But the WSJ and the NYT have the same opinions on foreign policy. They both think largely the same things about Syria, Hong Kong, Venezuela.
They both have the same positions on big business. Each occasionally does exposés, typically on things that were about to erupt anyway and they wanted to get out ahead of the story and be the ones on the leading edge, but in general they are both very pro-big business.
It is worth looking at the nature of their attacks on specific big businesses, too. The NYT went hard after Facebook, because Facebook was blamed for not doing enough to stop Donald Trump's rise to the presidency. Google has
far worse privacy violations than Facebook, overall, but the NYT has left them alone because Google came out and had meetings where the executives specifically asked how they can stop a guy like Trump from getting elected again... while on the other side of things, Mark Zuckerberg's attitude was basically "Hey, don't look at me!"
In general though, aside from when they are going after specific companies for specific reasons, both publications are extremely pro-big business.
Both maintain the same line that the economy is doing very well (it isn't. Real wages are down since 1980. And job growth at 200K or under per month, which is what is has been since the recession, is not good. Long-term unemployed is higher than ever, and there has been
zero employment growth whatsoever for American citizens since the year 2000 -- the number of jobs held by Americans has actually deteriorated since 2000).
They're all on the same team, and all serve the same masters.
The news media is entertainment. Different papers pick a side: "I despise the Bad Orange Man! This man is an evil racist hater who is setting back progress!" "I support the Blessed Orange Man! This man is a beneficent savior who is sole bulwark against the collapse of Western civilization!" and then people, depending on their political persuasion, decide to read this or that paper, whichever one makes them feel more intelligent and better aligns with how they line up on social issues.
Meanwhile, they get fed the same exact messages on the most important issues:
the world needs American soldiers to help install democracy; no leader is democratically elected unless he supports the American regime; it is okay for multinational companies to do anything they want, because they are not the government; we need as many immigrants as we can, and we should not be screening or limiting these people, because (conservative: we need more workers | liberal: it is morally wrong to exclude anyone, for any reason [except for a few kinds of people liberals despise, who should always be excluded]); religion is sort of irrelevant, because everyone should be happy living the perfect consumerist lifestyle and buying more things from the multinational companies and supporting the economy; the economy is the most important thing, humans exist to serve the economy; the banks are very, very good and we should make sure we support them at every turn, even if that means heavily taxing the lower classes to pay for banking scams; and so on and so forth.
The only thing news media disagree on is irrelevant social issues that cause a lot of outrage.
Meanwhile, they are
in complete agreement about all the real levers of power, and present a unified narrative to their readership on these fronts.
Let the public fight about circus sideshows, and keep them blind to the conversations going on in the halls of power.
It is all propaganda.
There's a lot of truth in this one.
