In addition to their long and ongoing history of being shit, NYT does a lot of good reporting and is also useful for understanding a specific kind of perspective. I think if you’re reading diverse sources you will inevitably have to read the NYT if for no other reason than they are breaking news regularly and occasionally covering things that aren’t really being covered elsewhere.
Comment on The Trotskyists Were Right About One Thing - Start a Bunch of Newspapers
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
You have to follow many.
- The Guardian
- The AP
- Reuters
- Big city papers (not NYT obviously)
I would check your local papers as well, sometimes they have national things that are better.
ultranaut@lemmy.world 2 days ago
DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com 2 days ago
It’s gotten to a point where you not only have to read the entire article, as the meat of the story is hidden in like the 12th paragraph, but you also have to learn to read between the lines. Like when that story came out about marines dying in a helicopter in a part of Africa. The story wasn’t that Marines died, the story was that we had Marines in that part of the world, and the it’s on you to figure out why there are Marines there, instead of that article just explaining it to readers. And now journalists in western media also have to learn how to write between the lines so they don’t get canned by the people that own and sponsor our media.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Pretty much the only way to read news. The spin is always present, as long as you know which angles these people are pushing and what their intentions are (and which groups they don’t want to disturb) you can get to some degree of truth.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Oh for sure, they have some great reporters. They’ll never again be in my feed though. If something good comes out, someone else posts it or another pub talks about it. Not worth the anger of it all.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 days ago
YMMV for a lot of these. The Guardian is notoriously transphobic. The AP and Reuters are a grab bag of real news coverage and naked propaganda pieces. Big City Papers are inevitably mouthpieces of the local reactionary billionaire, leaning heavily on the “If It Bleeds It Leads” rule of thumb.
My own local paper - the Houston Chronicle - is lousy with native advertising and reactionary hot takes.
Not the worst paper in the world, but this town used to have no less than six major periodicals of record. They were all strangled by media consolidation. And the last paper standing is barely more than a coupon book for the real estate industry, with a conservative newsletter spliced in.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Oh no, I agree with everything you just said. You definitely have to pick and choose. I have the Houston Chronicle on my feed and it’s one of the worst that’s still in my feed. It barely squeaks by, but it’s better than the rest of TX that I can find. I’m open to suggestions.
Also, most of the headlines are total shit on all of them. The AP is especially bad.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Texas Tribune is still good, even if they’ve been on the downswing due to budget cuts. Houston Landing might have been good, but it flamed out when they couldn’t find enough advertisers or build a subscription base fast enough. I enjoyed City Cast Houston from time to time, but they’re gone now.
sigh
They’re definitely good.