3 ms·

IMO NPR isn't a particularly good quality source. I'd prob put it below even the NYT, and far below, say, The Atlantic

Forbo 5y ago
Ad Fontes puts NPR above both of those in terms of factual reporting. Then again, maybe Ad Fontes has their own biases. I don't know. I'm not an expert in this stuff, so I typically try to rely on those who appear to be. Maybe I'm just following the wrong piper. https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-B...
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  That axis doesn't say they're better at factual reporting, at least not in the top couple buckets. Look at the category that the Atlantic and the NYT are in: it says "mix of fact reporting and analysis". That says nothing about the actual quality of reporting. In NPR's case, it just leads to the Vox problem of thinking you're simply "explaining the facts" while being completely unaware of the biases, blindspots, and inherent poor analysis you are smuggling into your articles. (For an example of a source that has the same goal but does a better job, see something like PBS Newshour. They've got a pretty thorough leftward bias, but it doesn't compromise the quality of their reporting nearly as severely as it does NPR's). The one surprise here is the claim that The Atlantic is farther left than the other sources mentioned, as far left as MSNBC. I still remember them as the first mainstream source brsve enough to break the taboo of acknowledging that the lunatic illiberalism sweeping the country had a solid foothold on the left too, after a couple years of being shocked by the phenomenon and the media's silence on it. They continue to publish taboo-breaking analysis; I can't think of any analogue the NYT to Bruenig or Friesersdorf.
screye 5y ago
NPR takes the cake for most deteriorated one-good news source over NYT. It is a real shame.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  What are some better sources for news that you'd recommend?
  - screye 5y ago
    I have started reading independent sources, especially those who can serve as 1st sources or are genuine experts. By and large, anyone who reports on something within hours of the news coming out or act as secondary sources are not worth your time. Eg: Stratchery for tech, Sinocism for China, Derek Lowe for drug development, Razib Khan for Genomics based anthropology etc. I also follow a select few twitter handles that do all the 1st source reporting on specific topics. This is super useful for war/contentious zones like the Middle East & Kashmir, etc. Statistically sound sources like 538 and Pew Research tend to be pretty good too. In some cases, reading somewhat biased sources on each side is also helpful. Sources like Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Greenwald, etc., all have their biases, but they have a high moral bar. They never lie, but their biases do make them opine in ways that can sometimes include jumping to conclusions or purposely ignoring possible causations. Either ways, they are a part of healthy media diet. I generally like things coming out of the Rat-o-sphere & Scott Alexander, as they have a high bar on what constitutes a good source or proof. The Economist and The Atlantic have been doing relatively good even handed reporting. NYT seems like it is in an internal crisis, but it does occasionally produce gems when reporting as 1st sources. WaPo/Guardian/BBC have long stopped being worth my time. In India, I really like The Print. Hope that helps.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      I agree with 100% of this except for Klein. He and Noah Smith baffle me in that they seem to be smart but are somehow constantly, extremely wrong, and consistently engage with others in intellectually dishonest ways. It's super bizarre (in particular because my overall worldview is pretty similar to theirs).

Ad Fontes puts NPR above both of those in terms of factual reporting. Then again, maybe Ad Fontes has their own biases. I don't know. I'm not an expert in this stuff, so I typically try to rely on those who appear to be. Maybe I'm just following the wrong piper. https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-B...

wutbrodo 5y ago
That axis doesn't say they're better at factual reporting, at least not in the top couple buckets. Look at the category that the Atlantic and the NYT are in: it says "mix of fact reporting and analysis". That says nothing about the actual quality of reporting. In NPR's case, it just leads to the Vox problem of thinking you're simply "explaining the facts" while being completely unaware of the biases, blindspots, and inherent poor analysis you are smuggling into your articles. (For an example of a source that has the same goal but does a better job, see something like PBS Newshour. They've got a pretty thorough leftward bias, but it doesn't compromise the quality of their reporting nearly as severely as it does NPR's). The one surprise here is the claim that The Atlantic is farther left than the other sources mentioned, as far left as MSNBC. I still remember them as the first mainstream source brsve enough to break the taboo of acknowledging that the lunatic illiberalism sweeping the country had a solid foothold on the left too, after a couple years of being shocked by the phenomenon and the media's silence on it. They continue to publish taboo-breaking analysis; I can't think of any analogue the NYT to Bruenig or Friesersdorf.

screye 5y ago

NPR takes the cake for most deteriorated one-good news source over NYT. It is a real shame.

seattle_spring 5y ago
What are some better sources for news that you'd recommend?
- screye 5y ago
  I have started reading independent sources, especially those who can serve as 1st sources or are genuine experts. By and large, anyone who reports on something within hours of the news coming out or act as secondary sources are not worth your time. Eg: Stratchery for tech, Sinocism for China, Derek Lowe for drug development, Razib Khan for Genomics based anthropology etc. I also follow a select few twitter handles that do all the 1st source reporting on specific topics. This is super useful for war/contentious zones like the Middle East & Kashmir, etc. Statistically sound sources like 538 and Pew Research tend to be pretty good too. In some cases, reading somewhat biased sources on each side is also helpful. Sources like Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Greenwald, etc., all have their biases, but they have a high moral bar. They never lie, but their biases do make them opine in ways that can sometimes include jumping to conclusions or purposely ignoring possible causations. Either ways, they are a part of healthy media diet. I generally like things coming out of the Rat-o-sphere & Scott Alexander, as they have a high bar on what constitutes a good source or proof. The Economist and The Atlantic have been doing relatively good even handed reporting. NYT seems like it is in an internal crisis, but it does occasionally produce gems when reporting as 1st sources. WaPo/Guardian/BBC have long stopped being worth my time. In India, I really like The Print. Hope that helps.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    I agree with 100% of this except for Klein. He and Noah Smith baffle me in that they seem to be smart but are somehow constantly, extremely wrong, and consistently engage with others in intellectually dishonest ways. It's super bizarre (in particular because my overall worldview is pretty similar to theirs).