Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
I disagree--the Times and the Globe (and the Wall St Journal, just to name one on the other side of the political spectrum) have strong editorial and fact checking controls. Plus, they are well known, so it is easy to identify their bias.
That is not to say they are perfect, but they own up to and correct their mistakes. They are WAY better than "on the internet".
BTW, they do not have the same owners or editors. The Times is a public company, mostly controlled by the Sulzberger family; the Globe is owned by John Henry.
|
When I worked on the City desk at The Globe (then owned by the Taylor family), one of my jobs was to get photos needed to accompany stories.
I was not a fan of Richard Nixon and always made it a point to chose a very unflattering photo...So, even subtle editorializing exists.
As far as editorial fact checking? It was true when I worked there. Three levels of attribution before publication. Not now. Too much competition to get it to print to research facts. A lot of the news today is based on nonfactual reporting elsewhere and then regurgitated.
Mostly newspapers are biased in what it is they chose NOT to report.