I can’t help it: Here is the original article at the New York Times.
Here is my take: The NYTs has a history of publishing poorly edited articles with low editing and fact-checking standards. They have even sunk to publishing their editorials on the front page to get attention. The WSJ, for the fact that it has a slightly right of center perspective, maintains high journalistic standards and avoids bombast. I think it’s interesting that one of the NYT’s complaints is that the WSJ does not have aggressive headlines, instead tending toward “stenography,” as if somehow short and pointed titling is biased or misleading. It is not.
I struggle to read anything in the NYTs because the bias is too obvious. At least when I read the WSJ I know that they are reporting facts, and that their news editors require appropriate sourcing. When I read the editorial pages at the WSJ, I know I am reading articles by conservatives. But the wall between the news and editorial desks is reasonably well maintained. It is non-existent in the NYT (hence editorials on the cover). Fake news or not, it is hard to take the NYT seriously, particularly now that it has engaged in writing hit pieces on its major American competitor. It’s a sophist’s style that does not sit well for a paper that claims to be superior.