3 ms·

Bias is in every source (although I'd give Reuters an AP a general pass there). Being biased is not a "bad thing" just because it doesn't fit your world view, i

Bias is in every source (although I'd give Reuters an AP a general pass there). Being biased is not a "bad thing" just because it doesn't fit your world view, it expands horizons if you allow other views into your narrow view. And poor? Laughable. NYTimes is a high quality source on-par with WSJ.

ameminator 5y ago
Bias is in every news source, but let's not pretend it's a "good thing" - I would rather everyone be less biased and more open in their reporting. I still do occasionally read the New York Times, but I find that reporting from Axios and local news sources is usually superior, because they have less of this bias and seem to stick to clear, direct facts.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
BurningFrog 5y ago
"Nobody is perfect" is always true, but also a common intellectual defence mechanism that is only applied to your ingroup. When the outgroup shows their imperfections, a whole other set of cognitive tools are used.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  If your side "owns a mistake" and the other side doubles down on a lie, that's not the same thing. You can't both sides that.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
I read both for a while and consider WSJ more reliable and far far less sensationalist than NYT (as of maybe 5 years ago).
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I still read both and consider them two of the most reliable sources of domestic journalism. Their non editorial sections are of very similar qualities. Their editorial sections are both political hackery.
  - shanecleveland 5y ago
    Agreed. I believe the lines between editorial and news has become (purposefully?) blurred, or at least many no longer recognize the difference. It can be interesting to see how headlines and emphasis on news stories in both publications can differ for the same topic, but they both follow a predictable standard. As you suggest, the editorial boards are echo chambers, but they both give time to opposing views there, as well.
fma 5y ago
I had subscribed to by NY Times and WSJ. I felt that reading high quality articles that has a little bit of left and right bias would be the way to go. I tend to avoid editorials, as those are often sensationalized. I've since unsubscribed from NY Times based on how I saw them treat Andrew Yang in the mayoral race. Every little thing he did was sensationalized and take down articles were written. The nail in the coffin was their final piece, when he conceded, and on "analyzing" his campaign it was essentially a final take down article. The overtly negative items from other candidates were ignored (i.e. Eric Adam's tax evasion, and his plans of implementing 300 students per teacher to save money)

ameminator 5y ago

Bias is in every news source, but let's not pretend it's a "good thing" - I would rather everyone be less biased and more open in their reporting. I still do occasionally read the New York Times, but I find that reporting from Axios and local news sources is usually superior, because they have less of this bias and seem to stick to clear, direct facts.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

BurningFrog 5y ago

"Nobody is perfect" is always true, but also a common intellectual defence mechanism that is only applied to your ingroup. When the outgroup shows their imperfections, a whole other set of cognitive tools are used.

fortuna86 5y ago
If your side "owns a mistake" and the other side doubles down on a lie, that's not the same thing. You can't both sides that.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

I read both for a while and consider WSJ more reliable and far far less sensationalist than NYT (as of maybe 5 years ago).

colinmhayes 5y ago
I still read both and consider them two of the most reliable sources of domestic journalism. Their non editorial sections are of very similar qualities. Their editorial sections are both political hackery.
- shanecleveland 5y ago
  Agreed. I believe the lines between editorial and news has become (purposefully?) blurred, or at least many no longer recognize the difference. It can be interesting to see how headlines and emphasis on news stories in both publications can differ for the same topic, but they both follow a predictable standard. As you suggest, the editorial boards are echo chambers, but they both give time to opposing views there, as well.

fma 5y ago

I had subscribed to by NY Times and WSJ. I felt that reading high quality articles that has a little bit of left and right bias would be the way to go. I tend to avoid editorials, as those are often sensationalized. I've since unsubscribed from NY Times based on how I saw them treat Andrew Yang in the mayoral race. Every little thing he did was sensationalized and take down articles were written. The nail in the coffin was their final piece, when he conceded, and on "analyzing" his campaign it was essentially a final take down article. The overtly negative items from other candidates were ignored (i.e. Eric Adam's tax evasion, and his plans of implementing 300 students per teacher to save money)