Times vs. Journal vs. Post

I've been meaning to tee up a discussion comparing these publications for a while. Perhaps with Trump playing on a tangential role in this particular story--I certainly don't like the guy either--we can try to set our politics at the door.

Here's the story each had this morning about the House passing a new banking bill. They all generally conveyed the same information, so far as a I can tell. But the Journal and Post did so soberly, while (in my opinion) the Times did so with a tone that suggests an undercurrent of bias. Am I reading too much into things? I actually don't think this is an example of the worst I've seen in the Times and part of the issue could be simply be it focuses more on the personalities involved (and Democratic in-fighting) than on the bill; I also think some of the writing in the Times has a bit more style, which makes it sound more dramatic--but therefore also negative.

Nonetheless, I worry that the Times has over the past few years become more and more liberal (in its news pages) as it shifts from its advertising-focused business model and instead panders to the subscribers it now needs to rely on. (The Post was a bit over the top immediately following the election, but seems to have reigned things in a bit.)

What say you?

Congress Approves First Big Dodd-Frank Rollback

Bank Deregulation Bill Clears Congress

Note: The Journal on the front page of the paper also had a story explaining how the legislation came together.

Congress approves plan to roll back post-financial-crisis rules for banks

 

I read them all every day (retirees have time for that). Each paper of course has its own strengths and weaknesses. The Journal has coverage of business news I enjoy that one can't get elsewhere. The Times cannot be beat for international news and arts coverage. By and large, the Poat, as you might expect, has the most insightful politics coverage (it's their town's business, after all). I also think the Post is the best written of the three. But as far as news goes, their coverage all plays it straight. If there is "bias" that is in what doesn't get covered, the amazingly difficult choices made every day by every journalism outlet on earth.

 

I'd add the Guardian to this discussion, too.

That said, like Michael, I take and read and pay for all of these, sometimes at once, sometimes in series.

I think the Times was struggling with tone and content pre-Trump, and then lost its mind once he announced. The Times so overcorrected its Hillary/Email coverage as to throw the election to him.

Since then, it has become apparent that the Times isn't sure how to cover Trump.

The Post does a better job of it. The WSJ is the WSJ, insofar as it's in the tank for Wall Street and business and the status quo.

 

Disappointed this didn't generate more discussion, but I'll continue to supplement with examples as I see them (and think to post here).

For further discussion, here's a Times story from the other day that bothered me a bit. This is certainly an extraordinarily impressive and important piece of journalism. BUT I would also say it reflects a bias: it approaches the story from the perspective that rent regulations are of course a good thing. I'd agree these landlords have no right to disobey the law, to the extent it's in place. But the Times doesn't even make an effort to explain how these are almost inevitable consequences of the rent regulations themselves.

Behind New York’s Housing Crisis: Weakened Laws and Fragmented Regulation

Here, for example, is what the Paul Krugman (not exactly Mr. Conservative) had to say about rent control* in the august pages of the Times about two decades ago. I find it a bit odd that, other than a single sentence about landlords' objections to these regulations, there's not even a nod to these ideas in the story.

*Yes, I know the Times article is largely about rent stabilization, but the point remains.

Reckonings; A Rent Affair

 

Today’s entry: A kind of inflammatory headline—which entirely ignores that, you know, people actually voted on this Nashville plan—on what was otherwise a pretty interesting article.

How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country

 

Without reading that story, I can tell you the Nashville plan suffered from a lack of regional inclusion, no existing light rail infrastructure, that the referendum was scheduled -- some may say cynically -- on a light turnout election, and that the main proponent mayor had to resign in a sex scandal. Nashville hasn't had meaningful passenger rail in decades, and only the Music City Express commuter line now which doesn't run enough to be draw new residents. Austin, TX and other cities were watching the Nashville vote closely as they prep their own transit plans.

On the other hand, the Trump administration supports the concept Chattanooga-Atlanta bullet train -- but not blue state California's high speed rail.

 

Two-thirds supported the plan initially, so there was a drastic swing in people’s beliefs to vote this down. “Helping Kill” would probably be better, however.

 

Hmm, interesting story today—now all of a sudden the Times no longer seems very concerned about someone rich asserting his rights to free speech.

Michael Bloomberg Will Spend $80 Million on the Midterms. His Goal: Flip the House