[realbarack]

I pay to read the news because I prefer to get information from high-quality organizations that I trust to hire skilled, relatively objective journalists who will work hard to accurately report a story.

So much of unpaid journalism is bloggers re-hashing the work of these big(ger)-budget news agencies, often with less clarity and more partisan slant. Not to say NYT, WaPo, WSJ and other high-quality paid sources are perfect but they are far better than the free competition.

[staticautomatic]

The NY Times doesn't exactly have a consistent record of skilled, relatively objective reporting.

[realbarack]

Are there specific instances you have in mind? I actually think they do pretty good job on the whole.

[staticautomatic]

Sure. Two of the most egregious examples are the early coverage of the Vietnam war and basically all of the coverage of the U.S. meddling in Latin American politics. There's also its long track record of uncritical coverage of the so-called "war on terror", especially during Obama's tenure. When not busy toeing the military-industrial line, the Times is happy to report that there's still a genuine debate about whether climate change is real [1] and that people who have flatly been accused of rape are simply having "#metoo problems."

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+"debate+o...

[anigbrowl]

All true but most people don't want all their news from one outlet any more.

[realbarack]

Yeah. It sucks that there's not a great solution here (at least not one that I know of; I haven't looked to closely at the various buffet-style options). Currently I pay for three subscriptions: one local (Long Beach Press-Telegram) one regional (LA Times) and one national (NY Times).