New York Times or Washington Post

[+ SundayZip]

I've had an online subscription to the Washington Post for quite a few years. This is in addition to my midwestern home town newspaper which also leans liberal. But I'm considering cancelling the Post and subscribing to the New York Times instead. Why? I consider myself a progressive and very much agree with the Post's progressive leanings, but I wonder if reading the Post everyday puts me in a liberal echo chamber -- sort of a less extreme version of what Fox News is to ultra conservatives. To New York Times and/or Washington Post readers, what's your take on this? Have you ever compared the Times to the Post?

[mike carey]

@SundayZip I subscribe to both at the moment (and to The Australian [which includes the WSJ] and the Economist) and both the NYT and the Post seem about the same to me. You have some good articles in both. I lean a little towards the NYT because they have an Australian bureau and its head is on the TV here from time to time, and both there and in 'print' he brings an outside perspective to some Australian political stories. That, of course, is not relevant to your decision. Both allow a certain number of free articles to nonsubscribers, so you're not cutting yourself off completely by not subscribing. I guess whether that approach works for you depends on whether you go to the site and look through it, or as I more often do, rely on social media postings about their articles and mainly read those to which you have been alerted.

[JayCeeKy]

I get digital NYT which I am not willing to do w/out. I am tempted to subscribe to WAPO b/c of their great political coverage. Watch this guy's comparison of the two:

 

[+ Lucky]

I know that @SundayZip is asking a specific question, but if anyone is interested there was another thread on newspapers in general:

https://m4m-forum.org/threads/does-anyone-here-pay-for-print-news-newspaper.160232/#post-1981840

 

In that thread I wrote that my sister and I liked the WaPo more than the NYT. However, I have changed my mind since then.

[JayCeeKy]

n that thread I wrote that my sister and I liked the WaPo more than the NYT. However, I have changed my mind since then.

Could you elaborate, e.g. what changed your mind?

[+ Lucky]

I had let my NYT subscription lapse, but finally restarted and realized that I liked the layout better. The WaPo is also a bit more strident. They are the MSNBC of print, or so I think.

[+ nycman]

If your looking to the NYTimes to escape a “liberal echo chamber”, I’d suggest you keep looking.

In the last 5-10 years, I’d say it’s become exactly that.

Any outside or opposing view points are aggressively suppressed and/or attacked.

It’s a shame, it was once a great and balanced newspaper that I greatly respected.

[Lazarus]

I subscribe to & enjoy both of them.

[dbar123]

I have both but spend 90% of my time reading the NYT. Better business section.

 

Actually thinking of dropping WAPO in favor of the WSJ. Used to have the digital subscription and dropped it because it was pricey but they had a more balanced coverage of certain stories and I really miss it.

[+ Lucky]

WSJ and NYT both have new subscriber offers of $20 monthly for a year. The Times offer includes the Sunday print edition. The Journal offers all six days of print and digital.

[+ oldNbusted]

I get WaPo (and The Economist, among others). My long term impression of WaPo is they like to be a thorn in the side of whoever is in power, which like it or not, has been conservatives lately. Maybe that's off base these days?

 

the Economist

 

I always said you were smart!

[Rod Hagen]

Me, NyTimes since 1991

[mike carey]

I always said you were smart!

If I am smart it's because I read the Economist not the reverse.

[JayCeeKy]

Both the "AllSides" rating of bias in media and "MediaBiasFactCheck" rate "The Gray Lady" as a "lean left" or "left center" media outlet. No surprise there. But then, I lean left too (no double entendre intended) which is why I read it every day - same reason that Trump watches Fox News and the pope reads L'Osservatore Romano - probably some form of "confirmation bias" in our preferred sources of news.

 

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

[+ FrankR]

If your looking to the NYTimes to escape a “liberal echo chamber”, I’d suggest you keep looking.

In the last 5-10 years, I’d say it’s become exactly that.

Any outside or opposing view points are aggressively suppressed and/or attacked.

It’s a shame, it was once a great and balanced newspaper that I greatly respected.

I’ve heard people say this around the water cooler. It’s not been my experience - have been a subscriber for the past 16 years. Just off the top of my head I can remember 3 instances where the NYT received criticism for allowing right-leaning op eds, unflattering analysis or “tone deaf” pieces from the...shall we say ’overly politically correct’. I am happy with the contents and balance they are striving for.

