Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and to a lesser extent the NY Times are all still reputable, even if they all still produce occasional junk. I don't believe there is a single reputable news source on earth, if the qualification is never producing junk articles.
The worst thing they found (as far as I can see) is that the government required Apple to have a recycling program. What a horrible thing the first article was hiding from us.
Dell have an equivalent page: http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/id/corp-comm/us-goodwill-rec...
"$137 million divided by 4.7 million is ... $29.14.
More than 4.7 million contributions means, at most, 4,749,999 -- or else the campaign would round up to 4.8 million. Even with that higher number of donations, the average is $28.95. Which is more than $27."
This is laughable...but I haven't yet decided if it's in a good or a bad way. I mean, really? they are complaining about a 1-2 dollar difference from what BS says?
Yes, it is. I know a number of liberal journalists who work at the WSJ and would never work at Fox and definitely wouldn't give a conservative tilt to their stories.
I know someone on staff at the Wsj, and know their political views. I have seen their reporting and it is generally balanced. Yes, the papers always have an editorial line they are following, but it's not necessarily biased to push a view, but more so to match their buyers. Running a newspaper is not a public service for the Wsj.
The big surprise for most people is that people at institutions like Wsj and ny times try and be as professional as possible. They aren't acting like click bait interns at gawker.
their agenda and the political leanings of their new master is clear
http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...