> Right, but how is that worth your time? It's not worth my time. There are still plenty much more trustworthy sources out there.
Very good point, you don't _need_ to read this stuff, and you can go towards things that are "better".
I find that Wapo has decently comprehensive coverage on some issues. The journalists draw "wrong" conclusions, and I just no-op that, but I've found it helpful, and there's often more detail than provided in other places. But I generally do some subsequent research after reading most of their articles. But maybe there's something else I could be reading instead.
The Washington Post has its own ownership problems, as you probably know. The NY Times is an obvious option (that I assume you've considered). If you want a signal of trust, look at their opinion section which is spread across most of the spectrum, unlike WSJ and Wapo; they do have their own biases IME - anti-Trump, anti-progressive, pro-Israel.
The Financial Times is good but insanely expensive. The Economist has a clear bias they are open about and is excellent but not really journalism - they don't give both sides a voice, dig up facts; the provide (succinct, sophisticated, lively) analysis. The Guardian obviously has a leftward bias but seem intellectually honest to me.
The Associated Press and Reuters, but they output too much. Curated news feeds can be very good, especially at finding a range of sources.
Very good point, you don't _need_ to read this stuff, and you can go towards things that are "better".
I find that Wapo has decently comprehensive coverage on some issues. The journalists draw "wrong" conclusions, and I just no-op that, but I've found it helpful, and there's often more detail than provided in other places. But I generally do some subsequent research after reading most of their articles. But maybe there's something else I could be reading instead.