The majority of what the rags do is not high quality, but a fraction of where they spend their time is. I'd put basically all of the NYTimes' Interactive work

The majority of what the rags do is not high quality, but a fraction of where they spend their time is. I'd put basically all of the NYTimes' Interactive work in that category -- here's an example I was just reading yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groundwater-drying-climate-change.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groun... And here's a WaPo example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2023/takeaways-smithsonian-human-brains-remains-collection/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2023/take... Similarly, The Guardian on the Panama Papers: https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/panama-papers https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/panama-papers ---- Somebody has the report "the news" and that's both untrustworthy and commoditized at this point, but it's not like traditional newspapers aren't also doing any investigative journalism, or intentionally not adopting multimedia methods of presentation.