@manton 4th paragraph: opinionated taut “<staunchly> pro-Palestinian” should have been avoided by a newspaper of record. 6th paragraph: “Two Al Jazeera journalists have died since the start of the war”. Died of what? Whooping cough? Typhoid? No Manton, they’ve been killed by occupying forces. Occupying I said? Yes, according to the UN but no to the NYT guidance. Etc, etc.

Are you really surprised people are seeking alternatives?

@san_der Not surprised, just disappointed because Al Jazeera has an obvious bias that could further extremism. NYT doesn’t always get it right but they do try.

I think Noam Chomsky has done some pretty good work over the years demonstrating a pro-Israel slant to the NYT dating all the way back to the 70s. I'm a Times subscriber (it's my most expensive subscription) but I think they are definitely in need of self-examination on their coverage of the war.

Agreed with @amerpie, @Manton if you've never read Chomsky, well worth the time and effort. Certainly worth reading on the issue of Israel and Middle East politics in particular, but also the larger issue of western bias and corporate media. His two most notable works Manufacturing Consent, and and Deterring Democracy are easily found.

@manton I was disappointed in 2003. Since then in a broad sense legacy media has been getting things wrong and at this point, I'm rather shocked they haven't got arewethebaddies.gif moment. I would be surprised if people weren't turning their backs on it. I take your point about Al Jazeera though.

If you want someone who allows perspectives critical of the west in a broad way Al Jazeera is pretty good (and it’s english language stuff is written mostly by western journalists).

Just don’t listen to them about Qatar. 🤷🏼

Maybe ground.news would shed some light on this discussion? It's insightful how even headlines influence the reader's perspective, as click-baity as those often are. Headlines is how most consume the news, anyway.