[mardifoufs]

In my experience, the Post is basically New York Post/Fox News tier when it comes to the outrage baiting. Sure, a lot of those articles are in the "opinion" section, but even then, the lines between the opinion/news sections are almost non-existent at this point. The comment section is also beyond toxic; it's filled with unhinged conspiracy stuff but from the blue side. At least the New York Times, as much as it's flawed, still has a much better "normal news" section and it's opinion section isn't filled with the most outrage baiting low tier tribal articles. Its international coverage is miles ahead of the wapo, too. The WP is cheaper for a reason.

[jmckib]

The op-eds are clearly labeled as such (which I'm thankful for because I have no interest in reading them with the occasional exception). There are also clearly labeled "Analysis" and "Perspective" articles that can sometimes blur the lines between news and opinion, though the Analysis articles are some of my favorite because I find they are trustworthy, and I don't have time to analyze and interpret everything happening in the news myself.

Outside of that, I find the coverage to be pretty neutral or maybe center-left, but definitely factual and not outrage baiting. WSJ is even more neutral, but I find that WaPo has better politics coverage (while WSJ has better business coverage). NYT is similar to WaPo, but IMO a little less neutral with the way its headlines are written. NYT is still a great paper though.