I would have agreed with you 15 years ago, even 5, but after Wikileaks and Snowden, it’s obvious they are as truthseeking as Pravda. They are about narrative, not about news or seeking truth. They have taboo subjects they will not pursue in psychology, social sciences, even in human reproduction, if it does not align with their view, but they’ll run with a limited study that’s not been replicated if it fits their narrative.
Now, they do have their occasional flash in a pan to pad their reputation from time to time, but that’s overwhelmed by their narrative campaigns.
Re: the enquirer. I think most people treat it as distraction/entertainment and are distinct from what were once “serious” newspapers.
"In 2013, Snowden was hired by an NSA contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, after previous employment with Dell and the CIA.[1] On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii, and in early June he revealed thousands of classified NSA documents to journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill. Snowden came to international attention after stories based on the material appeared in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Further disclosures were made by other publications including Der Spiegel and The New York Times. "
It's fairly ironic given the context of the article and GP's comment, but it doesn't sound to me like you're forming your opinion on "the media" on a rational, factual basis.
I also suspect that you (perhaps subconsciously) exclude whichever bloggers/youtube'rs/podcasters from your personal definition of "the media"
Now, they do have their occasional flash in a pan to pad their reputation from time to time, but that’s overwhelmed by their narrative campaigns.
Re: the enquirer. I think most people treat it as distraction/entertainment and are distinct from what were once “serious” newspapers.