I would argue pretty much the exact opposite, writers on substack are a step above journalism. NYT especially is an advertising company that realized people als

I would argue pretty much the exact opposite, writers on substack are a step above journalism. NYT especially is an advertising company that realized people also pay to have their own views confirmed. (And when opinion columnists occasionally don't do that, lots of people comment that they're going to unsubscribe! Further proving it to them. The product isn't what's true, its whatever makes number go up.) This is obvious in all the little lies they tell that conform with how they think that their audience views the world. I can give some examples: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/international-students-us-colleges-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/international-students... > Amid ‘Trump Effect’ Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants After reading this article, do you think colleges overall are seeing a significant drop in international applicants, a significant increase, or it stayed about the same? What actually happened: "39% of responding institutions reported a decline in international applications, 35% reported an increase, and 26% reported no change in applicant numbers." source: https://www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/intl-survey-results-released.pdf?sfvrsn=85c53aad_0 https://www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/default-document-... Or this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/upshot/free-market-for-education-economists-generally-dont-buy-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/upshot/free-market-for-ed... After reading this article, what do you think about the general views of economists on school vouchers? Note how they couch this: > But economists are far less optimistic about what an unfettered market can achieve in education. Only a third of economists on the Chicago panel agreed that students would be better off if they all had access to vouchers to use at any private (or public) school of their choice. They want you to think that economist are on-net against vouchers. Now read the source: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/education/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/education/ 36% agree, 37% uncertain, 18% disagree. It's not "only a third", its really that twice as many economists agree with vouchers than disagree, plus a wide amount of uncertainty. NYT is full of this stuff. It's terrible. They constantly editorialize even factual sources to confirm the views of their anticipated readers. Broadly speaking if the people with megaphones tell you that people with megaphones are good, and are more important than ever, and intimate that the truth is their domain, consider for a moment that it might not be. Just because someone has a megaphone does not mean they are a light-bearer, no matter what motto they put on their masthead.