Come to think of it, is there anything of significant nuance that journalists do get right?
Just getting on the shortlist for a year is a significant achievement.
I've found the accuracy of the pieces to be far higher than most other sources. I'm guessing a lot of that has to do with the fact that in order for a journalist to write a 20 page report on a topic, they have to research it a whole lot better than writing another 2 paragraph summary for some online editorial. That, and only the better publishers tend to be able to afford such research, and they tend to have higher standards.
Longform.org is a favorite of mine because it sidesteps that problem. I basically never encounter a piece that makes me think "I knew all of that already, and more accurately". Journalism that could be created by reading Wikipedia and synthesizing is often wretched, and the sheer need to fill pages prevents that.
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
When I think about the gross incompetence of the average piece on e.g. encryption, it's good to remember that I shouldn't assume anything else is better unless I have a specific reason to think so.
It's also motivated me to start checking primary sources really aggressively. I may not know enough to do detailed analysis on court rulings, sociology papers, and the like, but I can at least cross-check basic statements of fact with the source. And shockingly often, they're just not true. The coverage of e.g. Trump's travel ban was often totally detached from reality - not even in politicized ways, but via simple "never even read the source" foolishness.
It's depressing to realize how much journalism isn't at all value-added over a zero-commentary list of facts or quotations.
Someone should be held accountable in the court of public discourse, as we have come to expect of politicians. It seems like the commentators are the ones who, at least in the presentation of the papers and networks, most "own" the coverage, and who can be the subject of public backlash.
This discussion is a case-study on how to respectfully disagree.
(search for where Tucker Carlson says "Thanks, Glenn." in the transcript. Probably better to listen so it is clearer which text is actually exerpts from Carlson's show and which text is the actual interview)
the financial times has a reputation for not being awful because you can't trade on bullshit, but who knows? I can't actually evaluate.