I'm in the UK. My local news papers are far and away the most trusted source of news I have in the traditional form. The BBC, Sky, the national papers can take a running jump.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ddebernardy 9y ago
  John Oliver had an interesting show on this a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc TL;DR version would be: the Sinclair group is collecting local TV news channels, and their editorial line isn't exactly neutral.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  I trust local news, but only for reporting on local news.

by croon 9y ago

arjie 9y ago

I wouldn't be described as a conservative, but I've subscribed to both the NYT and the WSJ. At one point, I subscribed to both. The NYT has one redeeming factor: it publishes high quality articles occasionally across the centre page (I remember the one where the US soldiers reported incidents of cruelty and violence against the local population in Afghanistan). The prose in the reviews section is also very entertaining. As for the rest, it's a pretty rubbish newspaper. For the WSJ, I stay away from Opinion pieces except in the Business section. Those can be hopeless. But the rest is exemplary. And they have equivalent work as well (the fate of the Cossacks, how one US company was stuck on a road due to insurgents with clever use of US RoE). I've noticed that lots of people defend the NYT and when I first subscribed I thought that was because people knew it was a good newspaper. It turns out it's cultural identification. You're supposed to support the NYT if you're a Democrat. Few actually subscribe. I gave it a shot despite the Judith Miller fiasco but it's really a rubbish newspaper. I subscribed for eight months to the NYT and ten to the WSJ, with one month overlapping.

evgen 9y ago
The Journal used to be a good source of quality analysis and factual reporting, which is not surprising when you are trying to serve a market of people who use your reporting to make trading decisions. These people tend to get upset if the reporting tries to put in spin that diverges from reality. Unfortunately, things have been going downhill since Murdoch took over and their reputation in the community is suffering as a result.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  As far as I can tell it's FT that does the good business reporting now. Good on them for strictly enforcing their paywall, too. None of this "free but it isn't" shit.
Retric 9y ago
WSJ had significant factual errors on any story I had deep knowledge of, so I assume the rest of it is just as terrible. Why exactly do your rate it highly?
- arjie 9y ago
  Hmm, perhaps I have a false confidence in it because I was unable to detect the factual errors. The number one use I had for it was news on business and it seemed helpful there. Would you mind sharing some examples? I haven't subscribed in quite a while (I live in the UK now).
  - Retric 9y ago
    It's been a few years (edit: over a decade), but the usual factual errors like names where not bad though I noticed a few. But, technical details around Java seemed to be a game of telephone where what they said was at best vaguely true if you ignored what was said and tried to decode what someone else said. Which seems to be the basic problem with using reporters who don't understand the subject matter. Now, they have a good reputation. But, I don't know where it comes from exactly as I have heard similar issues with their coverage of DNA editing etc.

lin_lin 9y ago

What's wrong with local news? In my experience, it's the most trustworthy, agenda-free source of info. It's the nature of its scope, but I don't see what you're getting at.

croon 9y ago
1) Because "local news" by its very nature doesn't mean anything (or anywhere). Since it is a ubiquitous term, anything can be local news. 2) Since local news doesn't have a defined head, it's hard to scrutinize, whereas national/global news is at least exposed for what it is (regardless of whether people recognize that or not). 3) What I mainly wanted make a point about was the future of local news in regards to Sinclair buying up Tribune Media stations [1]. That would make it "local news" with quite a blatant, pointed agenda. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-...
- lin_lin 9y ago
  I think most people know what's meant by "local news". Fair enough about State side events, I'm in the UK. My local news papers are far and away the most trusted source of news I have in the traditional form. The BBC, Sky, the national papers can take a running jump.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ddebernardy 9y ago
John Oliver had an interesting show on this a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc TL;DR version would be: the Sinclair group is collecting local TV news channels, and their editorial line isn't exactly neutral.
nerdponx 9y ago
I trust local news, but only for reporting on local news.