Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl
I own a red hat that is popular around here. However, The Washington Post is dependable with facts, as is The New York Times, Reuters, AP wire, and The Guardian. Their opinion writers all have opinions frequently contrary to mine, but they are considered by most to be responsible with valid information. They are all decidedly slanted left.
|
I agree with you. If I know a paper’s slant, I can take that into account where necessary, but I think it’s irrational to watch or read news sources that are deliberately spreading falsehood that is causing us to hate each other or that is wrong (and by that I mean news sources from both the right and the left). I may not agree with the slant of the New York Times, but they DO gather facts and try to be accurate within the slant. And of course lots of articles are not slanted. If the Times posts corrections, good! If they make a mistake, they correct it and let us know. If they refuse to follow the “party line” from Washington, good! That’s what we should all do, isn’t it? But they work very hard to avoid making factual errors. I read it online every day, though there are some columnists I avoid and some articles I skip.
Here’s an article from yesterday’s Times about companies that pretend to be newspapers but aren’t really. If, say, you own a company, you can pay these “newspapers” $20 or so, and the next day some writer will call you, ask you the questions you want, then quickly write an article that gives ONLY your point of view on something and praises your leadership. I call that public relations of a dishonest kind, not journalism, yet many readers don’t realize that these “newspapers” are phoney. It seems to me that an article like the one below does all Americans a service. I would be concerned about anyone who would refuse to read it because it is in The Times.
As Local News Dies, a Pay-for-Play Network Rises in Its Place - The New York Times