the New York Times is the best at it.
I had never read them on a regular basis until I started posting here. I had the LA Times in LA, and did not go to the trouble of buying them also. Since I check their stories online daily, I am getting a good feel for them. The immediate thing that pops out is that they are like the Yankees in the '40s. They get the best people, and the quality of the writing is better than any other paper.
Raines' personal history was fascinating, the guy has been all over the map in the News world. Coming out of deep south, ten years ahead of Clinton, you can see his agony at agreeing with Clinton's ideas, and hating Clinton's personal problems that stopped him from selling more of his ideas to the country.
I think the Post is beating them on investigative Journalism. The LA Times occasionally scores there also. "Atlantic" and "New Yorker" are also doing dense, better written stories on the same subjects. "Time" and "Newsweek" are also beating them. I think their "PC" is stopping them from doing some stories. The "Coverup" of the New Jersey State Police story comes through in the article.
You and I will never agree on the "Slant" question, since our minds are made up on the basic political issues. Because of that, we do not see publications the same way. I read articles in the "Times" that make me groan. You read the same article and could never imagine any problem with the point of view of the writer. I post articles from various Libertarian or conservative pubs that have the opposite effect on us.
So we will tend to agree on many personal social issues, such as individual Civil Rights, and violently disagree on "Macro" social issues, group Civil Rights, and economic issues. On Foreign Affairs, you tend to be a "Dove", and tend to agree with the attempts of Foreign Governments to install "Liberal" social programs, I am a "Hawk", and believe many of the social programs you favor are steps on the road to ruin for these countries. |
