Typically, stories which impact a large audience receive priority over others. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal are three of the top newspapers in the United States and more often than not, the top story is on Iraq. And when the top story is not Iraq, its almost always about politics, American or not. The Times and Post tend to be homogeneous with their front pages but both still maintain a local feel to each. After the obvious top stories, the Post will cover additional stories from Pennsylvania Avenue. The Times, obviously, stays with news from New York. Yesterday, the front page picture of the times displayed tennis superstar Maria Sharapova because of the opening of the U.S. Open. The Wall Street Journal focuses in on business news almost as much as major political and world news because it caters to their audience.
Audience is a major factor, whether people like it or not, in determining the news judgement of each online newspaper. Based on reputation, people whose lives are dependent on Wall Street certainly look to the Journal for news pertaining to the ebbs and flows of the business world. People who are fixated on all things Capitol Hill and The White House will lean towards the the Post to find the news of the hour. Many others tend to look to the Times as a default because of the sheer size and influence of the paper. The Times is circulated around several universities around the country where others are not. College students may be a major piece of the Times audience.
I try to read each newspaper equally as time permits but sometimes life only permits time for one. By default, I will read the Times because it is readily available in print five days of the week.
while the Journal often advocates Though, given each papers reputation and history, the Post seems to be the most 'fair and balanced.' I would prefer to read the Post over the times for news, but that is not always an option for me. The Post helped expose the Watergate scandal of the 1970s and has yet been known to openly endorse political candidates of both sides of the aisle. Of course, no paper is perfect because each is controlled by humans. Whether the Times' and Journal's reputation as respectively left-leaning and right-wing is valid is debated. That is in the eye of the beholder, but recent history would suggest these assumptions as true given each pages Editorial page. Almost every Times op-ed columnist voices on the whole liberal views (sans David Brooks)conservative economic ideals. They did at one point get behind Reaganomics.
Fair and balanced is an impossibility in todays media, even if it were truly ever achieved.
Audience is a major factor, whether people like it or not, in determining the news judgement of each online newspaper. Based on reputation, people whose lives are dependent on Wall Street certainly look to the Journal for news pertaining to the ebbs and flows of the business world. People who are fixated on all things Capitol Hill and The White House will lean towards the the Post to find the news of the hour. Many others tend to look to the Times as a default because of the sheer size and influence of the paper. The Times is circulated around several universities around the country where others are not. College students may be a major piece of the Times audience.
I try to read each newspaper equally as time permits but sometimes life only permits time for one. By default, I will read the Times because it is readily available in print five days of the week.
while the Journal often advocates Though, given each papers reputation and history, the Post seems to be the most 'fair and balanced.' I would prefer to read the Post over the times for news, but that is not always an option for me. The Post helped expose the Watergate scandal of the 1970s and has yet been known to openly endorse political candidates of both sides of the aisle. Of course, no paper is perfect because each is controlled by humans. Whether the Times' and Journal's reputation as respectively left-leaning and right-wing is valid is debated. That is in the eye of the beholder, but recent history would suggest these assumptions as true given each pages Editorial page. Almost every Times op-ed columnist voices on the whole liberal views (sans David Brooks)conservative economic ideals. They did at one point get behind Reaganomics.
Fair and balanced is an impossibility in todays media, even if it were truly ever achieved.
