Yes, WaPo is the best set of actual journalists currently, especially investigative stuff.
Agreed. Be careful to separate the opinion and editorial pieces from the news reporting, though. It’s labeled, but it’s intermixed on the front-page layout, so can be easy to miss if you’re scanning quickly.
Yes, particularly ignore regular columns by Marc Thiessen and Hugh Hewitt. They are consistently vile in their views, really wish the Post would drop them.
My problems with the NYTimes extend beyond op-eds, it’s how much of their reporting leading up to and following the 2016 election has been framed. It’s not all bad, but there’s enough bad that just infuriates me.
Washington Post is better and is one of the few places that still do quality investigative reporting. They have their clickbait idiots in the Op-Ed section as well, but they’re easy to ignore.
Yes, it’s clear that the personal politics of their editorial staff have leaked into their news coverage to the point where much of their political news reporting is slanted and unreliable. This manifests itself in their choices about what to report and how to report it.
I disagree. I cancelled my sub because it’s all trump and there is no followup. I’m sick and tired of news media chasing the rabbit and few pursuing these leads. You rarely hear of any investigative work being done. It’s all about the moment.
Washington Post is just better funded. They routinely regurgitate / reword articles as any other media organization.
I’ve given up on the media.
Of course it’s all our fault. They are rewarded for clicks and we keep clicking.
The irony of this is just staggering.
I canceled WaPo after the first year as I didn’t want to be helping to perpetuate the likes of Thiessen and Hewitt.
I hear you. It’s a balance for me, I despise that they give idiots like that space to write clickbait articles but on the other hand they’re one of the few sources of serious investigative journalism these days.
WaPo is the best of many poor choices, imho.
I also like The Atlantic, but only go there sparingly. When I do, however, I’m usually blown away by the depth of articles.
My bad…he’s at New York now, forgot.
OK to The Atlantic, then!
WaPo is a fine newspaper.
Virtually, everyone of the Post 'scenter or right-wing columnist, George Will, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Kathleen Parker, Micheal Gearson, and Megan McCardle (I’ve probably missed a couple) is a Never Trumper.
Even the two who aren’t Thiessen and Hewitt occasionally write critical articles about Trump. If you are triggered by them, I think that says a hell of lot more about your determination to live in a bubble than it does about the WashingtonPost.
I think WSJ reporting on the Ukraine affair, in addition to them breaking the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal story proves they are still first-class news organization.
I also really like The Altantic but their decision to put up a paywall means I read it a lot less.
Yeah, no. I don’t live in a bubble, all I have is conservative local media and conservative colleagues and coworkers. Those two are trash.
How many of those folks to you actually read or listen to?
Theissen is pretty useless, but even he is right sometimes. Hewitt is a very smart guy and occasionally makes some valid points, but most importantly his political analysis is very good.
I’m fine with people not reading either columnist, I often skip their columns, but not reading a newspaper because they dare to provide their readers with a Republican perspective. That’s just silly.
NO THY ENEMY.
A good number of them! I’m always reading the local media and discussing the current situation with colleagues and family (the latter not often by choice, hah).
I find conservative perspectives can be valuable, but not Republican. Not in 2019. If you feel it’s is value to read their propaganda, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Hewitt and Theissen are often (not always) in that category, IMO.
Here’s a sampling (not all his articles) of Hewitt’s garbage over the summer. His response to all those shootings in Texas was to… blame Democrats for dividing us? Not Trump’s rhetoric?
I think this is an important distinction. To not be living in a bubble, you have to be willing to read actual arguments for why climate change is fake science, or why immigration is bad, or why reducing income taxation at the top bracket is a good thing. Voluntarily reading spin or political propaganda, which is what paper opinion pieces usually are: reacting to some daily event and putting a spin on it to push some agenda, is useless for your own intellectual development. That’s my 2c anyway.
It reminds me of growing up in a group of conservative Christians at school. They were all living in a bubble because they refused to read anything written by atheists or even Christians that had different perspectives on things.
Meanwhile, Politico is fluffing McConnell as hard as they can: " ‘Ice in his veins’: McConnell steers GOP through Trump’s Ukraine scandal"
McConnell didn’t block a resolution calling for the release of the whistleblower complaint. Other than that, here’s everything he’s done to “steer the GOP” through this crisis: fuck and all.
… But surely the point of the article must be that McConnell has a clear and decisive plan to salvage his party’s reputation for the future?
Nope. If he has any plans to deal with the dumpster fire, he hasn’t bothered to tell anyone.
But what does McConnell think about the very real possibility that his chamber will have to hold an impeachment trial in the coming months? Long-serving senators say they’ve given up trying to divine his next move. “If he’s concerned about it, nobody should ever know,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) “And if he’s not concerned about it, you’re not going to know.” Plus, McConnell knows whatever he tells his members at party meetings may go public, so he’s keeping even many in his own party on their toes.
In other words, he’s doing fuck and all. But, according to Politico, he’s doing nothing cooly, calmly, authoritatively. He’s doing nothing like only a true genius can!
If the table were turned and this was happening to Democrats, the headline would of course be, “Senate leader stands by helpless and indecisive as party self-destructs.”
I said his political analysis was good, meaning how such and such action will be viewed by the base and the middle. He does this more often on Meet the Press than in print. There is probably a reason, that he appears on plenty of liberal media outlet and it is not his his dashing good looks.
Hugh was right for instance in his June 8th column about Trump winning on the border, Several of his policy like making folks wait in Mexico were popular, and the concession that Mexico made agreeing to deploying significant number of troops on their southern border, even made a lot of sense to me. . So I have to imagine they were very popular among both the base and the independents. Notice Hugh didn’t defend the family separation policy, unlike Theisan who I believe did…
You’re right we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you think Huge Hewitt is Trump propagandist as opposed to a Republican pundit, than what do you call Kelly Ann, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, and folks of Fox and Friends?.
I can understand the objections if any of those folks were given columns on the Washington Post.
Every single one of them, including Hugh Hewitt and Marc Theissen, are at best characterless grifters who will say anything for a buck, and at worse genuinely evil human beings. This is not a hard question to answer!