What is the most reputable newspaper?

Christian Science Monitor.

Reuters
Takes some balls to tell everyone that the word 'terrorist' is emotive and biased right after 9/11, but they've made a point of fact based journalism and they're one of the few crews to hold a really good reputation into the internet age

or are we only posting ironic answers? RT and Sean King are cool too

The Economist.
desu
If they don't write about it, it's probably not important.

fuck yeah

>reading physical newspapers
hi grandpa

>people recommending the economist

Only reason to read The Economist is to read the online comments' section, which usually btfo the article.

btw, Michael Lewis (author of liar's poker and moneyball) was one of the first people back in the 80s or 90s to work out how The Economist works and who the authors of articles are. Most of the editors are known, but the people that write the articles are often current grad students from elite universities (back then, oxbridge). Think about that for a moment, so-called movers and shakers of the business and political world are taking advice from the equivalent of smug bowtie-wearing soyboys who were probably shoved into lockers most of their lives.

Nathan for you is so good.

it's not that fucking hard to distill the neo-liberal position on a topic you specialize on
then the editor adds wit

The AP. Probably because their articles must be accessable to multiple platforms and news sources that it's in their best interest to be as plain and unbaised as possible. AP is literally the WD-40 and duct tape of the journalism world because if a journalist doesn't have the time or resources to actually report on it just grab a story from the Wire.

Wow, leaders take advice from people that are educated? That's ridiculous, why would educated people know anything?

AP is shit. Just the other week they posted a story that used "undocumented citizens" to refer to illegal immigrants. And of course earlier this year there was the fiasco of the terrorist shouting "God is great!"

Not to mention many of their wires are just written by local underpaid and inexperienced journalists who work for papers and tv stations with shit editors so half of AP's stories on ENPS have a million fucking updates and corrections that need to be made because names/towns are constantly spelled wrong and ages and dates get fucked up too. This is basic J-school stuff but nobody gives a fuck because journalism is dead.

Chicago Tribune.

financial times is pretty good

this is the only one I check

this. reuters' commitment to neutrality and objective journalism is remarkable

/pol/ desu

came here to say this
they may be assholes sometimes and you may not agree with them, but they're almost always right

The West Australian.

Is Epoch Times internationally as bad as it is in Germany? Around here it's full blown right-wing politics and conspiracy theories

the wall street journal. more often than not, the bias to which every newspaper is subject is manifest either in selecting stories for the front page (but not at exclusion from the paper entirely) or else clearly marked in the "opinion" section.

tried to read a sunday NYT the other week, what the fuck. there were almost no facts to be found, only feelings. any time the author was not overwhelmingly biased, they instead did a poor imitation of papa, faulkner, or another writer they didn't understand. no discernible clarity.

Nonsense. Post the Faulknerian NYTimes article you read. You just don't like it cause it's too left leaning.

Old men getting breakfast at a cafe.

Wait, were they suggesting that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism?

the sunday sport

This.

>daily news
>worthwhile

this article is one that tries very hard to penetrate the southern consciousness from without. i'll leave it as an exercise to the reader regarding which writer(s) they're aping. by the way, this portrait took up half of the front page.

nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/26/us/fort-smith-arkansas-mosque-vandalism-and-forgiveness.html