4 ms·

> We need less opinion in our news diet not more. There still are such news sources -- The Economist, Reuters, AP, etc., rarely editorialize their articles. M

> We need less opinion in our news diet not more. There still are such news sources -- The Economist, Reuters, AP, etc., rarely editorialize their articles. Most other mainstream news sources like NYT, WSJ, etc., are just as clickbaity and cater to a specific demographic of the society just like Substack writers do. So I don't see it as a loss for journalism if people stopped subscribing to, say The Guardian, and instead supported a Substack writer.

dionian 6y ago
Sadly, what you say about Reuters and AP are simply not true. And I agree, less opinion is good, especially in the once-reputable legacy mainstream media like the paper of the record, the NYT, which pushed the trump-hater Michael Steele 'pee tape' rumor (and the idea that Trump did not explicitly condemn white supremacy ) amongst others.
- aklemm 6y ago
  The NYT take on Trump not condemning white supremacy only improves my view of the paper. Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth in that scenario (and so many others) as a way to lay an evergreen trap for critics. I want my paper to take a broader view and then make a decision on best possible info; Trump never convincingly condemned white supremacy.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    He did explicitly condemn white supremacy. > As I said on -- remember this -- Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. > And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesv... If NYT claimed that he didn't, it's anything but "best possible info". You're not immune to propaganda or misinformation just because you happen to be against Trump.
lq313c 6y ago
> The Economist ... rarely editorialize their articles. What? The Economist is almost entirely editorials. The only difference between it and other editorial-only publications like Foreign Affairs is that the authors' names are deliberately removed to give the paper a sense of speaking with "one collective voice". Every article subheading is an opinion, and ends with a paragraph firmly staking out a position. The writing may be eloquent, and the graphs pretty, but the result is a publication that heavily editorializes, while lacking any debate or diversity of thought. Examples from current issue: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/20/bidens-muddle-on-immigration https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/20/bidens-muddle-o... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vaccine-caution-can-cost-lives https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vac... https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/the-uns-peacekeepers-are-under-pressure-to-quit-congo https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/...
rchaud 6y ago
Rarely editorialize? The entire magazine is opinion. The Economist doesn't interview anybody, doesn't cultivate any sources, or ever break any stories. It mostly reads like recent university graduates cosplaying William F Buckley. Perhaps it just 'feels' like it doesn't editorialize because their writers are all nameless and faceless and share the same ideology, so there is never a difference of opinion. Problem with the economy/society/military? Just deregulate and privatize!

dionian 6y ago

Sadly, what you say about Reuters and AP are simply not true. And I agree, less opinion is good, especially in the once-reputable legacy mainstream media like the paper of the record, the NYT, which pushed the trump-hater Michael Steele 'pee tape' rumor (and the idea that Trump did not explicitly condemn white supremacy ) amongst others.

aklemm 6y ago
The NYT take on Trump not condemning white supremacy only improves my view of the paper. Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth in that scenario (and so many others) as a way to lay an evergreen trap for critics. I want my paper to take a broader view and then make a decision on best possible info; Trump never convincingly condemned white supremacy.
- ttt0 6y ago
  He did explicitly condemn white supremacy. > As I said on -- remember this -- Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. > And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesv... If NYT claimed that he didn't, it's anything but "best possible info". You're not immune to propaganda or misinformation just because you happen to be against Trump.

lq313c 6y ago

> The Economist ... rarely editorialize their articles. What? The Economist is almost entirely editorials. The only difference between it and other editorial-only publications like Foreign Affairs is that the authors' names are deliberately removed to give the paper a sense of speaking with "one collective voice". Every article subheading is an opinion, and ends with a paragraph firmly staking out a position. The writing may be eloquent, and the graphs pretty, but the result is a publication that heavily editorializes, while lacking any debate or diversity of thought. Examples from current issue: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/20/bidens-muddle-on-immigration https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/20/bidens-muddle-o... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vaccine-caution-can-cost-lives https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vac... https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/the-uns-peacekeepers-are-under-pressure-to-quit-congo https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/...

rchaud 6y ago

Rarely editorialize? The entire magazine is opinion. The Economist doesn't interview anybody, doesn't cultivate any sources, or ever break any stories. It mostly reads like recent university graduates cosplaying William F Buckley. Perhaps it just 'feels' like it doesn't editorialize because their writers are all nameless and faceless and share the same ideology, so there is never a difference of opinion. Problem with the economy/society/military? Just deregulate and privatize!