Do you consider reading the newspaper a good habit of literature?

yeah although the only good paper in the usa the ny times has been disgracing itself with desperate hillary shilling, but then again they also supported the iraq war lies...yeah, reading the nytimes will make you smarter, but only if you read it critically since its filled with propaganda bullshit

NY times and wallstreet journal are both about the same reading level. They're even owned by the same company, the main difference is that one's liberal and the other is conservative. Most local newspapers have an 8th grade reading level, but it's not bad to keep up on current events

>>8016821
is reading a newspaper better than digital?
I use BBC and Guardian news apps.

>>8016887
>one's liberal and the other is conservative
There aren't any conservative media outlets in the USA.

It could be but I don't know a single newspaper (digital or paper) that doesn't park itself entirely in some brand politics or ideology.

The BBC has always cosied up to the Westminster incumbents and the Guardian is more reactionary and neo-liberal every time I read it. The other day they did an outraged response to an NYC thing on things women can say to seem more dominant. It was just a sarcastic tirade that failed to even be funny or satirical.

The best you can do is learn the decent writers and columnists and toss the rest. If you want the truth of the news you should amalgamate a few sources anyway.

>>8016887
>they're even owned by the same company

not even close, the ny times is owned by a family of zionist jews, and the wall street journal is owned by an australian protestant

>>8016887
>reading levels

it's not about the reading levels ya fuckin mong, the point is ny times covers cultural shit like that "Him" statue going for 17 mill the other night at Sotheby's even tho the art market was predicted to be contracting, or they cover trends in education, medicine, etc. but just be warned despite their pro-immigrantion aka cheap labor position they love to bash china and other developing countries who need to use cheap labor and dirty energy to modernize...but the point of reading it isn't to believe their conclusions, just to learn the facts and then make your own conclusions

>>8016986
>guardian
>neoliberal

No opinions on publications like the economist or the WSJ? Of course it's economically biased but they cover a wide variety of current events

>>8017033
what other bias do you claim it expresses?

>>8016986
zizek and stewart lee do opinion every now and then. philomena cunk did a funny piece a while ago. i would never use guardian for actually news.

File: 1437503532007.gif (675KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 500x500px

>reading about fleeting and insignificant events instead of reading actual literature

>>8017033
The Guardian is definitely neoliberal. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply.

>>8016986

>the Guardian is more reactionary and neo-liberal ever time I read it

That's odd, the guardian has always seemed nauseatingly left wing to me.

>NY Times
>WSJ
Yeah if you're a New Yorker or a tryhard

Get a local newspaper, and check your RSS feeds. Then read Playboy for the articles entirely nonironically.

just check front page of reddit :D

>>8017367
I look through the WSJ every morning. It's good for current events, regardless of your political beliefs, but I don't know how it compares to other newspapers. The opinion section is always very interesting but it will definitely tick you off if you're not conservative. In fact it's certain to tick you off relatively often regardless of your political beliefs, but that's part of what makes it interesting. You're always reading people writing about something they really care about.

>>8016986
You could just read news from the AP.