4 ms·
A large percentage of the population doesn't consider NYT, WP, WSJ reputable. They are all extremely biased by their politics. I can't even name a single news
by bufferoverflow 8y ago
A large percentage of the population doesn't consider NYT, WP, WSJ reputable. They are all extremely biased by their politics.
I can't even name a single news source that I'd call reputable and that I trust. That's why I like reading multiple sources on the subject plus comments on Reddit/HN.
- barkingcat 8y agoIf you believe this, then rotten tomatoes is absolutely the wrong model to follow, because all you're getting is the score that tallys up what NYT, WP, WSJ are saying. (or the average of the average ...)
- beat 8y agoI think you're pointing to the wrong "they". The "biased by their politics" problem isn't with the mainstream news sources so much as the people who assume that anything that doesn't fit their worldview is a Deep State Lie.
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoActually, if you just read the news stories, and not the opinion articles from all three of those, you are probably doing pretty well. They can get something wrong once in a while, sure, but it's mostly good. Television news is going to probably be not quite as good, just because they can't cover as much as a newspaper in only 30-60 minutes. Again, just the news, not the opinion stuff. If you just take all of it in uncritically, and especially if you don't pay attention to what is labeled news vs opinion, you're going to end up believing a lot of things which probably aren't true.
- bufferoverflow 8y agoHave you already forgotten the "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco? The one that NYT apologized for: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoNo, as I said: > They can get something wrong once in a while, sure, but it's mostly good.