A Kinda Dumb Question, I Think

[hyphenate]

Is the Washinton Post or the Washington Times the more progressive of the two? I was online at the Post, and it seemed a little rampant, and I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be the "good" newspaper or the "bad" newspaper--from a liberal point of view. With some papers it's obvious: the NY Times, the Boston Globe, the L.A. Times.....but can't recall which of the Washington papers fits into the scheme of liberal politics.

Are there other "liberal" papers online? I think the Sac Bee is one, and isn't there one of the San Francisco papers that's progressive? I see a lot of conservatives posting (on one of the boards I'm at) from the SFGate site--is that a SF paper as well? I know; kinda dumb.

Thanks for those who know better than I. ;)

[FlashHarry]

1. I would say that neither are 'progressive'

But the Washington Times is owned by notoriously right-wing Reverend Moon, who has very close ties with Bush Sr. Not to mention, its op/ed page is edited by Bush apologist Tony Blankley. So draw your own conclusions...

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. The Post is the better of the two.

MUCH better. I was surprised at how many critical, informative stories it had, from the links at Google News. Its definitely more progressive, and its now a paper that I've come to respect.

[dfitzsim]

3. But the editorial voice of the Post often comes up short

in my humble op/ed. They were far to soft on Bush for far too long. I used to get the post when I lived in Virginia a couple years back, and remeber being flabberghasted at some of their positions at the time.

At least they endorsed Gore in 2000.

And their reporters are liberal minded.