> I also wouldn’t call the Washington Post “very liberal”. Liberal, sure, but having
> read a number of notable U.S. papers I think the Post is the best when it comes
> to just presenting the facts (NYT does a really good job too, but sometimes I
> feel like they’re pushing an agenda). Also, it does a damned good job of
> presenting opinions of people from various parts of the political spectrum. It’s
> required reading for anyone politically minded, left or right. Not bad for a local
> paper.
Another difference between The Washington Post and The New York Times is that the writing in the Times tends to be rather dry while the Post works at more lively prose. Even the headlines in the Post are more interesting. Also, the Post has better criticism than the Times. Look at the winners of the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism:
The Post has had eight winners (nine if you count Jonathan Yardley, who moved there from The Washington Star when it folded a year after he won the award), while the Times has had only seven. If you count the winners since 1987, the Times has had only two, while the Post has had six. In fact, The Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe have done better than the Times since 1987 in criticism, since they have had three winners each in criticism in that time period.
I’m okay with a bias in how much airtime is given to issues if the content is impartial, especially since I mostly interact with the Beeb through the Internet, which is a choose-your-own-airtime medium.
I agree with Sitnam’s concerns about The Economist. Its editorial value is that wealth and wealth creation are inherently good things, not just tools to make good things happen.
Thanks! I think “Bringing Up Baby” is one of my favorite pre-WWII comedies.
I was doing a Katharine Hepburn riff, but it didn’t work very well. Also, I’m not sure if I would call Philly Story pre-WWII, but that’s a debate for another thread!
I have often wanted to ask the same question as the OP. I’m pretty much stuck browsing the Google and Yahoo news feeds. I’ve looked at Reuters and Christian Science Monitor and would appreciate your impressions of either of those (and no, I’m not a Scientist).
I listen to bits of NPR daily (thankfully, I have a shortish commute). One thing I’ve noticed that could lead one to conclude they have a bias (towards any side) is that, while I think they do a good job of presenting all sides, they don’t always do so concurrently. I remember one segment presented a facet of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from side A, but the equally-long side B segment wasn’t presented until the following day (“yesterday we heard from Joe Rubiniwitz on the situation in blank; today we’ll hear from Ahmad Abdurrahim…”). If one were to just tune in to one of the interviews, they might assume NPR was pro/anti-whatever.
Also, I’m not sure if I would call Philly Story pre-WWII, but that’s a debate for another thread!