[tutufan]

If you think the NYT is unbiased, you might do well to read a few alternative sources for a while to compare and contrast. Once you've been to other lands, it's easier to spot the oddities of one's usual locale.

But more importantly, even if the NYT were entirely unbiased, that does not mean that it's good for your mental state to be reading it. Being exposed to a lot of problems that you cannot do anything about might not be a good thing.

[pas]

Could you provide examples of NYT crisis-driven reporting? And alternatives please! People always recommend "alternatives", but don't really provide any :(

[tutufan]

Try breitbart and thenation as alternatives, for example. Sure, some of it's drivel, but after a while you'll realize that some of the NYT is drivel as well.

And actually, if you just carefully compare NYT _headlines_ to their corresponding _articles_, you'll realize that the headlines really are pretty crappy. Certainly nowhere near the standards for headline writing we used to have in ninth grade journalism class.

I really hope to see a resurgence of classical quality journalism. But I'm not optimistic.

[jonathanstrange]

Every news source is biased, and that's no problem if you can distinguish news from opinion.

[tutufan]

Overt opinion is pretty easy to spot. Subtle "editorials" in the form of omissions, slanted word choice, etc., are harder, esp until you start looking carefully for them.