Lifelong Guardian reader – I know its foibles and biases and while I don’t always agree, I broadly trust its use of evidence. And the Telegraph for balance. BBC sometimes, though more on air than online. And occasionally the Mail for imbalance. Plus randoms like the Washington Post, New Statesman, Mirror etc.
I’ve found the coverage of the recent Sky TUE thing fascinating as a study in how news develops and is covered in a 21st Century environment. There’s a prevalent ‘me too’ uniformity to it all, with a small but very influential coterie of sports journalists who are ‘mates’ in real life and on twitter egging each other on to re-tell the same story with the same narrative and using the ‘twittersphere’ as a sounding board as to what the public thinks.
It’s sometimes simplistic: medial confidentiality is an ‘obstacle’ to investigations by UKAD – the organisation which leaks information regularly to the media – rather than something which elite athletes have and sort of rights to. Treatment for mental illness anyone, why should that be out in public scrutiny? Or corticosteroids, where’s the scientific rather than anecdotal evidence of their performance enhancing effects?
I’m not saying there’s a not a story there, but a lot of the coverage seems to lack balance and you have to think that some of that is down to journalists working in an environment where they feel under pressure to get the story out now and fall into line with a central narrative.