No, in fact, many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post. El Pais has far more integrity than either of those and it’s owned by a Spanish media conglomerate.
Yes and no. They report with different biases. It’s interesting to read. But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.
I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms.
I wouldn’t. Most plainly, because they’re read (and responded to) by policymakers.
What are you basing this on? From the people I know in federal and state government, this is totally backwards.
> than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity
Sure, whatever. The point is is there signal in the noise. And for those publications, there is. In part because they create the signal.
That said, they’re written for decision makers and the civically and commercially engaged. For casual readers, a less-frequent and more-entertaining format is probably a better fit.
If you read the Times, you'll notice that for the first week the mostly print the establishment view (america war good) but then after that, they start publishing the more critical articles.
Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda (which is mainly meant to capture the hearts and minds of the young and naive) to understand the underlying reality.
The parent already cited the Iraq War coverage, in which they incited the country to violence with known lies, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. If this isn’t enough to swear you off their coverage, I honestly don’t know what else would.
But to your point, the NY Times has millions of readers and this is a very small subsection of their audience. Which do you think is a more important function of journalism: lying to the masses in a way that is understood to be propaganda by your so-called “experts” or telling the majority of people the truth in the first place?
We restrict foreign ownership of media properties to 25 percent (without review) [1]. Expanding that rule to social media would make sense.
Beijing requires TikTok run itself differently within China, after all [2]. That’s the difference in care that matters. (Facebook’s lack of care in Myanmar comes to mind as analogous [3].)
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/14...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/tech/tiktok-douyin-bytedance-...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
Other countries should logically do the same. If Burma/Myanmar doesn't like what Facebook is doing there, they have demonstrated the capability to shut it down on multiple occasions. Setting aside that their government is a basically-illegitimate military junta, if I was them, I sure as fuck wouldn't let a US tech company operate within my country without a significant local presence that I could exert influence on.