I miss Walter Cronkite.

I read NPR.com.

Real unbiased news is hard to find, but opinions disguised as news seem to be plentiful.

While your numbers are outdated (I think your data is from 2012 or earlier), your point is not. It is basically true, no matter the exact numbers,and inevitable in the age of consolidation.

My primary source of news is the NY TIMES....solely owned by the same company (family) since before 1900. It is public traded but if you read up on its journalistic standards and operations, it is truly a great newspaper.

Washington Post, which is another of my favorites is now owned by Jeff Bezoz (NOT owned by Amazon as many think)

Those are my two favorites simply because of their journalistic principals and ideals.

I hardily endorse relying on multiple sources for your NEWS but understanding that many of the so called news sources are full of editorial commentary only, and disguised as news.

It is actually very easy to determine who is reporting news and who is "carrying water" for a particular viewpoint.

MY opinion is that folks search for a "news source" that makes them feel good, not informed or accurate, but feel good and stick with that source no matter what.

I suggest everyone read up on the problems inherent with using any social media, like Facebook, as a news source. You welcome into your mind who knows what.

Where is Walter??

Kind of hard to argue when it's a VIDEO AND AUDIO!

I totally agree.


I agree again.

I believe a big problem is with how many people cannot distinguish between those who report the news (real journalists) and those who may have a show on a supposed news channel...but is purely a show to push their opinion/bias.

If only more folks would even try and understand the difference, then do their own research with legitimate sources...to try and truly understand the issue(s).

But hey, that takes a modicum of work/effort for so many, so why do it when it's so much easier to just have someone else... tell you what to think?

And gosh forbid, how mortifying would it be to find out...that the facts might not support your view'?

Can't be having any of that. :ohdear:

How about Hannity, VanSusteren, and Carlson

The key is ...

"If only more folks would even try and understand the difference, then do their own research with legitimate sources...to try and truly understand the issue(s)."

So much in your sentence.....

First, TRYING to understand will lead you to the truth in most cases. Doing research means you actually care about the issue, and FINALLY.......the word ISSUE. We seem to have lost sight of identifying issues, and address only people. Make sure you understand what the issue is a and don't allow your self to be inundated with "side" stories.

I Googled them also. They are all described as "commentators", not journalists.

Although I used to watch him his bias was apparent.

It’s all biased...
 

All media is biased. It is so obvious. There’s always been bias but now it seems to have turned to agenda pushing in the guise of news. Sometimes i think 5 every day Americans would make better experts on these channels and shows. These people focus on the stupidest things and they think they are intellectuals. They’ ve been living in new york or Washington so long, it’s group think and the group you follow depends on your party. We need more channels outside of New York and DC.

And the great ny times and washington post are biased. I prefer the wall st journal... also has some implicit bias but a bit less.

:yuck::yuck::yuck:barfbarfbarf

Second the Wall St Journal but only for its economic analysis. I think it’s political views are a bit biased. Sort of like Le Figaro, if you read French. 30,000 expats in France can vote in the presidential election.

NPR is an excellent source.

I have a neighbor, who talks like she is an expert on everything but, is actually oblivious/allergic to facts and the truth even when shown to her, asked when I once mentioned them..."what is a NPR?" :oops: