The worst major newspaper?

The New York Times. Professional republican apologists.

NY Times, because it's in New York.

LA Times because it's not in New York.

NYT because their cutesie headlines compulsively exculpate Trump and the Republicans, or at least labor to give an impression of impartiality even when it's obvious the Republicans are guilty. Obsessed with simply reporting what politicians are saying rather than reporting what's going on. Treats national and international politics as one big cocktail party where it would be rude to make accusations.

They all do good investigative work. No Vivian Vance option?

NYT is the best but they are also the most annoying.

The LAT is barely a paper anymore. (I live in LA so I know). All the best known reporters left a long time ago.

Where is just about every British tabloid in that list?!

The NY Times is filled with smart but not very smart people who are terrified that someone might not think that they are fair and unbiased. So they constantly troll the news for any dirt against liberals, even if they have to make a trivial story sound important. Ie: Hillary's emails vs. Trump's complete corruption.

Besides, they also have the worst critics in journalism -- pseudo-intellectuals who don't know how to review because they're so busy trying to show off their intelligence, such as it is.

The financial section is the worst -- a bunch of right-wingers with their heads so far up the asses of their subjects that they make Maria Bartiromo seem even-handed.

Why only a choice amongst these three OP? I'd vote USA Today, New York Post, and The Daily Mail if we can write-in.

Those are hardly worth calling papers r10. Someone once dubbed USA Today the newspaper for people who don't read newspapers.

r11 even in the 90s it was called a McNewsPaper.

Agree with r1 per usual.

R11 Well they certainly seem quite popular in the US, and they're awful.... That's why I mentioned them. Much more worthy of serious criticism than the NY Times.

ALL of them attempt to indoctrinate, rather than inform.

This has got to be Boris again...or just a garden variety Republicant who wouldn’t know journalism if it bit him in the ass. 🙄Tedium.

I think R11 & R12 need to check the definition of WORST, as it appears in the title of the thread. And your bloody points were? Too awful to be worst doesn't properly compute for me. Again, what is the definition of the word WORST? Americans not speaking English properly again.

Washington Post is far more republican.

There once was a time when serious and respected conservatives referred to The Washington Post as The Washington Compost. Funny how things have changed in America. Even less than ten years ago progresssives thought quite highly of The New York Times, even outside America.

r16 page the nurse, your drip is empty.

I'm beginning to believe if there are any real "Borises" on here it is R11/R12/R14/R15. Anyone dumb enough to argue something is too low to be deemed WORST is not a native English speaker. It's simply not open for debate.

Work on your formal arguments, and bone up on your vocabulary Borises!

R20 R21 да да товарищи!!

If you’re defending OP, and his bizarre premise, R20, it is clearly YOU who is the illiterate fool. No literate person, living inside the US, would advance such a ludicrous argument. Lol. Please dear, let us all hear your nominations for a Pulitzer? You do know what a Pulitzer is, don’t you? Smh...

R23 I can deem USA TODAY as the worst, as I'm not American, and it's my opinion. It has been at several hotels and Dr.'s offices here in the States. I stand by the assertion one cannot disqualify something as being too bad to be the worst. You are all just political cunts. Not once have I defended the OP.

Vivian Vance

block one looney and a whole lotta crazy disappears from this thread.

I used to read the New York Post online because it was the last non-paywalled newspaper in NYC. Even the Daily News, which probably has less staff now than the Post, is paywalled. But the editorial section defending Trump has gotten to much for me. I'm not subscribing to the News or the New York Times. I used to read the print Wall Street Journal. Isn't it a Murdoch paper now? Is it still any good?

The worst national newspapers are those that have a paywall. No I don't want to subscribe to your website.

Charge your national advertisers more, bitches! You can monetize my eyeballs but you will not get into my wallet!

None. They are all valued and needed more than ever in the face of a trumpian neo-fascist attempt to delegitimize honest journalism. He wants to kill any free press that doesn't serve as a propaganda tool yet we're attacking three reputable outlets who hold this administration's feet to the fire when push comes to shove? No, they're not Mother Jones, Vox, Salon, but they serve a broader audience and they are generally liberal (in the classical sense) in philosophical understanding of journalism and the responsibilities of a free press which serve us well in these dark times of Presidential delegitimization of mainstream news media that does not toe tRump's line. This very topic plays into the opposition's (and Russia's) hands.

