Anywhere you wish. Ars Technica too, if you are so inclined.
I mean, I'm not talking about what you read, but what you make of it. If you wish to pretend you can make an argument about Clinton case from an article on a tech news site... I'm sorry, but I'm not going to listen.
The printing press is bound to a schedule, so I don't think the comparison is appropriate. If you are thinking about their online presence well, welcome to the content farm and its rules, indeed.
You seem to think that I am speaking highly of the printing press, or that I wish to make value comparisons. But being that you misinterpreted my post, I can understand why you would.
However, since you drag me into it, let me say that yes! You bet, as bad as it may be, you can still find more value in most periodicals than anywhere online (*). Of course, you will only know about Der Spiegel , National Review, The New Republic, Le Point, or Visao, among others, if you actually read them. And you will only take the most of them, if you understand the magazine affiliations or influences and the writers' profile and background. (note: all publications I mentioned have English versions, either in print or online).
I trust you understand by now, this isn't about liking or not the ideas. This is about basing your opinions well aware of where you are sourcing them. And if the source isn't credible (it can be biased as long as you recognize it) and informative, you should puke and go play a game instead.
(*) This wasn't so true just 5 or 10 years ago when the blogosphere was at its prime. Many recognized writers and journalists, including some new ones that were made by it, would take to the blogosphere to create some impressive content. For a while there, its was good to "read about it on the web". Not just so anymore. In fact, "I read it on the Internet" takes on today perhaps an even worse reaction than "I saw it on TV" or "I read it in a book".