[+ bigjoey]

What has been obvious for some time broke out into the open this year: There is open antisemitism at The NY Times and their news reporting has become very biased. What should have been kept to the editorial pages has infected the news department.

https://www.thejc.com/news/us/bari-weiss-resigns-claiming-bullying-at-new-york-times-1.501577

[+ SundayZip]

Thanks all for the feedback so far. The youtube from from @JayCeeKy does a great job of listing differences:

 

Ownership: the Post, of course, is Jeff Bezos. Although the NYT is publicly traded, controlling ownership is a the Ochs-Sulzberger family. (ownership is not a deciding factor for me)

Number of subscribers: NYT has twice the number of paying subscribers. (not a deciding factor for me)

Number of articles per day: NYT publishes about 250 articles per day. The Post is twice that at about 500 per day. You might think this is a plus for the Post, but part of the reason for the larger number is they include a lot more opinion pieces from outside contributors. Not that I disagree with most of the opinion pieces, but it gets a bit repetitive for me. (pushing me towards the NYT)

Content: The general consensus is that the Post does a slightly better job as political coverage. The NYT has more international content and therefore a more international appeal. (I'm a bit burnt out on politics these days and like the idea of a more international focus).

 

Looks like I'll be switching to the NYT.

 

PS. I really like the guy in the youtube video--not in a major hard-on sort of way, but he has a certain geeky quality that I find appealing. I just subscribed to his youtube channel.

[+ FrankR]

What has been obvious for some time broke out into the open this year: There is open antisemitism at The NY Times and their news reporting has become very biased. What should have been kept to the editorial pages has infected the news department.

https://www.thejc.com/news/us/bari-weiss-resigns-claiming-bullying-at-new-york-times-1.501577

She is of course entitled to her opinion. The problem I sometimes have with relating to Bari Weiss is that she has been crying wolf for so long (basically everywhere she has studied and worked except for her time in Israel) that one has to wonder if she is truly seeing the big picture or caught up in tunnel vision. I appreciated her pieces, but her history as a rather militant pro-Israel commentator does tend to rub people the wrong way. Her comments are protected under free speech but she seems to forget that free speech isnt consequence free. ??‍♂️

 

Anti-semitism is undoubtably alive and well (sadly), but how you define anti-semitism it is also important. But that is a different topic for a different day.

Edited November 18, 2020 by FrankR

[Bucky]

Both focused heavily on Trumpism for almost 5 years. Now that Biden is in, it will be interesting to see how their identities will shift.

In other words, Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results.

[+ bigjoey]

She is of course entitled to her opinion. The problem I sometimes have with relating to Bari Weiss is that she has been crying wolf for so long (basically everywhere she has studied and worked except for her time in Israel) that one has to wonder if she is truly seeing the big picture or caught up in tunnel vision. I appreciated her pieces, but her history as a rather militant pro-Israel commentator does tend to rub people the wrong way. Her comments are protected under free speech but she seems to forget that free speech isnt consequence free. ??‍♂️

 

Anti-semitism is undoubtably alive and well (sadly), but how you define anti-semitism it is also important. But that is a different topic for a different day.

 

In the Jewish community, there has been a feeling that antisemitism was alive and well at the Times in specific and the country in general. The Bari Weiss affair just brought it out in the open.

 

 

Here are more instances of antisemitism at the Times:

https://www.camera.org/article/does-the-ny-times-have-a-problem-recognizing-antisemitism/

Antisemitism there goes far beyond Bari Weiss. The Times, as the article shows in its specific examples, is infected with antisemitism.

 

Perhaps praising Louis Farrakhan (without mentioning his rabid antisemitism) shows the editors at the Times are blind to antisemitism or antisemitic themselves:

https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/new-york-times-criticized-for-positive-op-ed-on-antisemite-louis-farrakan-646336/amp

And:

https://honestreporting.com/nyt-op-ed-sanitizes-farrakhans-ferocious-antisemitism/

 

Clearly, the editors at the Times need an education:

https://www.ajc.org/news/5-things-the-new-york-times-got-wrong-about-antisemitism

 

The antisemitism even shows up off their printed pages in their tweets:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/430069/new-york-times-anti-semitic-racist-tweets/?gamp

Edited November 18, 2020 by bigjoey

[Rod Hagen]

In the Jewish community, there has been a feeling that antisemitism was alive and well at the Times in specific and the country in general. The Bari Weiss affair just brought it out in the open.

 

 

Here are more instances of antisemitism at the Times:

https://www.camera.org/article/does-the-ny-times-have-a-problem-recognizing-antisemitism/

Antisemitism there goes far beyond Bari Weiss. The Times, as the article shows in its specific examples, is infected with antisemitism.

 

Perhaps praising Louis Farrakhan (without mentioning his rabid antisemitism) shows the editors at the Times are blind to antisemitism or antisemitic themselves:

https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/new-york-times-criticized-for-positive-op-ed-on-antisemite-louis-farrakan-646336/amp

And:

https://honestreporting.com/nyt-op-ed-sanitizes-farrakhans-ferocious-antisemitism/

 

Clearly, the editors at the Times need an education:

https://www.ajc.org/news/5-things-the-new-york-times-got-wrong-about-antisemitism

 

The antisemitism even shows up off their printed pages in their tweets:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/430069/new-york-times-anti-semitic-racist-tweets/?gamp

 

The New York Times, while possibly diminished currently, remains the best source for longform journalism combined with breaking news, as well as the best, and this is the most important to me, investigative journalists, math wonks, and global news.