USA Today is the US Magazine off newspapers.

Of the three choices in the OP, there's no comparison: the Los Angeles Times is amateur hour. It has long been considered an embarrassment, irrelevant, and a paper unworthy of a major city. I think the Washington Post is running circles around The New York Times right now, and both papers bear a major responsibility for giving us Trump because it was good for clicks, but they are both in a different league than the lowly, pathetic Los Angeles Times.

R24, well thank you for explaining yourself dear, that certainly makes everything quite clear. Lol.

New York times!

used to read NYT for domestic affairs only, their international reportings are always biased opinions packed as news, unfortunately their domestic quickly descended to hit pieces.

OP, I'm curious why you asked for the worst, not for the best major paper. I mean, wouldn't you get so much more out of comments that tell you why a paper is great? Is such thread out there already? Maybe I missed it.

R35 I asked for the worst not the best because it suits us better as the bitchiest cuntiest forum.

Honey, the LA Times is not a major newspaper on par with the NYTimes and WaPost.

No one cares about the LATimes. The obvious third choice you are missing is the Wall Street Journal.

I stopped reading the WSJ after Murdoch got his foreign paws on it.

Judging from these comments about the New York Times most of the people commenting it haven’t read it in recent years. Things have changed.

[Quote] Even less than ten years ago progresssives thought quite highly of The New York Times

Oh dear. You must have missed the Iraq War r18. The left wing activists have always had a problem with the Nytimes and consider it too establish and conservative.

That said, it is the paper of record. Whether they admit it or not it is the one they all care about.

They are all pretty good and the news pages of the Times represent the best journalism and writing in the world.

The NYT op-ed lineup is infamously laughable, with a few exceptions. David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens, and Ross Douthat reliably qualify as self-parody. I know Frank Bruni has some admirers on DL but he's of the same school of high-minded pomposity. They hire these evidence-averse morons to show they're not biased.

R40's post is very telling of the black and white thinking that is American politics today. There exists many different flavours of "progressives" in the world at large... not all can be categorised as "left-wing activists". Americans use this term quite differently, it would appear.

Lots of posters want to argue, and they're full of vitriol on this thread. I have just made simple observations as a Brit living here. (none of which were overtly political in nature BTW) So many too angry to even allow others to have their own opinions, without calling them "crazies", Boris, or on drugs. We each come to these threads with differing points of view. Apparently if we don't fit with the political narrative, or wish to point out other opinions on American papers, we're not welcome here.

Setting aside politics, no major newspaper beats the NYTimes for culture, fashion, design, social trends, food, human interest.

R42, Trumpster- duh

R45, even if you're right, I don't know what to do with your post.

[quote] Even less than ten years ago progresssives thought quite highly of The New York Times, even outside America.

The New York Times has been trash for at least two decades. Do you not remember Judith Miller?

[quote] Setting aside politics, no major newspaper beats the NYTimes for culture, fashion, design, social trends, food, human interest.

The New York Times "culture" and "human interest" stories are unreadable tripe. I prefer reading the Daily Mail to the provincial, navel-gazing garbage in those sections of the New York Times.

R47 I just pointed out changing trends in reputations... from an international perspective. This is the misplaced ire and aggression on this thread. Again, other than stating my original opinion @ R10, I've stated how silly it is to eliminate one paper as the worst, based on how poor its reputation is, as if there exists another adjective below the word WORST. I'm not arguing the merits or demerits of the NY Times.

There are people and opinions different to Americans, and the opinions expressed here. If you wouldn't cherry pick my post, and include its entirety, you shall see I have mentioned other papers which seem to have had different reputations at different times. This is an odd echo chamber full of people trying to argue with my posts, when I'm not even taking sides. My initial comment was that USA TODAY was the worst, followed by NY Post, and The Daily Mail. I read The Guardian, and try to stay out of American politics.

