Interesting e-mail on what we’re doing here and what they’re doing in the better offices:

This is not an E-mail about media bias (well not really). It’s about the best way to stay informed. This is a fairly obvious point I think, but I came across a great example of what I’m talking about today and I had to share it.
Whenever political debates pop up with friends I will be faulted for quoting something I read on NRO, whereas friends will often present their source saying something like “…it was in the New York Times?” with a question mark on the end as if to say “have you heard of it?” Now I read the Wall Street Journal every day, and various articles in the W Post or the Chicago Sun Times (I’ve learned to appreciate stories about guys attacking snow plow trucks). I find plenty of worthwhile stuff from all these sources, but if you really want to know what’s going on you have to read a debate, e.g. NRO, WS, TNR, Slate, etc. All these publications compete with each other for the best arguments, and they clearly account for each other’s arguments when creating their own.
Unlike, say, an AP story, writers for NRO know that if they make a significant gaffe, it will swing on a flagpole at an opposing publication for a long time. Andrew Sullivan knows if he gets lazy with an argument on gay marriage it could be quoted again and again for years an NRO. In other words, there is a much higher degree of accountability in the opinion press than there is in the MSM.
Take for example the following AP story that ran in today’s Sun-Times. An uninformed reader could conclude the following from this story: 1) All Iranians want a nuclear program and they will overthrow any government that tries to take a soft-line with Europe or the United States [how? Through elections I guess]; 2) The moderates (read: Good guys) want to go the European way and negotiate, but the mullahs, those hard-liners, have the popular will on their side and want nothing to do with it. Therefore it’s negotiate the European way or give into those popular mullahs.
Taking this example, I would argue that your arguments would be more sound and better informed if you read absolutely nothing, than if you tried to form an opinion off this story. Again, just one example. For five or six more each morning, watch the Today show. Would the NYT, AP, the Today Show and so on report this way if they had to account for their arguments? If Katie Couric knew her reporting would be comedy fodder for Good Morning America, do you think she’d actually try half the stuff she does? If you want accurate reporting you need accountability and you can’t get that in the MSM.