IME, in most things I have personal knowledge of the better news sources do a pretty good job; they rarely have significant errors, for example. The lesser, non

IME, in most things I have personal knowledge of the better news sources do a pretty good job; they rarely have significant errors, for example. The lesser, non-partisan sources also rarely have significant errors, but they cover issues with less sophistication. My most common objections are that they don't go deep enough (but if it's something I already know about then I'm not the intended audience - the NY Times isn't going to cover tech issues as deeply as I'd like) and that what I see as important questions are left unanswered and sometimes unasked. On the other hand, I should't presume my own superior intelligence - if the journalist and I disagree, perhaps I'm not the one in the right; the smartest people I know often disagree with me about things like which questions are important. Beyond that, I'm not sure stereotypes of any large group of human beings are worth addressing, other than to point them out for what they are.