I am really trying to understand what gets people to go to specific news sources over others. Not so much do you read the news, or not -- but the specific reporter or outlet.
Do you trust one more than others? Why or why not?
Is it the kinds of things they cover?
What do you get out of it?
I pay more attention to the ones that are historically more accurate and less attention to the ones that don't.
The kinds of things they cover don't enter into it.
> What do you get out of it?
Hopefully, it brings me closer to a correct understanding of the world and what's happening in it.
I don't really read them, but for anyone looking for how coverage of the same event can differ between reporters, it's an interesting site.
Mostly, I read for entertainment and find The Guardian articles to be the most convenient read out of most any Western media outlet. Their prose seems to have an easier flow than that of NYT for example. No idea why.
Most US news is owned by some corporation or private company, whose owners have their own agendas. This is especially terrible in the TV world, with local channels mostly owners by a few giant conglomerates. I avoid TV news altogether.
Print news is in similarly dire shape, with most local papers either completely dead or absorbed by a conglomerate or owned by some billionaire for the lulz.
The AP is still independent for now, and a nonprofit. Right wing extremists would probably throw it in there with all the other liberal propaganda mainstream media, but it's really not (compared to something like the Guardian or WaPo), and it seems more even-handed than the NYT.
There are other similar wire service agencies (Reuters, AFP, etc.) but I think AP is one of the few nonprofit ones.