[noname123]

Folks flagged ae_throw's question and got it to be muted (which I found very interesting)... so I'm resurrecting his question from <dead> and answering it anyways:

>Can someone give a reasonable argument as to why we should read WSJ? Or WaPo? Or NYT or any other large publication of this nature (looking particularly at The Economist). We know they post propaganda, spin stories however they please, and we know their fact checking is awful. I don’t think they have any journalistic integrity left.Please enlighten, am curious.

I find it useful to understand the other side and the echo chamber/bubble they are in; and by extension, leads to better insight and critique of the echo chamber my side is in.

As a right-winger (I put my bias forward to help communicate up-front my angle/bias as everybody has their biases) - for instance, I stopped reacting to NYT, NPR and WaPo's headlines and instead just categorized and label mechanically (as an AI sentiment bot might do) what their purpose for "manufactured consent" is; the headline behind the headline, for example for the left:

Many headline news if you flip to any NYT headlines any time of day, you can categorize them as "climate insecurity" (Global Warming is eating up a local area, Maui/Florida), the "MAGA threat" (a minority group is being persecuted by the vengeful "white right"), "neo-conservative foreign policy endorsements" (Ukraine is 'wining the war; Ughyur human rights violations; America is winning against Russia/China bloc and always on the progressive side of human rights).

It helps me frame critically the right-wing biases in my own echo chamber. For instance, it makes me realize that WSJ's more endorsement for "holier-than-thou" free-wheeling enterprise/business is really the equivalent right-wing propaganda to indoctrinate its side against left's efforts to union and regulate businesses for consumer rights and the environment. Similarly, the anti-SJW, exodus from California to Texas theme in Fox News is parallel to the "MAGA threat" stories from the left; and is just right-wing identity politics - just as bad as left-wing identity politics. And foreign policy-wise, both left and right are surprisingly uniform and orthodox to American exceptionalism and interventionism.

It makes me realize that American politics and journalism is at large a game of sports, marketing where both sides hype up the "brand-values" of their sides and vilify the other side; but at the end of the day, the owners in the box seats at the top of the arena have the same values; and the fans/citizens though may spit and belittle each other in the spirit of factional rivalary, surprisingly have so much in common with each other as jersey-wearing blue collar tailgating fans - than the NFL owners in their suites and boardrooms. And this notion of simultaneously gives me both great cynicism and hope for the state of America.

[garrickvanburen]

Yes, all media is biased, from well established outlets like WSJ and NYT to Hacker News to my own blog and a random celeb's Twitter feed.

Biased in both how stories are covered as well in _which_ stories are covered.

The bias may not line up neatly to the prevailing major US political partys' platform or narrative - it's still bias.

Very simplistic example; NYT is biased pro-New York. WaPo is biased pro-D.C. The Economist is pro-EU. All are pro-full-time 9-to-5 jobs.

I've been a subscriber to all at one more or another. Those biases means a solid chunk of their articles are irrelevant or just real weird for readers (me) in a different locale and life situations.

The comparison to sports is apt. Unless you're on the field - sports is entertainment. Same is true of media - unless you care how a story you're directly involved in is being discussed - it's all entertainment.