5 ms·

So read something like The Economist or the paper version of the NYT?

ghostpepper 7y ago
This is the answer. Journalists cannot work for free, and trying to run a newspaper entirely supported by ads creates perverse incentives.
sykick 7y ago
Why do you think those sources are nuanced or provide decent coverage of topics? Are you sure you're right? Here's one example among many that perhaps these are not good sources of information. https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-sti...
sjtindell 7y ago
The NYT I definitely now class with all the rest. In my opinion The Economist stands alone as the only publication I can trust to be nuanced and informative.
- throwaway21320 7y ago
  I agree that The New York Times can be pretty terrible (a lot depends on the reporters and editors of a particular piece), but I have to say that I also find The Economist to be pretty shallow and often wrong. The best part about The Economist is its breadth (a lot of stories from all over the world), but a story about a water purification project in Uganda (for example) isn't going to be useful for most Americans (and I assume Ugandans would have better sources to read). It's mostly infotainment.
- IIAOPSW 7y ago
  I'd say the Economist, Bloomberg, Bellingcat, and fivethirtyeight all have good signal to noise ratios.
  - borkt 7y ago
    Bloomberg posts plenty of articles in my area of expertise that are riddled with faults. I find Frontline to be some of the most nuanced, deep dive journalism which is readily available.
  - quickthrowman 7y ago
    Bloomberg (the website) is garbage, FT is far better. Bloomberg journalists are compensated for stories that “move markets”. Ridiculous. I would really like a free Bloomberg terminal tho
    - IIAOPSW 7y ago
      >Bloomberg journalists are compensated for stories that “move markets”. Possibly, but that is fundamentally different from infotainment. Even with that bias, Bloomberg never writes an article which fails to answer the most basic questions one could ask about a given story (unlike most "news" [1]). I also qualify them as decent because they generally report trends not anecdotes. Contrast with your local TV station running 1000 crime stories a week no matter the crime stats. [1]https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-effort-one-video-is-worth-a-trillion-dollars https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human...
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        This! Whatever its flaws, the fact that it doesn't share the most pernicious ones of most online news sources counts for something. I refuse to pay to access Bloomberg as long as he is running for President, but it would probably be worth subscribing to otherwise.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anderber 7y ago
ProPublica to me is the best. Of course they don't cover everything, but what they do cover, they do an excellent job.

This is the answer. Journalists cannot work for free, and trying to run a newspaper entirely supported by ads creates perverse incentives.

sykick 7y ago

Why do you think those sources are nuanced or provide decent coverage of topics? Are you sure you're right? Here's one example among many that perhaps these are not good sources of information. https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-sti...

sjtindell 7y ago

The NYT I definitely now class with all the rest. In my opinion The Economist stands alone as the only publication I can trust to be nuanced and informative.

throwaway21320 7y ago
I agree that The New York Times can be pretty terrible (a lot depends on the reporters and editors of a particular piece), but I have to say that I also find The Economist to be pretty shallow and often wrong. The best part about The Economist is its breadth (a lot of stories from all over the world), but a story about a water purification project in Uganda (for example) isn't going to be useful for most Americans (and I assume Ugandans would have better sources to read). It's mostly infotainment.
IIAOPSW 7y ago
I'd say the Economist, Bloomberg, Bellingcat, and fivethirtyeight all have good signal to noise ratios.
- borkt 7y ago
  Bloomberg posts plenty of articles in my area of expertise that are riddled with faults. I find Frontline to be some of the most nuanced, deep dive journalism which is readily available.
- quickthrowman 7y ago
  Bloomberg (the website) is garbage, FT is far better. Bloomberg journalists are compensated for stories that “move markets”. Ridiculous. I would really like a free Bloomberg terminal tho
  - IIAOPSW 7y ago
    >Bloomberg journalists are compensated for stories that “move markets”. Possibly, but that is fundamentally different from infotainment. Even with that bias, Bloomberg never writes an article which fails to answer the most basic questions one could ask about a given story (unlike most "news" [1]). I also qualify them as decent because they generally report trends not anecdotes. Contrast with your local TV station running 1000 crime stories a week no matter the crime stats. [1]https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-effort-one-video-is-worth-a-trillion-dollars https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human...
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      This! Whatever its flaws, the fact that it doesn't share the most pernicious ones of most online news sources counts for something. I refuse to pay to access Bloomberg as long as he is running for President, but it would probably be worth subscribing to otherwise.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

anderber 7y ago

ProPublica to me is the best. Of course they don't cover everything, but what they do cover, they do an excellent job.