Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: NYT Liberal (?)
Message-ID: <690@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Nov-83 14:04:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.690
Posted: Wed Nov  9 14:04:18 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Nov-83 12:54:37 EST
References: <60@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 21

How many people regularly see more than one newspaper or other source of
news?  Unless and until you've tried it, it isn't reasonable to claim that
some newspaper is more or less biased than another.  These days, I get most
of my news coverage from the NY Times, the AP wire, CBS radio, NBC TV, and
Newsweek -- a sufficient assortment, I'd say, that I can make at least some
comparative statements.  In the past, I've subscribed to two or three
different newspapers at a time, some of them quite conservative.  My con-
clusion:  there's nothing like the Times for complete coverage (though it's
far from perfect), though the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science
Monitor come close.  The Washington Post, though fairly comprehensive, is
not as balanced, nor do I regard their judgement on the newsworthiness of
various stories as being as sound as, say, the Times'.

I'm not saying that any of these papers are perfect, or that they cover every
important story in proper depth.  The Times' greatest strength, in fact, is
not so much its objectivity, as its comprehensiveness -- they cover stories
that no one else even knows about, and their regular news articles always
give sufficient background to let you interpret the story.  And, if they've
made a bad mistake in the balance of a story, they'll print a correction under
a heading that explains they didn't get their facts wrong, but they omitted
relevant data.