 

Additionally, every link you posted makes a point and also nobody with a brain would deny that that cartoon was just awful. Further, twitter does nothing but get people and companies in trouble; I wish it would disappear and I know it won't, I don't have that power.

 

Yes, the New York times gets facts wrong, and yes that happens to all papers more often these days. Yes, the NYTimes lost some giants, and I miss them terribly.

 

I loved Bari Weiss's articles on Israel, a country I like very much. I was skeptical of her complaints about bullying only because it seemed as if she needed to pick a lane: were people her age and younger becoming too sensitive (generally, not regarding Israel), which she often argued, or too insensitive? It's hard to make a case that both are true. That's not to imply the internal bullying against her didn't happened, Slack is a horrible bitch-fest. Many suspect she left to join forces with Andrew Sullivan in some new venture. I guess we will have to wait and see with that one. Taking your toys and leaving, VERY LOUDLY, does not seem very graceful.

 

If I hated everything about The New York Times I would continue reading it for Jeffrey Gettleman a master writer, reporter, human being, and bureau chief.

[Rod Hagen]

The Economist

I always said you were smart!

 

Every article is good, every one, and books are my priority, therefore short flights are the only time I can get through the Economist, so unless consistently I'm flying 3 or 4 times a month, which has not been the case for years, it's just not worth the expense and frustration, they pile up making it impossible to fuck guys on the edge of my desk. Priorities.

[+ bigjoey]

The New York Times, while possibly diminished currently, remains the best source for longform journalism combined with breaking news, as well as the best, and this is the most important to me, investigative journalists, math wonks, and global news.

 

Additionally, every link you posted makes a point and also nobody with a brain would deny that that cartoon was just awful. Further, twitter does nothing but get people and companies in trouble; I wish it would disappear and I know it won't, I don't have that power.

 

Yes, the New York times gets facts wrong, and yes that happens to all papers more often these days. Yes, the NYTimes lost some giants, and I miss them terribly.

 

I loved Bari Weiss's articles on Israel, a country I like very much. I was skeptical of her complaints about bullying only because it seemed as if she needed to pick a lane: were people her age and younger becoming too sensitive (generally, not regarding Israel), which she often argued, or too insensitive? It's hard to make a case that both are true. That's not to imply the internal bullying against her didn't happened, Slack is a horrible bitch-fest. Many suspect she left to join forces with Andrew Sullivan in some new venture. I guess we will have to wait and see with that one. Taking your toys and leaving, VERY LOUDLY, does not seem very graceful.

 

If I hated everything about The New York Times I would continue reading it for Jeffrey Gettleman a master writer, reporter, human being, and bureau chief.

Richard Wagner wrote some of the world’s best music. Truly a great composer. However, he was a terrible antisemitic man.

 

Likewise, The NY Times is a good newspaper as you point out but the staff and editors lean antisemitic and their news coverage is biased with their antisemitism. I do read it but no longer buy it as I will not send them money.

 

While my accusation against the paper may come as a surprise to some, for Jews who read Jewish news sources, the antisemitism at the Times has been ongoing for some time. I linked to only a few of the examples to show that there is a factual basis for my belief.

 

I grew up reading the Times. Seeing how they have changed over the years has been very sad to me. They are now reflecting the open antisemitism that is growing in this country.?

[mike carey]

Every article is good, every one, and books are my priority, therefore short flights are the only time I can get through the Economist, so unless consistently I'm flying 3 or 4 times a month, which has not been the case for years, it's just not worth the expense and frustration, they pile up making it impossible to fuck guys on the edge of my desk. Priorities.

You're absolutely right to prioritise space on your desk for professional development, and I too have copies of the paper piling up unread. They have not, however, had the same unfortunate effect on my quality of life. (And no, I'm not saying that I have space for 'that', rather that I can't blame a pile of Economists for whatever I can or can't do in certain aspects of my life.) That said, I suspect I still read as much of its content as when I had the time to tackle the printed paper. I used to take it to a local cafe and sit for a couple of hours over a meal and a couple of flat whites and read it through. I still take the printed edition, but I also have a digital subscription (which you can take out without the print) and through the Economist's active tweeting of articles I read a lot of its content on line. I'm still reluctant to cancel the print subscription I've had since 1986. Perhaps you could take out a digital subscription and buy a copy at the newsstand on your way to those flights you still take.

[JayCeeKy]

Likewise, The NY Times is a good newspaper as you point out but the staff and editors lean antisemitic and their news coverage is biased with their antisemitism. I do read it but no longer buy it as I will not send them money.

Very odd that a newspaper owned by a Christian/Jewish family permits such antisemitism. Interesting article about the family and its Jewish faith vis-a-vis antisemitism:

 

https://www.aish.com/ci/s/The-Jewish-Owner-of-The-New-York-Times.html