[benev]

That's actually a really tough question. I think that there aren't any sources that I consider totally good. I generally read quite a few, and find one or two that cover each issue well. For example, I usually quite like the BBCs international reporting, but have felt a bit let down by their tech coverage recently. The Guardian (UK) can be good, but it can stray too far (for me) to left wing tub-thumbing at times. Places like The Atlantic and HuffPost have the occasional decent article, but I don't usually bother with them unless I know I can trust the author. I used to read the FT's (UK) general news and found it good, but it's been a while since I picked it up.

[warnhardcode]

Hmmm, so who do you consider to be high quality journalists? Is it time to chase names rather than institutions?

[thattallguy]

Yes. It is time to chase names rather than institutions.

We already do it most other professions. (Entrepreneurs, artists, Doctors, Lawyers etc)

One's personal brand can have credibility added to it by association with a large publication, but that association does not outweigh the value the individual brings. Especially if the costs associated with that publication no longer make sense.

As newspapers and online publishers continue to degrade their reputation through sponsored content (both off and online) and silly page view chasing slide shows and posts, the value they bring to the reader is also decreasing.

These institutions are failing. The individual or collaborative group of individuals is what will rise from the ashes.