Yes. Was it always like this?

The “experts” they interview are so damned hand-wavy and imprecise, it’s like listening to a middle-schooler’s book report.

I'm reminded of "I often find myself [a Socialist] explaining my preference for the pink paper of liberal capitalism over the Gray Lady of cultural liberalism. The answer is simple: by literally any measure, the Financial Times is just a better paper. It covers the world as it is—a global battle not of ideas or values, but of economic and political interests. [...] the reporting is usually more in-depth; the reporters generally have more expertise; the coverage is more comprehensive both geographically and substantively" [1]

[1] https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-t...

That reminds me of another bit I love about the FT: there's very little clickbait. Even the NYT loves to play the clickbait game.

My experience as well. A financial focus seems to up the quality of a paper by a notch.

Yes, I used to get a lot of my general news from NPR podcasts. I can't speak for their general news in other formats, but for podcasts I've gradually cut NPR for FT, the Economist, BBC (selectively), and even CNBC.

Among other things, NPR feels like among the most aggressive advertisers in podcasting, usually advertising for other NPR shows in which I have no interest.