Well for you it might be clear it is much better than Jones, but from the distance the "us vs them" narrative and the obsession with whatever is the latest "scandal" (Clinton's emails, Weinstein, Trump & Russia) makes it seem like pure tabloid. So you can actually make good argument about NYT being similar to Jones (better crap is still crap).
It's quite clear if you understand the distinction between journalism and infotainment. Journalism outlets spend millions of dollars to staff professional reporters and fact checkers; when they report a story, they've often got a whole team of trained professionals on multiple locations collecting details and interviewing primary sources. When the outlet we're talking about is the NYT or WSJ, those teams are in dozens of countries around the world operating out of large full-time bureaus.
Infotainment outlets hire a couple dozen people to make shit up and put it on a web page and a Youtube video.
Sometimes reality gets tabloidy. Sometimes editors make decisions that optimize engagement and viewership over clarity. CNN and Fox both run pundit shows along with hard news and blur the lines by hosting their hard-news pro's on the pundit shows. But no matter what happens to make CNN seem like infotainment, it simply isn't, because the process that generates it is journalism.
There is far less fact checking than before, far fewer corespondents and almost all military reporting is through access-journalism: “our give us pretty footage, we’ll write nice things”
At which point I prefer Jones: so trashy that I know it’s BS
