[wutbrodo]

I don't know that that's true. I quickly spot-checked this with NPR (a closer analogue to the BBC) by Googling "npr children covid". The first two results were neutral factual information about current CDC guidelines, and the very first result with a narrative angle was "In kids, the risk of covid-19 and flu are similar, but the risk perception isn't".

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of...

[the_lonely_road]

In a discussion like this ‘reach’ and ‘impact’ are the critical axises that have to be discussed. Both Fox and CNN websites might have the same article if you Google the specific thing but one of them ran it in the front page for 24 hours while the other put it as link number 100 after you have scrolled down and clicked more a few times. Millions of Americans will see one of those articles while maybe a few hundred Americans will see the other. I wish there was some kind of service that provided access to measurements on the reach and impact of different topics by the different news agencies, it would be illuminating on their individual biases.

[swiley]

Right, a closer British analogue for the NYT would probably be the daily mail.

[rossdavidh]

You may be correct. Once upon a time, in my lifetime, the NYTimes _was_ the analog to the BBC, and at least to the Guardian, but perhaps what has changed is that the place in the American news spectrum that the NYT and WashPo are occupying is different.

[disgruntledphd2]

It's much more like the guardian than the BBC.

[bencollier49]

In fact, didn't the Guardian / Observer include some pages from the NYT, perhaps at the weekend, at one time? Perhaps they still do.