Fair go TLD it’s still big. Especially on Saturday. And if you’re doing any painting it reigns supreme.
[Slight hijack]
These guys http://www.rsf.org/ have a list of which countries have the most journalistic freedom.
[/Slight hijack]
How can you take “bias” into account when it’s a perfectly acceptable practice in some countries? In most of Europe you have “left” and “right” newpapers, while in the US you have “neutral” papers with little or no bias (snicker).
Seriously, how’s that work?
Then, it’s not a detriment to the paper, but factored in for those who wish to categorize newspaper ratings.
So you mean a Loya Jirga of newspapers?? 
That has never been done, but I suppose tha tshould be intersting. Regarding the criterion that you mentioned:
Factual Detail- Facts change from time to time. Case in point, Jessica Lynch. See how the facts changed over time. People could use this to say that a particular newpaper is not good. Also, tabloids seem to thrive on facts, so that makes tabloids among the best newspapers in the world!!
Prose- Its the age of infotainment, dumbing down is the order of the day, so choosing a good prose will be a tough call. Also, English changes from locations. So American English is different from the English English, which is different from the Indian English (basically a khichdi of the two). Again, given teh dumbing down of the languge in the newspapers, tabloids score on that point as well!!
Slant- This is the arguement to end all arguements. if people lean to a particular side, they are not going to see anything good about the other side. So, in the end, any attempt to judge a newspape ron its slant will be doomed. And may I mention here that the tabloids, again, are quite slanted on either sides, so will have more loyal supporters.
So, in the end, it turns out the tabloids are aomng the best newspapers in the world. LoadedDog, hand me that Sydney Morning Herald
By “bias”, I did not mean the “left” and “right”. I meant the cultural bias, like the Arab press has to the western press.
A way to avoid this is for the site/group editors to maintain a roster of facts accumulated from the newspapers and to datestamp the critical analysis.
Not all newspapers dumb down. Besides, if all papers do it, then the comparision will still be useful in terms of who does it better without oversimplifying.
Slant will be recognised, not ranked.
The idea is rough, not formalised. I think the concept makes for an interesting and worthwhile endeavour.
The Greatest news paper ever made is The Wall Street Journal
Entertaining to no end (Op-ed, Personal Journal, Marketplace).
A source of REAL information (Marketplace).
Real news (section A).
Plus suppliments on mutual funds and all sorts of advice to get you through your life.
The writing is brilliant and the page setups and clear and concise.
The greatest paper ever is The Wall Street Journal.
You bought me. Your idea is certainly interesting. 
i hate newspapers, i hate the freaking paint on my fingers, but if i were to read one it would be The New York Times, of course i live in New York. its an upscale newspaper relative to other sh1t we got here.
Which are the top 10 newspapers in the world?
This question is so wrong.
Care to elaborate?
Another for the Wall Street Journal being in the top 10.
This is a columbia journalism school list of top american papers:
http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/99/6/best.asp
But papers around the world exist is such varied cultures with radically different standards that I don’t see how they could be compared with each other. Even in the U.S., two papers like, say, the New York Times and the New York Post are very different publications for different audiences. Which is “better” might depend on whether you as a reader want stock tables or racing results. And that’s apart from whether a paper’s role in a particular society is to espouse and support government policy, or to oppose the party in power, or to entertain/amuse readers apart from political issues. It’s a safe bet that the readers of the Times of India have very different interests from readers of the Chicago Daily News. And how would you compare papers from Moscow, Peking, Saudi Arabia etc. with U.S. papers? Or would you just look around and see which foreign papers most resemble your U.S. favorite? And freedom of the press isnt’t the only consideration, and freedom doesn’t necessarily mean accuracy, and accuracy isn’t the only consideration either. British papers are free to print what they want, but many of them are no better than the worst American tabloids. On the other hand, a paper in an authoritarian society might be relied upon to give a completely accurate account of the dictator’s most recent public address.
The question reflects a lack of basic understanding of what newspapers do.
You should have the thread before replying. First, your link was already posted. Second, you made unwarranted assumptions as to my understanding and intent.
Nowhere did I claim that all newspapers serve the same niche or that their editorial boards had similar pressures cast on them or they had the same factors in mind. Bombay isn’t a one-newspaper city. I received 2 morning papers and 2 afternoon ‘tabloids’ at home daily. There are about 6-7 other newspapers available, ranging from subtle bias to unabashed editorial allegiance.
The specific functions of a newspaper are obviously localized/regionalized but there are certain traits that can be identified and evaluated. You may not rank these traits in strict numerical order since that would assume that each paper had similar expectations of performance in mind, but you can most definitely form an assessment. If you have read the OP and the subsequent thread, you will know that I’m not as much interested in rankings as much as rankers. The thread title was just something intended to draw attention. It wasn’t even the original thread title, which sounded too academic and more accurately conveyed the OP’s intent.
All fair enough. Sorry about the repeat cite. But wouldn’t ranking organizations reflect their own biases? What particular criteria would you apply to all newspapers? If you pick a story, or even several stories, and compare how different newspapers handled them, aren’t you assuming that those stories should be important to all editors and all readers everywhere? Comparing all newspapers in, say, Chicago or New Delhi with each other might allow you to compare how they cover particular events in those cities. But how would you compare newspapers in Chicago AGAINST newspapers in New Delhi? Even with respect to major international events, on what basis would you decide that coverage of, say, the Iraq war was better/worse by U.S. papers vs. French papers vs. Turkish papers vs. Japanese papers? Even if you narrow your focus to “accuracy,” what independent sources of information would you compare newspaper reports with? Is a paper accurate if it reports precisely what the Pentagon says about casualties? Suppose a paper claims that the Pentagon is wrong, and reports different numbers? Who gets to be the umpire, and what sources would they use? Who would have the status and independent resources to sit in judgment of all the world’s media?
Here are two very different organizations that purport to be U.S. media watchdogs. Each pretty clearly reflects its own political biases, which illustrates the problems I’m getting at:
Some rating organizations simply assume that a paper with a large staff is inherently better because it can gather more information and because a large staff tends to cancel out personal biases and shortcomings. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times are considered great papers, and they also have some of the biggest staffs in journalism. Almost all of the papers on the Columbia list are big-city dailies. But beyond something like staff sizes, I don’t see how other conclusions could be reached without imposing arbitrary standards. It’s not like comparing repair records for new cars.
Actually, being a journalist myself, I belong to the International Federation of Journalists. They have been looking into this very matter, and even though they’re biased in favor of journalists and their rights (not the publisher’s rights), I think it’s a good place to start, with a lot of useful links.
Link.
Moved to IMHO.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
Of course they would. But as long as the analysis leading to the conclusion is visible, readers can decide how much stock to put in the conclusion.
No, since there’s no common ranking indicated. In a collaborative system, readers from Bombay will compare among newspapers available there, rather than with the NYT. All I’m hoping for is a system where each newspaper is critically evaluated. Since it is difficult to present a “general” view of the paper, IMHO, it is better to critically analyse an important specific story to provide a concrete picture. Then a reader who wants to compare Indian newspapers can select to have only such newspapers appear in his/her search.
The important part is that each newspaper has a “dossier” on it that contains analyses along the criteria I posted earlier in the thread. And you have separate tools that allow reviewers to customize their comparision tables as they see fit. Any ranking that the organization provides on its own is only suggestive.
An example is the graduate school rankings that they have at http://www.phds.org/rankings/ Just the raw data is presented, users create their own rankings. The difference is that the analysis leading to the assignment of some of the parameters(like Educ. Quality) is visible