Good and timely question because lately it seems UK papers have been trying to outdo each other in misleading reports. The truth is getting to be a very elusive thing these daya. As the BBC's former political editor, Andrew Marr, summarised the situation admirably in his book, My Trade - A Short History of British Journalism:
"Reporting is now so contaminated by bias and campaigning, and general mischief, that no reader can hope to get a picture of what is happening without first knowing who owns the paper, and who it is being published for."
One has to differentiate between objective news, i.e. those reports on factual events, and the opinions proffered by reporters and columnists on their hobby horses. It is easier to ascertain the truth in the first, but as to the second, there is usually a lot of room for the writers to bend facts to suit whatever bias they may have, be it political, sexual, religious, etc. But it is in the area of international news reporting that the tendency to fit their reports into some mould dictated by our national foreign policies or the reporters own personal bias is most strongly felt. One has to undertake a lot of critical research to uncover the bias and shift the truth from the personal opinions of the reporter. This is especially true of such reporters as Jane Macartney of the Times. It's often not easy because one's time is limited, and these reporters are masters of their art of deception. But with perseverance and access to other sources of information, one can begin to find the nuggets of truth among the (biased) subjective views of the reporter.
Is there one better than the rest? The broadsheets were better, but in the battle for sales and survival, many are going the way of the tabloids. The Financial Times is slightly better, but given its avowed commitment to capitalism and the free-market, one has to read it with the same caution. The only way is to read widely and as many sources as possible.
