>With some exceptions. I would argue, with very few exceptions. The NYT is capable of some great journalism. Same with WSJ and a number of other outfits. That

>With some exceptions. I would argue, with very few exceptions. The NYT is capable of some great journalism. Same with WSJ and a number of other outfits. That doesn't change the fact that their opinion articles share the same domain and letterhead in an intentional effort to confuse facts with truth to gain clicks. To flip the argument around: Buzzfeed has some surprisingly good journalists working for it, including Pulitzer Prize winners. The only difference between Buzzfeed and NYT is that NYT is historically known for good journalism due to their long history of being a strong journalistic outfit, while Buzzfeed is known for trash tabloid nonsense and only recently had hired actual journalists. If I gave you just a headline, could you tell me which company it's from? >Investigators Are Scrutinizing Newly Uncovered Payments By The Russian Embassy Surprise. That's the top article on Buzzfeed.com right now. Not even cherry-picked, that's number one, the very first headline. >Is This the Golden Age of Drag? Yes. And No. Again, very first headline, number one, most important thing on the page, not cherry-picked. That's nytimes.com. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either of these articles or either of these websites. I'm just highlighting the fact that you can't tell them apart. Because journalists now work for tabloids and clickbait-generators. And tech journalism is owned by exclusives (which are paid for), access (which can be revoked if you write something bad), and advertisers (who will pull sponsorships to influence the news). If there are ads, there is no such thing as independent and unbiased news.