In terms of trying to sift and acquire information it probably doesn't make much of a difference. It helps to know each outlet's priors so you can distill the u

In terms of trying to sift and acquire information it probably doesn't make much of a difference. It helps to know each outlet's priors so you can distill the useful information. The Drudge Report is obviously biased but for years it was the best place to get the straight dope on natsec because they had 4th amendment sensibilities. Lately I've actually become pretty avid Fox reader because they're bullshit is so blatant it's very easy to discard it and take the value. This approach does have its limits. At a certain point you do hit Infowars levels of nonsense and all useful information is scrambled. Even if you want to focus on an ethical argument I'm not sure how to create a standard to compare them. Who is worse, Fox News who wears their bias on their sleeve or the New York Times who constantly hold themselves out as remarkable while piping all kinds of military and intelligence propaganda through to their readers. Who is worse? The organization that just outright supported Bush or the one that claimed to be a check and then held the illegal NSA spying story through an election? IMO it's best not to choose which is better or worse. It's better to know how to read through both.