Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (24027)	1/12/2004 2:46:48 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793696

My choice to read the Post on line rather than in print says nothing about my confidence in the reporting done by the Post. I had never read either the Post or the Times until 911. Now I do a full search job on them daily. I think the quality and volume of reporting is better with the Times. They spend more money for good reporters and Editors. The Post is number two in the country, with the LA Times a poor third. Huge drop in quality to number three. John Burns of the Times is the best reporter in the country, IMO. Being on line, and reading the media about the media gives you an enormous advantage. For instance, I know that what I read from the reporters assigned to Iraq is filtered through the opinions of their Sunni interpreters. Who were the former Iraqi Government minders. I know I am not getting this problem with Burns' reporting, because he was too burnt by them to use them. Getting instant analysis from the Blogs of various articles is a big advantage also. There are so many of them, and they link so much, that I pick up what problems there might be with stories. The more I surf, the better my read gets.