4 ms·

I thank you for your reply - I phrased my question the way I did because I was curious if anyone had more than just anecdotes, but I do still find the anecdotes

I thank you for your reply - I phrased my question the way I did because I was curious if anyone had more than just anecdotes, but I do still find the anecdotes interesting on their own. I suppose - absent more consistent evidence (they do a lot of reporting after all) - it’s not entirely convincing to me. A lot of other outlets made the same mistakes (especially stuff about the Iraq War, since you mentioned it - but I think that’s actually a different class of problem if I’m being honest). I mainly try to judge on the overall pattern of behavior because focusing solely on the high-profile mistakes quickly leaves you with no real sources of news left. But, of course, that’s just how I see it and I respect that these examples convince you! The long story short is: thank you, I genuinely do find the examples interesting.

rrdharan 6y ago
I agree, it’s pretty easy to end up in a place where you don’t trust any source of news. Not sure that’s really a bad thing. I still read the New York Times (though I’m no longer a paying subscriber). I don’t think they are as untrustworthy as like, Newsmax or Info Wars or what have you. I just typically prefer the Washington Post or WSJ (sans crazy WSJ op-eds) since it’s hard to unsee the NYT slant in everything lately and I find their shrillness and shamelessness exhausting.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  Yeah - I think “not trusting” is healthy as long as it stays in the realm of skepticism ... and doesn’t cross over into “I now get all my news from random Youtubers.” Which... sadly happens sometimes. :( I don’t have much of a preference between the NYT and WaPo as far as “trustworthiness” goes, but the point about their different voices is interesting to me. They absolutely do have very different voices. I actually don’t care for either one of them! But ... thinking about it - I feel like perhaps some have trouble with a news organizations “voice” and general perspective on the world - and can’t distinguish that voice or perspective from the reporting. My gut says that this is a critical reading skill that is perhaps not as common with some people, and it leads them to think a source isn’t trustworthy. > sans crazy WSJ op-eds What?! The op-eds are where you go when you want to read crazy things for entertainment! Where else can you get that kind of fun?! (I jest, of course).
RestlessMind 6y ago
> ... quickly leaves you with no real sources of news left Or, you can start taking different sources with appropriate grains of salt accounting for their biases. If I see an NYT piece critical of Conservatives / Republicans / Corporations, I am going to assume some bias in reporting. Similarly, if I see a piece commenting on an event related to Democrats / Racial Justice / Immigration / Public spending, I am going to check a few right wing sources for their take on the same issue.

rrdharan 6y ago

I agree, it’s pretty easy to end up in a place where you don’t trust any source of news. Not sure that’s really a bad thing. I still read the New York Times (though I’m no longer a paying subscriber). I don’t think they are as untrustworthy as like, Newsmax or Info Wars or what have you. I just typically prefer the Washington Post or WSJ (sans crazy WSJ op-eds) since it’s hard to unsee the NYT slant in everything lately and I find their shrillness and shamelessness exhausting.

drewbug01 6y ago
Yeah - I think “not trusting” is healthy as long as it stays in the realm of skepticism ... and doesn’t cross over into “I now get all my news from random Youtubers.” Which... sadly happens sometimes. :( I don’t have much of a preference between the NYT and WaPo as far as “trustworthiness” goes, but the point about their different voices is interesting to me. They absolutely do have very different voices. I actually don’t care for either one of them! But ... thinking about it - I feel like perhaps some have trouble with a news organizations “voice” and general perspective on the world - and can’t distinguish that voice or perspective from the reporting. My gut says that this is a critical reading skill that is perhaps not as common with some people, and it leads them to think a source isn’t trustworthy. > sans crazy WSJ op-eds What?! The op-eds are where you go when you want to read crazy things for entertainment! Where else can you get that kind of fun?! (I jest, of course).

RestlessMind 6y ago

> ... quickly leaves you with no real sources of news left Or, you can start taking different sources with appropriate grains of salt accounting for their biases. If I see an NYT piece critical of Conservatives / Republicans / Corporations, I am going to assume some bias in reporting. Similarly, if I see a piece commenting on an event related to Democrats / Racial Justice / Immigration / Public spending, I am going to check a few right wing sources for their take on the same issue.