NYT: Opinion section used to be GOLD. Even up to the late 2000s. Then it all went to shit. Their news coverage is good, but their political coverage is just this 'both sides do it, woe is us, we can't we all be Americans' nonsense. Witness that ridiculous 'meltdown' headline earlier this week.

WaPo: Opinion section was always status quo ante conservative, I never understood where the liberal charge came from for the Post. It was never a liberal paper. Their news coverage is also good, and it seems their political coverage is starting to move away from both sides do it. Ever so slightly.

LA Times: I haven't read it in years so can't comment.

The only reason I'd want to read the NYT is for the cooking section, and I'm not going to pay for that alone.

[quote] I've stated how silly it is to eliminate one paper as the worst, based on how poor its reputation is, as if there exists another adjective below the word WORST.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make by arguing semantics, but in this thread "WORST" means most cloying, most annoying, pompous, and insidious. The Daily Mail, USA Today, etc. are not at all subtle in what they do. They are not the WORST in the sense that people are discussing here.

Again with the arguing R52... Go fix a coctail or take a Valium. I find USA TODAY to be the worst, get over it! Pablum, no real substance or culture... lack of any world news, and appealing to the most simple Americans who need to be spoon-fed an insipid synopsis of the basic goings-on. For such a lousy publication, I've found it ubiquitous amongst my travels through small towns, and remote places. In many parts for quite a long stretch, on camping trips, it was the only available paper to be found in dispenser boxes. To me, it remains very strange and the absolute worst. The echo chamber here, just will not accept an opinion not mired in politics is my point.

I also dislike The Daily Mail, as it is infotainment, is constantly linked in threads on DL, and cannot believe America now has a TV show under its umbrella.

What you call arguing is discussing a topic on a message board.

R52 Just take a quick glance atop the feed... Thread reads:Worst Major Newspaper.... nowhere does it state the parameters you suggest, hall monitor!

Some here are like autistic dogs with a friggin' bone.... Beat it to death already, let others have their say too.

None of OP's options are bad newspapers. I thank God everyday since Trump took office that there are still credible journalists around to watchdog his corrupt administration. Can you imagine what shit we'd be in if the likes of Fox News was the only option we had? Republicans (and probably quite a few Democrats) would love to see a free press go away.

Well said R57, and they are REAL newspapers, appealing to thoughtful readers who enjoy breadth and culture in a newspaper. Aside from politicking, and nit-picking, I'd much rather prefer reading any of them above USA TODAY, or other tabloid rags. In my estimation, they are a waste of time.

I have always respected The International Herald Tribune, which became a part of The New York Times. For culture such as theatre, cinema, books, cooking, etc.... They cannot be dismissed. Not every reader seeks a newspaper for political content, or validation on beliefs, might I add. Still quite respectable IMHO... my "foreign" opinion, I should add. I lived in NYC for several years before moving to Chicago, and was a regular reader back then.

Should I remind you all The L.A. Times was going to demote 9/11 from the front page for an article about condoms in the porn industry? hehehe

Clearly Californians have a different set of priorities. . Plus bareback porn had a longer lasting effect in the world.

well in their defense, after 18 years, there is really nothing left to write about 911, alternative theory? obviously not! A tribute we have read thousands of times before? that suits on the bottom or side columns .

Elitist filth at New York Times. Corporate and right wing boot lickers. Trump apologists and rabid Clinton haters. Helped spread lies that led to the illegal Iraq War. Spent the entire 2016 election publishing Clinton hit pieces as their front page news and fluffy pro Ivanka /Melania Trump pieces in their arts/style section. One headline suggested that Melania would be "our best first lady yet".

And they've employed Maureen Dowd for decades. Dowd is hands down the worst opinion columnist in a major newspaper I have ever come across. I have read long winded "think "pieces in Huffington Post by some half wit millennial that still aren't as bad as the verbal diarrhea Dowd shits out once a week. She always babbles on about how liberal men aren't real men or whatever like conservative men are. It must bother her that none of those Real Men she drools over wanted her. Paul Krugman is great but he's not enough to redeem the paper.

Does anyone read a paper any more except for the theater reviews?

