The sad part is, despite so many bad takes, ideology pushing, and hatchet jobs The NYT overall still produces comparably some of the best journalistic content out there.
The pieces of the NYT that you think are “some of the best journalistic context out there” might be in area that you are less well read than you believe yourself to be.
I know this has been true for me many times.
Try reading what someone who disagree with the NYT would consider a high quality alternative.
I'm aware of Gell-Mann Amnesia and read from a variety of sources.
This was really a comment on how most journalism is even worse. The NYT does occasionally have pieces where I know about the topic and their representation goes into details that others aren't likely to. Those are, however, not a large percentage of their output.
I've known about Gell-Mann amnesia for years but never experienced the feeling of 'this coverage of a thing I know is terrible', even in this piece. Maybe I don't know much about anything, or maybe I'm a conflict theorist, not a mistake theorist, so when I see them get things wrong like this, I assume it was on purpose.
It's pretty hard to find high quality alternatives. There is the wall street journal, maybe a few others, but not many. I personally read a few high quality news sources and science journals.
Inexplicably many here seem to think that random blog posts are somehow remotely equivalent. I value opinion at zero, and trust a random person to do quality research at about zero too. Trust is earned.
When random internet opinion becomes "news" I suppose we really are in a post truth world.
I've come to respect The Economist and The Financial Times. Their articles don't go viral as much--I suspect because they aren't as optimized for virality ;-)
Ironically Scott Alexander has a couple of good posts about this topic
a discussion on how big institutions that are telling you the truth are competing both to keep their position and tell you the truth with a focus on medicine
Washington Post? It's long been essentially the biggest rival to the NYT in terms of national political coverage, and my opinion is that as of late, it's been higher quality than the NYT.
So does the NYT. The bias of the times just happens to be really well aligned with mainstream liberals in the US so it’s much harder to notice if you’re in that camp.
> The WSJ has a ton of dubious articles. The Opinion pieces are garbage compared to the average one in the Times although of course both have misses
I agree with you on that. I subscribed to both for awhile, but dropped the WSJ because it had less international content, its articles tended to lack background (great if you're following a story closely, not so great if you haven't), and its opinion section was utterly boring and predictable.
If you don't think the journal has rag hit pieces I don't know what to say other than you obviously haven't read many articles or practically any opinion pieces from them.
