For general news, I read the NYTimes in the morning (daily newsletter and California newsletter, which gives me broad updates), WSJ (market and business news, and a lot of great details), the Economist (I like some articles are anonymous, others broad analysis), The Athletic for sports (recently purchased by the Times), and the SF Chronicle for local news.

Sometimes, I read BBC (they seem to break the news faster than most) and ProPublica (excellent in-depth journalism, which pairs well with the Atlantic for me). I still love my RSS feeds, which keep me up-to-date on all my niche news: from MacStories to CBR to The Verge.

One side comment about NYT: they have some good options for different languages and other countries, which seems to get missed. Their Chinese language site and app (simplified and traditional) come with cross-translations in English as a learning tool.

Separate point, sometimes I use https://www.allsides.com – I like to see how different papers publish headlines and content on the same topic. Can be both disturbing and insightful.

I've seen this comment on Mastodon and he did actually write "still so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable even by those who see how broken it is" — the problem he identified is that FB & the Times are both problematic yet unavoidable. He also posted it to Bluesky but I saw it on Threads first.

I worked there for 22 years. They are certainly doing something right because they survived the destruction of the local/regional/city newspaper. In my view they are not doing the "report the news" thing right and arguably never have. My perspective? The right's protests against their coverage are generally posture and almost comically cynical. The left's protests are generally not cynical and are well-founded. Look at coverage of trans issues, the middle east, and a million other things the whole way back to their non-reportage on the bombing of Cambodia (while their lead Vietnam correspondant was fostering a life-long friendship with Kissinger and his wife of all things...)

This is a good piece by Roth. However, the whole time, I thought, "What would David LEE Roth think?"

I totally agree. His statement feels like a hot take to get engagement, which is maybe what he also accusing the NYTimes of? It feels like punching down, insulting people that read the Times - and punching down just makes me dismiss whatever actual point someone may be trying to make.

I am not 100% certain, but knowing Anil (he's not a puncher-downer), I'm pretty sure in this case he's using the rhetorical technique of adopting, briefly, the POV of his critical subjects. So when he says "dictates narrative to normies", he's implying that that's the way Facebook and the NY Times (cynically) view their missions. It's not the most clear technique — I use it sometimes and get called out for it — but it can be effective, especially when trying to keep your social media messages under 280 chars.