[pkill17]

There was another example in this very article of them writing a glowing defense of Comcast, which they neglected to put a disclaimer on until a large outcry caught up with them. Where are you getting your opinion that they "usually do a good job of disclosing things"?

[madeofpalk]

The Verge very often does, like in "The Worst Company In America"[1], there's a disclaimer. I listen to their podcast and whenever Comcast comes up (and always highly critical of the company) they recite the disclaimer before making fun of them for investing in them.

But, this article http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14488212/comcast-protest-tr... from Feb 2 has a disclaimer down the bottom, but then this one Feb 8 doesn't http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/8/14554354/comcast-fastest-in...

[1]: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/19/6004131/comcast-the-worst-...

[cmdrfred]

I think the problem is a lot of people go "I agree with essentially everything this newspaper puts out, thus this is great journalism!" when really good journalism would likely have you disagreeing with it as much as you agree.

[richk449]

Of course, since most people don't want to read things that they disagree with, the result is that most people don't want to read good journalism.

[smsm42]

I think you oversimplify. Most peopke are more tolerant to bad journalism if it confirms their prejudices. And doing good journalism is harder than doing bad one. Thus it is easy to get away with bad one if you only care about click and/or only care for one ideological niche. But that doesn't mean there's no demand for high quality journalism - it's just harder to do it, so less people bother to. In nonpolitical topics, where prejudices are less strong, there is plenty of quality content. And if we stop supporting crappy content in political topics, it will happen there too.