Without Brantley there wouldn’t be a reason to open the NYT.

[Quote] Dowd is hands down the worst opinion columnist in a major newspaper I have ever come across.

That's a bold statement to make in the face of brooks, douthat, friedman. Wait, is friedman still writing there?

r62 I no longer read print editions of newspapers, but I subscribe online to New York Times, Washington Post and a couple of other digital editions.

The Washington Post.

Literally every other week lately their Sunday magazine has had a new adulatory profile of a black social justice activist who disparages all white people as racists.

[quote] Does anyone read a paper any more except for the theater reviews?

I love how Broadway queens on DL always assume everyone else views the universe just like they do.

LOL

Known in the industry as "The Jew York Slimes."

Fascism lives!

R62 does have a point. I'm far from being so theater queen but Brantley is good, perhaps the only good thing about the NYT as 62 says. I used to like Ada Louise Huxtable too for architecture.

The LAT has been on a mad hiring spree so maybe they will improve.

The WaPo has been much better in the last three years than the NYT. Also they should let David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Ross Douthat and Brett Stephens go.

R64, what other e editions do you recommend?

I subscribe to the WP but was unsure of the NYT. I thought it might be to much overlap of the same stories.

I actually prefer reading the e editions of newspapers. When I travel though I like buying the local papers.

I wish cities still had competing papers with morning and afternoon editions.

R72 I also subscribe to the e-edition of my local newspaper in Houston, and you should subscribe to your local to help keep it in business.

I also subscribe to the e-editions to the Las Vegas Review Journal (I hate its ownership but I like to keep up with Vegas news) and the New Yorker magazine.

I sometimes read British newspapers and I have to say that The New York Times is much, much better than The London Times, which is so boring, parochial and Murdoch-y. It has the most perfunctory columnists I've ever seen in a major newspaper, with a Comment section shallow as a joke. I can't believe it's the paper of record in Britain.

R74 Word.

The Guardian is the best left-leaning newspaper in UK. And you can read it online for free (although it always begs for money after each article). I'm not British but I don't think the Times of London is the "paper of record" in the same way as the NY Times is here.

NYT has Maureen Dowed. So I picked NYT.

Her Clinton-bashing obsession was way over the top.

The Washington Post has been out-reporting The New York Times for several years ; has picked off their best reporters; and now beats it in terms of web traffic, too.

I miss Parade magazine...

Parade is still printed.

Just today in the New York Times, Bret Stephens rails against Elizabeth Warren, and they give a forum for Mark Zuckerberg about how Facebook can help the news business. So truly, fuck them.

They're all apologists for corporate Democrats lkke the Clinton's and they are all lacking in strong progressive voices. So they ALL suck equally!

I haven't read much the WaPo. How does it report toward Amazon? I know they have been great (un-)covering the latest DC shenanigans. But is it as observant in regard to Jeff Bezos and Amazon?

The Washington Post is the best people in America right now.

It has been very careful in covering anything regarding Bezos. And has been critical at times.

I'll never forget that Haberman coming to the defense of Huckabee over that "smokey eye" joke and completely dismissing the point of the joke.

[quote]Just today in the New York Times, Bret Stephens

I wonder how many people could get away with writing an article about the "Diseased Jewish Mind" along with an ideology continuously borrowing from that belief which then gets you a job at the NYT where you continue to write articles along that line of thinking...?

It's a neocon rag since the days of Judy Miller. Fuck them.

WaPo is a tad better

The Post ran an article last week about Amazon, their tactics and problems with ongoing counterfeit, trademark and associated issues; they even sought personal examples of problems consumers have had with Amazon, promising anonymity should anyone fear Bezos' retribution. Obviously, they are careful about biting the hand that has literally kept them in business, but recognize that Bezos' investment was purely in the interest of defending Amazon when the Democrats inevitably come back to power and launch investigations (and rightly so) into Amazon's practices, which, shall we say, cry out for regulation as much as any business has ever conducted.

That said, OP's polling struck me as pure Boris. Really, naming two of the three best papers in the world as possibly the worst, and comparing them to the LA Times? One of these things is not like the others...