Where Do You Get Your News?

[IceHogsFan]

I just read an article talking about how media as we know it and grew up with is changing dramatically from local and national tv news and newspapers to internet based information. I thought it would be interesting to see where everyone learns from.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

I personally go to several different websites and tv news channles to see how each one slants a story for their particular political agenda, then try to make sense out of it. it is sad that in today's society, a medium that used to be relatively reliable, now tell you what they want you to hear, instead of just telling you what, when, where, and how.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

I personally go to several different websites and tv news channles to see how each one slants a story for their particular political agenda, then try to make sense out of it. it is sad that in today's society, a medium that used to be relatively reliable, now tell you what they want you to hear, instead of just telling you what, when, where, and how.

Same here. Sadly though it seems some people just believe the leanings of whatever media outlet they are reading.

 

[IceHogsFan]

I personally go to several different websites and tv news channles to see how each one slants a story for their particular political agenda, then try to make sense out of it. it is sad that in today's society, a medium that used to be relatively reliable, now tell you what they want you to hear, instead of just telling you what, when, where, and how.

We are in agreement there. As much as some complain that a certain news source is slanted they still do not get information from other sources. There has been only one news outlet that I find the best at reporting without taking a position which is Christian Science Monitor.

 

[Variable]

I personally go to several different websites and tv news channles to see how each one slants a story for their particular political agenda, then try to make sense out of it. it is sad that in today's society, a medium that used to be relatively reliable, now tell you what they want you to hear, instead of just telling you what, when, where, and how.

Media has always been that way though. Information is owned, pretty much always has been. It's better now that there are alternatives, but back decades past you had the same problem except with less choice or none at all. People believed what Walter Cronkite said because he was Walter Cronkite and that's all there was to it.

 

[mikita's helmet]

A variety of sources from tv & the internet. RE: newspapers, I read all my print on the net.

 

[Sir Mike of Burbs]

I use BBC, CNN and only a bit of fox news, and then The Daily Show To see if they call anyone out on their bias news.

 

[ytsejam]

I find public radio to be informative.

 

[bri]

I use all kinds of media to get my news. I don't even trust the weather report to one channel. I usually check 2 or 3 sources. I question everything.

 

[mikita's helmet]

I use all kinds of media to get my news. I don't even trust the weather report to one channel. I usually check 2 or 3 sources. I question everything.

I question what you're saying.

 

[bri]

I question what you're saying.

You should.

 

[MassHavoc]

I personally go to several different websites and tv news channles to see how each one slants a story for their particular political agenda, then try to make sense out of it. it is sad that in today's society, a medium that used to be relatively reliable, now tell you what they want you to hear, instead of just telling you what, when, where, and how.

I'm going to have to correct one minor thing. They tell you what they want you to hear. There is no news anymore, only news entertainment. And that goes for Politics, Sports, event entertainment entertainment. It used to be that entertainment news was movie reviews and upcoming events, now it's what celebrity got caught without any panties on or where they went to eat. The problem is now that it is though that this is news for any public figures so anyone in the limelight can be reported on in the same manner as the gossip rags and the actual news gets lost in the bag of Taco Bell that was picked way home because we were too lazy to make well informed decisions.

 

[IceHogsFan]

I'm going to have to correct one minor thing. They tell you what they want you to hear. There is no news anymore, only news entertainment. And that goes for Politics, Sports, event entertainment entertainment. It used to be that entertainment news was movie reviews and upcoming events, now it's what celebrity got caught without any panties on or where they went to eat. The problem is now that it is though that this is news for any public figures so anyone in the limelight can be reported on in the same manner as the gossip rags and the actual news gets lost in the bag of Taco Bell that was picked way home because we were too lazy to make well informed decisions.

Might I suggest Christian Science Monitor online? If you are not familiar with them, the title does not represent what you may think.

 

[TSD]

I frankly rarely read/watch the news save for shit i catch on yahoo and stuff you guys post here.



Sure theres the argument for me being an un-informed citizen, but is getting bias from either side being informed or brain washed.

 

[bri]

I frankly rarely read/watch the news save for shit i catch on yahoo and stuff you guys post here.



Sure theres the argument for me being an un-informed citizen, but is getting bias from either side being informed or brain washed.

Did you look at that street art? It seems like something you would like since you're an artist.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

I'm going to have to correct one minor thing. They tell you what they want you to hear. There is no news anymore, only news entertainment. And that goes for Politics, Sports, event entertainment entertainment. It used to be that entertainment news was movie reviews and upcoming events, now it's what celebrity got caught without any panties on or where they went to eat. The problem is now that it is though that this is news for any public figures so anyone in the limelight can be reported on in the same manner as the gossip rags and the actual news gets lost in the bag of Taco Bell that was picked way home because we were too lazy to make well informed decisions.

Bingo. And they all know their general demographics and frings demographics from each end of the specturm of their viewship.





For me it is multiple sources. Multiple views tend to provide the most understanding. Even views I do not agree with, as those generally provide insight into the otherside.



What I generally find disturbing is that in the rush to get news out, that news is either a blanket AP posting or a hasty conjecture. Now some of those AP postings are already skewed to the writers opinion or slant. Worse is that shortly after the AP posting it is adjusted to the general media outlet's slants or views.....then the marketing of the story really begins with blogs, editorials, videos, etc. to keep people hooked.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

In no order:

NPR

Guardian UK

Fox News

Al Jazeera

MSNBC

The Daily Show

BBC



I'm not a news junkie. If there's a story worth following, I like to get the US bias, then I will go overseas to hear what the rest of the world is reporting (thinking).

 

[MassHavoc]

Might I suggest Christian Science Monitor online? If you are not familiar with them, the title does not represent what you may think.

It's funny you mentioned that because a day or two ago you posted a link to them and I read the "About Us" type page, and it was very interesting. Not exactly what I was expecting, but in my ultra cynical self I find it hard to believe that a news organization owned by a church that has a board responsible for hiring the editor who is responsible for the content, that there is no trickle down effect. Even if stated in the bylaws and such. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt though as their mission is just and admirable.

 

[IceHogsFan]

It's funny you mentioned that because a day or two ago you posted a link to them and I read the "About Us" type page, and it was very interesting. Not exactly what I was expecting, but in my ultra cynical self I find it hard to believe that a news organization owned by a church that has a board responsible for hiring the editor who is responsible for the content, that there is no trickle down effect. Even if stated in the bylaws and such. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt though as their mission is just and admirable.

As I thought the same once as well hence my earlier comment. You can prove that to yourself through time by reading it and make your own decision. I would be surprised if you come back stating otherwise because I personally have not found that to be the case.

 

[IceHogsFan]

For me it is multiple sources. Multiple views tend to provide the most understanding. Even views I do not agree with, as those generally provide insight into the otherside.

Ding da Ding da Ding da Ding



I agree with this 100%. I even go to the point of watching and reading commentary from opposing views even when it makes me irrate. You can learn so much by seeing all sides of a story and it also the reason why I digress when I hear others state I only watch or read X station or site.



In todays world we have so many sources to learn from. I wish there were more people who did not take the sheeple approach to listening to one side for all views.