Well you're missing out and stunting your own worldview if you stick to only one source of information (regardless of which it is).

What do you read? I’m an economist reader too for weekly news.

Would love other sources, but it’s hard to find anything with similar depth and a similar lack of sensational-ization found in most news.

Edit: Oh, and global reach. The economist covers earth in almost equal detail for every region. Not quite equal of course, but darn close compared to most outlets.

https://newlinesmag.com/ has been a favorite of mine lately if you wanna give that a try, it's got global coverage and there's always something interesting to read

I think WSJ is a good complement to the Economist. They have good, unsensationalized coverage of the facts. I ignore their opinion columns as they don't seem very serious.

That's just another Murdoch rag, I wouldn't wipe my arse with it. Better no news than his news. You aren't getting any sort of counterpoint you are getting whatever supports his world view.

As they said, you can skip the opinion columns.

You think the opinion pages are the only place he pushes his agenda? The very stories they report are selected to further the narrative he wants. That's why apologies and retractions are always tiny.

With all due respect, have you read it regularly?

In my experience, WSJ just reports what happened and who said what in a very dry way.

My impression is that their news section provides a very anti Republican party view. Note that this is my impression, not the paper's stance. They don't really take any, apart from the opinion section, which I ignore. The opinion section has a massive pro republican bent.

> Lying by omission

I'll admit, I might have a blind spot here because I'm only reading 2 newspapers. That being said, I'm not sure of any stories reported by the other news outlets which were ignored/downplayed by WSJ.

> apologies and retractions

Happen when they happen. I remember a few per month. But since they're so dry, there's very little scope for major corrections. If they say, "this guy said that", there's very little to correct there. Occasionally, they mis-paraphrase someone and have to correct their report. Most sound like honest mistakes to me.

EDIT:

> You aren't getting any sort of counterpoint you are getting whatever supports his world view.

Fair enough, but you mostly don't get any points to counter in the first place. Only plain dry facts. I go to the Economist for opinions and counter opinions. (*side note, the Economist should publish more counter opinions IMO)

This was mostly true 20 years ago. This has not been the case for many years at this point. WSJ is now the print version of Fox News.

That hasn't been my experience at all outside the opinion section, which is precisely what you described.

The main section feels pretty anti Trump, actually. Not by choice but reality has an anti Trump bias ;)

They are also quite good at labeling their opinion sections clearly, which I think a lot of other papers aren't doing. Their news section is basically Reuter's.

WSJ is nearly tabloid quality. If you have self respect, read the FT; if you just want weekend reading, read the FT Weekend (it comes with the FT Weekend too, which is excellent long form journalism but not “news” per se).

of what, bias?

I had been a Economist subscriber for almost 20 years. But then gradually I realized that their reporting on some issues are extremely biased and they conveniently skip reporting some facts to match their intended narrative and lead the reader to distorted conclusions. So I would assume they would be doing the same with other topics as well. I did not renew my subscription.

Did you pick up something else?

Could you give some examples?

The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan as it was beginning... they took an entirely "Might Makes Right" position, facts be damned.