Both papers have topnotch journalists but it does seem that Times is more defensive, Post more fearless, in Trump era.https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/status/929756564789104650 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It’s easy to see which will be more productive in this environment. Is this conscious strategy or mere personal instinct?
Both editors are deeply formed by their histories and past achievements.
I believe this is accurate. It is also why I have a Wapo subscription but not the NYT. You gotta ask, "access to what?"
what good is access journalism when 90% of the inner circle is made up of pathological liars? if a source is out to gaslight you, access seems not only meaningless, but counterproductive to your goal
"All the Lies That're Fit To Print Credulously In Headlines and Vaguely Question Beneath the Fold"
Both have some fairly terrible people on top, and a lot of excellent journalists at the bottom; makes me suspect a lot of the difference lies in the middle ranks whose influence is harder to spot.
@PostBaron bet on humility & @deanbaquet bet on arrogance. Regards, one vet
Baron is very good at what he does.
Access journalism is sycophantic and useless. Turns news into gossip columns. Turns newspaper into free advertising.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.