4 ms·

I Was looking at a newspaper from the 1940s and the difference in content presented then, versus even now in large print newspapers, is astounding. There was so

by ajay-b 6y ago

I Was looking at a newspaper from the 1940s and the difference in content presented then, versus even now in large print newspapers, is astounding. There was so much more information conveyed back then, less opinions more information that people could use. It makes me think that our definition of news has gotten away from its original meaning

asdff 6y ago
You can read AP or Reuters if you want more newswire oriented coverage.
- thu2111 6y ago
  I tried that but it's no different. AP and Reuters articles are written in a style no different to what you'd find in a Guardian or NYT article. The problem is journalists as a class, not specific firms. They don't have any incentives to report dry, factual news without a slant.
unethical_ban 6y ago
I would love to see an example, perhaps, if what you were looking at is digital. The way I see it, there is some inherent bias in even the newsroom, but I feel that the information I get from New York Times is accurate and substantial.
- CincinnatiMan 6y ago
  Look at the same topic on NYT and WSJ and you'll see NYT uses a lot more emotional language while WSJ is more dry.
jariel 6y ago
1940's? Try using the wayback machine to see CNN from 2000. You will see instantly how opinion/intersectionalist/narrative it is now relative to then. It used to be Cable News, now it's Cable Opinion. The article points to this: there is an ideological war in the NYT that speaks to their bottom line: "There’s still this huge gap between what the staff and audience and management want. The audience is Resistance Moms." There's also a huge gap between editorial and news at the NYT, apparently, they don't like each other. There are also different editors for each side - there is effectively 2 'Top Editors' so it's a weird dynamic. To be fair though - historically, papers were always very biased, usually in the names of their owners. Rich dudes would buy papers to slander their political opponents. So a mix of crude facts and the polity stabbing each other in the back.

by ajay-b 6y ago

asdff 6y ago

You can read AP or Reuters if you want more newswire oriented coverage.

thu2111 6y ago
I tried that but it's no different. AP and Reuters articles are written in a style no different to what you'd find in a Guardian or NYT article. The problem is journalists as a class, not specific firms. They don't have any incentives to report dry, factual news without a slant.

unethical_ban 6y ago

I would love to see an example, perhaps, if what you were looking at is digital. The way I see it, there is some inherent bias in even the newsroom, but I feel that the information I get from New York Times is accurate and substantial.

CincinnatiMan 6y ago
Look at the same topic on NYT and WSJ and you'll see NYT uses a lot more emotional language while WSJ is more dry.

jariel 6y ago

1940's? Try using the wayback machine to see CNN from 2000. You will see instantly how opinion/intersectionalist/narrative it is now relative to then. It used to be Cable News, now it's Cable Opinion. The article points to this: there is an ideological war in the NYT that speaks to their bottom line: "There’s still this huge gap between what the staff and audience and management want. The audience is Resistance Moms." There's also a huge gap between editorial and news at the NYT, apparently, they don't like each other. There are also different editors for each side - there is effectively 2 'Top Editors' so it's a weird dynamic. To be fair though - historically, papers were always very biased, usually in the names of their owners. Rich dudes would buy papers to slander their political opponents. So a mix of crude facts and the polity stabbing each other in the back.