For the uninitiated, what's wrong with the Washington Post?

The common complaint is that they're liberal. People in my circles think they're a corporatist neoliberal rag, but it's really a matter of perspective. Some people think they're one of the few institutions still doing passable journalism.

Its in vogue to hate on large news sites? All I know is it didn't have full screen adds or "sign up!" nonsense pop up without an adblocker so they are fine with me.

Personally I lost a bit of faith in them after the whole YouTube PewDiePie racism debacle.

Wasn't that the WSJ?

Started with WSJ but lots of other outlets pitched in.

But if you're going to boycott someone over something shouldn't you boycott the entity responsible?

From what I can find WaPo reported what WSJ wrote and then gave plenty of space to Kjellberg and his side of the story.

More accurate to say that it was first reported by the WSJ and picked up by other outlets based on their reputation as a paper of record [1]. Whether this perception is merited, or if the concept is (still) relevant is another conversation.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record

Why be so ignorant, read the article and form your own opinion.

Archived link:

http://archive.is/HiG0l

The title is, or at the very least can be read as such, but the article seems fairly neutral and factual.

Looks like they're trying for balance: "Manning has been lauded as a hero by some and decried as a traitor by others, including President Trump. Her long initial sentence and at times severe treatment while incarcerated — she spent long stretches of time in solitary confinement and at one point was made to sleep naked — made her a cause celebre for antiwar and government transparency advocates. Critics, meanwhile, said she put U.S. lives and operations at risk as an attention-getting antic."

I don't know why you got downvoted, I am with you on this.

Both of you, why ? If it was really about page views, I assumed everyone here would know how to view a webpage without giving a view ?

I'm assuming this is the story you're talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/family-of...

From what I can tell, it reports all the sources that claim that such a contact existed: Fox News and Rod Wheeler. Which other sites are you talking about and what do they say that's missing here?

Because if it ain't fox news or breitbart, it ain't fer me, yeehaw. Washington comPost!

No, because the Washington Post is a political tool owned by Jeff Bezos, and pushes a neo-liberal agenda. It cuts both ways. They ran 16 negative stories in half a day against Bernie Sanders during the election:

http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...

Every newspaper has an editorial voice. It is acknowledged that the Post's is neoliberal, but as the OP is reporting and not editorial, it's a red herring.

The problem is that the lines between reporting and editorial are severely blurred in most publications. Just because the heading doesn't say "Opinion" or "Editorial" doesn't mean that the article isn't packed full of loaded headlines, biases, willful misinformation, and convenient leaving out of certain aspects of a story, usually driven from the top of the organization. I'd suggest reading Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky for more information on the topic.

I've read Necessary Illusions; I had understood they covered pretty much the same ground, is that not the case? Anyway, all of the articles on FAIR's list were opinion pieces. If there's an analysis of its reporting of a pertinent event as compared to a less compromised source, it would help.

You proved my point. Only TWO of the articles on FAIR's list are marked as "Opinion" or "Editorial". I checked every single one on WaPo's site.

That's probably because those are the only ones that were also in the print edition. The others are blog or analysis pieces. Which, by definition, are opinion pieces. One of the section headings even includes the word blog in its name! That seems pretty clear to me.

By who's definition are blog pieces automatically opinion? That's my whole point - it's not obvious what is and what isn't an opinion piece, and your average reader is not going to know the difference or notice. Furthermore it's not like writing an article is like some closed form mathematical structure. A supposedly researched and referenced "non opinion" article is typically full of implicit opinion.

WaPo sucks, as do Fox News, Breitbart, and HuffPo (among others). None of them should be taken seriously. They're all rags that have so much political slant they should be eligible for tax free status as components of their respective political parties. None of them should be treated as "news" sites.

This line of thought is one of the more troubling (among many others) of the Trump "fake news" parroting nonsense we see lately. WaPo / NYT are pretty much single handedly bringing down Trump by constantly releasing info on how he is subverting democracy (thanks again to the NYT for the bombshell yesterday), but since he hates it he calls it "fake", and his supporters parrot this nonsense and it spreads.

Just because they are reporting facts Trump doesn't like doesn't make them fake.

