One thing I will say after one week of reading the New York times is I’m learning a hell of a lot more about Israel and Palestine.
Also the difference in time commitment between Monday crossword and Sunday crossword is staggering.
I haven’t read their science section in a while. But during covid they really pissed me off with a dramatic graph showing really big numbers for young people. But the numbers they were graphing was something like the percent increase in the risk of death, in a group for whom the risk of death was very low. So going from 1 in a thousand to 1.5 in a thousand is a huge increase, on the graph, but still a pretty small actual risk of death. (I’m making up the numbers, as I don’t remember the actual numbers, just the part that annoyed me.) By that point, covid rush was already highly politicized, and also, it was clear that the risk was enormously greater for older people. But they happened to massage the data in a way that showed the biggest numbers for 20 year olds, and had a headline about “covid mumble mumble riskiest for 20 year olds”
And I’ve seen other similar things. They have conflated correlation with causation in studies where the WSJ correctly described correlation. At least they usually give you a link to the actual article, though.
But, i will say that as an actual data source, the NYT is pretty good about getting the facts right. They are sometimes squishy about distinguishing between fact and opinion, but a careful reader can do that on their own.
If I had to pay for just one, I’d say WSJ, because their paywall is slightly less trivial to bypass than NYT or wapo.
I do subscribe to WSJ and wapo but I’m often getting logged off on various devices and not bothering to log back in.
One major source for news is the SDMB, though that occasionally leans a little too far to the left for me. Can’t really think of any that I’d be willing to spend money on.
I threw some deserved brickbats at the WSJ, but I should acknowledge that for many a subscription is close to a job requirement. Much of their audience needs to read the WSJ because all of their colleagues and competitors do. A lot of people of varying politics roll their eyes at the editorial section, figuring that it’s a draw for upstate rubes. They eventually realize that they work with quite a few of these rubes. Kevin Drum in 2019 provides one of many examples of WSJ editorial page jourmalism:
Back when the paper was being sold, the WSJ was characterized as a newspaper joined to a conservative magazine. It’s a solid and successful business strategy.
The WSJ editorial page is a key cause of the decline of US civil society. The business community trends conservative, and the reality-indifferent editorial page has always reinforced some of their worst instincts. It’s bad for business and bad for the US. You can be conservative and care about getting the underlying story right: the boys at WSJ editorial were never like that.
The NYT and Bloomberg are 2 competitors in their space. It’s a work in progress.
The Economist by a long mile.