[Rags123]

THIS IS NOT POLITICAL, AND HOPE IT IS NOT MADE THAT WAY !

Interesting how often a mention of cable news networks come up on this forum.

Just noticed this morning a report on viewership for the big three...CNN..FOX and MSNBC.

"Fox News Hits Ratings Highs, MSNBC Sputters in Busy Week"

As usual, it was no contest in total viewers, with Fox News (2.25 million in primetime, 1.26 million total-day) beating the combined tune-in of CNN (901,000 in primetime, 690,000 in total-day) and MSNBC (737,000 in primetime, 402,000 in total-day)."


Fox News Hits Ratings Highs, MSNBC Sputters in Busy Week | Variety

Seems to me, that watching any of these three for raw news might be frustrating, although there are news shows on all three, perhaps the viewers are followers of personalities on either.

Besides these "big three", I am curious where folks go to stay informed ?.

I usually check Reuters and a few others and then move on to a sampling of newspapers...NYTIMES , etc. Then I really like ECONOMIST (mostly for world views and economics) which is more worldwide. Most interesting is to follow the big stories by visiting the local newspaper site where the story is taking place, national or international. I also read someone on here recommending the Al Jazerra site and it's not bad.

With the internet, there is no reason to be uninformed, and there is also no need to hear only one side. Bias reporting is something that bothers me no end, and while everyone has a bias, some actually try to,present facts with no spin. People seem to look for news they WANT instead of how it is.....the hunt for news you want will never be rewarded.....just not that kind of world. I also try to read the overseas papers.

Any new ideas ?

[billethkid]

it has been a known fact for many, MANY years ABC, NBC and CBS are extremely party specific managed news dispensors.

If one subscribes to cable television, isn't all the news "cable"?
I am confused by the terms cable or network or alphabet networks. Only because I don't know which are in what. I think the terms are used indiscriminantly without a specific known intent.

[kittygilchrist]

BBC world news.
This comes on in the morning say 6 to 630 on cable TV. Unbelievable, what you can learn about what's going on in the world compared to hearing the same thing over and over and over and over and over on US TV

[Chi-Town]

It seems to me that anytime the opening line on a thread has a political disclaimer it either is or soon becomes one. In all seriousness, I thought the political forum was a good idea and would like to see its return.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist

BBC world news.
This comes on in the morning say 6 to 630 on cable TV. Unbelievable, what you can learn about what's going on in the world compared to hearing the same thing over and over and over and over and over on US TV

Good choice. Been there a number of times, but not as after as I should....great idea to the daily regime. International news is far different from the US take on everything. They seem to report without trying to bend your arm

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

It seems to me that anytime the opening line on a thread has a political disclaimer it either is or soon becomes one. In all seriousness, I thought the political forum was a good idea and would like to see its return.

In this case it is up to the posters.

Just hoping to find alternatives to the political hum drum, not play into it, but I am sure some will feel compelled to, rather than maybe learn get on a soapbox...your choice.

[redwitch]

Al Jazeera first. BBC second. I find these two to have the most unbiased news. Don't really have an online spot that I go regularly now that Al Jazeera is on tv. Check ABC and Fox occasionally to see political takes on recent news and then try to form my own conclusions -- usually somewhere in the middle. Of course, given my political slant, I rarely agree with anything Fox says. Totally agree that it is foolish to not be kept informed.

[Arctic Fox]

we watch BBC World News on PBS - 6.30 pm

of course, there are also many on-line sources for "written" news

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by redwitch

Al Jazeera first. BBC second. I find these two to have the most unbiased news. Don't really have an online spot that I go regularly now that Al Jazeera is on tv. Check ABC and Fox occasionally to see political takes on recent news and then try to form my own conclusions -- usually somewhere in the middle. Of course, given my political slant, I rarely agree with anything Fox says. Totally agree that it is foolish to not be kept informed.

Your last sentence is important..."...it is foolish to not be kept informed."

It is very frustrating at times to see folks get their dander up and so emotional on subjects that they actually know very little about. Relying on one source, nor one media type, is not going to do it.

Knowledge is power as they say, and this internet thingie has a lot of downsides, but it sure gives you the opportunity to know things.

My other suggestion to folks is to make sure you check out both sides of a story and then go to the actual locale (city, country or whatever). Context can be provided with local reporting.

To add.....Al Jazeera has been a pleasant surprise to me.

[redwitch]

So which is worse -- to hide your head in the sand or to just hear one side and refuse to factor in other causes, issues? If you only accept viewpoints that agree with you, what do you really know? If you only listen to happy news or little news at all, what do you learn?

Even here, I try to see all sides. There are posters to whom I am diametrically opposed in almost every non-TOTV issue, yet I read what they have to say, I ponder their comments, I look up their arguments. I learn from them. Sometimes I even change my viewpoint or at least part of it.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by redwitch

So which is worse -- to hide your head in the sand or to just hear one side and refuse to factor in other causes, issues? If you only accept viewpoints that agree with you, what do you really know? If you only listen to happy news or little news at all, what do you learn?

Even here, I try to see all sides. There are posters to whom I am diametrically opposed in almost every non-TOTV issue, yet I read what they have to say, I ponder their comments, I look up their arguments. I learn from them. Sometimes I even change my viewpoint or at least part of it.

Nothing for me to say except I agree.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by Rags123

Your last sentence is important..."...it is foolish to not be kept informed."

It is very frustrating at times to see folks get their dander up and so emotional on subjects that they actually know very little about. Relying on one source, nor one media type, is not going to do it.

Knowledge is power as they say, and this internet thingie has a lot of downsides, but it sure gives you the opportunity to know things.

My other suggestion to folks is to make sure you check out both sides of a story and then go to the actual locale (city, country or whatever). Context can be provided with local reporting.

To add.....Al Jazeera has been a pleasant surprise to me.

I have adopted a cautioned "wait and see" attitude with regard to Al Jazeera. I will not be surprised to see a very gradual change in what appears to be unbiased reporting.

[kittygilchrist]

I have been following news in Israel by online sources... Today, Fox news broadcast the cease-fire with Hamas several hours after I had read about it, and now they got day old news about the missing American student...
*americanstudent

[jblum315]

I only watch Al Jazeera America for news now that I've found it. But then Fox started as unbiased reporting too, so who knows?

[kittygilchrist]

Florida | Al Jazeera America

Do you think this reporting is biased? If so, how?