4 ms·
The absence of a better news source doesn't mean we should be blind to its faults.
by rbecker 6y ago
The absence of a better news source doesn't mean we should be blind to its faults.
- jrumbut 6y agoSure, but the grandparent doesn't say "I read the NYT but here are some flaws..." or "The Houston Chronicle is better because..." it says the entire enterprise has been directed "in support of bias". I am arguing against being blind to the news source's virtues. If we don't want to be blind to the world we have to pick our poison(s).
- throwaway894345 6y agoFair enough. I find that Wall Street journal, Reuters, and NPR all do better jobs (in roughly that order) with respect to reigning-in their biases than the NYT.
- zzleeper 6y agoWSJ? They do a better job at disguising their right-wing biases as reporting facts. I used to resd it daily 10-20 years ago but now I need to read it very carefully.
- throwaway894345 6y agoWSJ isn’t perfect, but they aren’t “right-wing”, and they at least try to mask their biases, which makes them markedly better than NYT, WashPo, etc in my opinion.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> WSJ isn’t perfect, but they aren’t “right-wing” WSJ was solid right in the editorial but pretty neutral in news (though clear ideological bias was creeping in in the last decade or so) back before News Corp bought it out to augment their right-wing propaganda empire. Now, it's definitely more high-brow and less in-your-face, beat-you-over-the-head with unsubtle propaganda than, say, FOX News, but it's just as clearly directed at the same ends.