So, if you're a long time reader of the NY Times, clue me in to what sets it apart as a valuable source of information. Respectfully, I don't currently understa

So, if you're a long time reader of the NY Times, clue me in to what sets it apart as a valuable source of information. Respectfully, I don't currently understand what others see in it as an information source. Look at the front page right now: Flynn pleads guilty (news, public record - the exception!) Republicans say they'll pass the tax plan in the Senate (probably a press release or word from a PR office) Rex Tillerson might be replaced by someone even worse than himself (probably a press release or word from a PR office, posturing) A meta-regurgitation of sex harassment news (posturing) Why North Korea's missile is very scary (almost certainly a statement from a public relations office in the SK government, in collaboration with the US government, since it includes a statement about a phone call between the respective heads of state) A string of variety fluff blog posts (entertainment). I care about quality journalism, but these articles are mostly posturing/outrage-jockeying or fluff, and what news there is consists in barfing up press releases or statements from public relations offices, spiced up with a little expert vetting from whomever they could get on the phone. It reads like a textbook dystopian "Manufacturing Consent" newspaper. So, I don't know. I pay for a subscription to a few news outlets (a few of whom are can be just as bad as the NYTimes, such as NPR), but I certainly don't see a reason to pay a premium for name brand news that isn't any more substantive than skimming AP reports off a news feed.