The situation with news is not so black and white.

Sure but in this instance, Trump screams "fake!!!111" when the NYT reports anything about him breaking or subverting the law, then turns around and calls Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush into the White House for interviews, and personally calls Robert Costa of WaPo on his phone when his healthcare bill is about to be pulled.

I'm stating that his repeated use of fake on anything he doesn't like, to get his supporters to only get their source of truth from him is dangerous, and what wannabe dictators try to do.

Sure, but we weren't talking about Trump or the term "fake news".

OP pretty much is repeating the Trump talking point, that no matter how many Pulitzers the "mainstream" (aka: news that actually prints non flattering facts about Trump) they are all political hacks that can't be trusted, so yeah we are....

Those are not Trump talking points. They've been said for decades by countless people, including Noam Chomksy. The OP mentioned both left and right wing papers. Would you think the sky was red because Trump said it was blue? Just because trump has hair on his head doesn't make hair wrong.

It seems you're not managing to even read or respond to any of the points of my posts above which is all about concerns that Trump keeps spouting "fake news" to try his hand at becoming a tin pot dictator. No matter, have a good one.

Sure, I'd prefer not to have discussions that go in circles. I didn't respond to your points because you changed the subject to Trump. We aren't talking about Trump or "fake news". You claimed the OP was using Trump talking points, which I disagree with.

Why should I waste time arguing about Trump when you and I most likely agree on his idiocy?

I'm drawing a comparison with gadget reviews (MKBHD youtube), but isn't it better to get news from an outlet you know the leanings and interests of than of one you don't ? I'm paraphrasing MKBHD here, but I know his tastes and how they differ from mine, thus I can infer good information from his reviews by working out the differences.

It may be less easy to do with political news -which are even more emotionally loaded than an Apple Watch review- than with gadget reviews, but it's worth it in my opinion.

I get what you're saying, and there is certainly a place for that. For example, just this week I saw the WaPo headlines about Trump supposedly sharing classified intelligence with Russian diplomats. Now maybe that's true. But my spidey sense was tingling as I read the articles from all the major news outlets. I saw not one of them was calling for impeachment for what would absolutely be a crime if it is true. And I saw not one of them was calling for charges to be levied, which I would expect people who dislike him to be rooting for since it's precisely the same sort of crime that Trump wanted Hillary in prison for. The articles also mention how the third-party source didn't approve for the info to be shared with Russia. All of this combined indicates to me that the information isn't "classified" at all. It's just considered sensitive - and that's a massive difference. One that would make all the headlines factually inaccurate. And since none of the media outlets were calling for action to be taken, I think they are fully aware that the info wasn't actually classified.

But more importantly, I find the real risk isn't in what/how they are reporting and being aware of the slant, but rather in what they are intentionally not reporting on. The issue at its core is information asymmetry. No one individual can stay on top of everything going on in the world which is why we rely on information sources to sort it out and keep us informed. But they can't be trusted - any of them. They all have agendas and biases. The only way is to expose yourself to information from multiple sources with different opinions so that you can, hopefully, wade through all the bullshit and actually get to the facts.

Also, with something like gadget reviews, you can close that information gap by purchasing it and testing it yourself. You can easily determine if someone is full of crap. You can't easily do that when it comes to politics and world news. And the risk to society with our current media/news system is extraordinary. People follow the sources that they agree with and it becomes a bubble for them that they live in. Those sources rarely ever introduce anything that goes against their narrative grain so you get a positive feedback loop where people's opinions are strengthened simply because of the information they choose to consume. It's like how so many people on Twitter and Facebook couldn't comprehend how Trump won because they 1) don't associate with anyone who supported him and 2) they only followed people with the same political beliefs - so they had no idea what his true support level was.

/rant

"I saw not one of them was calling for impeachment for what would absolutely be a crime if it is true."

That isn't accurate. Trump committing this wouldn't be a crime, but Hillary doing it would be. Presidents have the ability to un-classify classified info on the fly. That's why no one called for his impeachment on that event, and just questioned his competency.

On the other hand, note that when it came to his possible obstruction of justice (i.e. the Comey memo), the discussion of impeachment did come up.