<p>Village Voice, the Guardian, Le Monde, Liberation and BBC News have always been fine for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s Democratic. Fair and balanced means calling each party by its proper name, not the Karl Rove talking points memo name.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I watch Fox News quite a bit. Sheppard Smith is the best talking head in the business. Wolf Blitzer is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.</p>
<p>However, Fox desperately needs the Democratic presidential candidates to appear on their network from time to time just to create the illusion of “balanced”. It’s going to be a long campaign for a cable news network that can’t get the front running candidates to give it the time of day.</p>
<p>With the current boycott, Fox is in a sticky situation. I think it’s kind of funny, actually. I guess that’s what you get when you hire Roger Ailes to run your network.</p>
<p>Fox News, Bill Maher occasionally (as long as the show isnt: Bush sucks, Bush sucks, Bush sucks) and it sounds stupid, but CC. I have seen many stories, such as Anna Nicole becoming worm food, break here on CC before I have seen them anywhere else.</p>
<p>I embarrassed to say…primarily chron.com, with a smidge of perezhilton.com thrown in there and some CNN.</p>
<p>(COME ON…I know there must be others who will admit to checking the lowbrow stuff out… )</p>
<p>Yeah Fox can’t get the Democrat Party (that is its name interesteddad you can look it up) candidates to come on and CNN and the rest of the leftwing broadcast media can’t get any viewers to tune in. Why do I think the politicians will throw the towel in on thos boycott the minute the primaries are over?</p>
<p>Wife and I read the Wshington Post and the Washington Times side by side in bed in the morning. As nearly as I can tell the Post doesn’t report anything controversial until they see how the NY Times is going to handle it. They are freqyuently a day late with their stories.</p>
<p>The rest of my news comes from scanning the Drudge Report, Lucianne.com, Fox News, and following up specific news that interests me from any available source. I particularly like the London Telegraph. Pretty conservative news diet but no talk radio. I’m actually not sure I’ve ever heard Limbaugh on the radio. Saw hime once or twice for a couple of minutes when he was on TV. I’ve never heard Imus at all. Knew who he was but that was about it.</p>
<p>It’s the “Democratic” party. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant or Republican ■■■■■■.</p>
<p>RS, Faux News wants to broadcast Democratic debates only so they can put their own spin on them. Their screen captions are some of the more consistent propaganda out there. Screw 'em. And the horse they rode in on.</p>
<p>New America Media. (online) They cover stuff about prespectives from the other side of the hill. Not at all biased, and they cover stuff that gets left out in Mainstream Media, (let’s just admit it–mainstream media often only covers stuff that gets them ratings.) They cover minority issues and stuff that mainstream doens’t give a crap about. You guys should all check it out.</p>
<p>Speaking of media shortcomings. I’m amazed that no US outlets have picked up the Times of London story that 21 of the shopkeepers from the market where McCain had his Baghdad photo op were found dead three days later.</p>
<p>I doubt any major media outlet will dare trash on McCain. Think about it–if Jon Bennet Ramsy wasn’t a white beauty queen, would she have gained so much publicity? I mean there are thousands of shootings and homicides every year, but they only cover those that the public wants to hear about. Same thing with Anna Nicle and the crazy astronaut.</p>
<p>I occasionally catch CNN International or BBC, but more of my news comes from online papers–NYT and Washington Post, the English version of Spiegel (one of the main middle-of-the-road German papers) and El Pais (moderate Spanish paper, not available in English. Oh, and sometimes just for fun, I read Granma Internacional. Granma is the official news agency of the Cuban government, so no claim for balance, I guess. The full publication is in Spanish, but they generally have quite a bit available in English and several other languages. I’ve actually used articles in the past in my high school social studies classes for lessons on identifying the POV of a “news” article. It was especially great reading during the Elian Gonzalez saga. Here’s a sample from today’s front page (with no intent on my part to offend or start a whole new debate, just quoting):</p>
<p>REFLECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
The brutal response
THE most genuine representative of the system of terror that has been imposed on the world by the technological, economic and political superiority of the mightiest power ever known on our planet is, without a doubt, George W. Bush.</p>
<p>THE BBC (online). The gold standard for headlines IMO, many of which are never covered by American media. They are also very good about staying away from stupid stories about insignificant individuals, the personal lives of celebrities, and “this household item might kill you!!!11” stories which CNN and other somewhat reputable American news organisations get sucked into way too often.</p>
<p>THE ECONOMIST. When I have time to sit down for an hour and actually do some thinking, there is no better source of well-written analysis short of academic journals. Far superior to every other news magazine I’ve read.</p>
<p>THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. This one is available for free at my university so I read it quite often. (news stand price is like 5 euros or something ridiculous) The economics/finance articles are well considered and generally ahead of the curve. Their political articles border on rabid. Still it’s amusing, espeically the letters to the editor from extreme right-wingers. (I am a conservative by the way)</p>
<p>I threw my tv in the trash 4 years ago and haven’t looked back. Now on the rare occasion that I see news on television, I’m amazed (and appalled) at how little content is actually presented, and how much critical information and background is selectively omitted. Cat-in-a-tree/britney-gets-a-haircut stories routinely get more coverage than actual news, like revolutions in Georgia and Thailand.</p>
<p>I read The Economist, listen to NPR, browse through BBC, and watch C-SPAN when there’s anything worth listening to. It’s amazing how few kids read The Economist though, and how many watch FOX, CNN, ABC or the like.</p>
<p>The BBC any day. The online site’s my major homepage (I’ve got 4).</p>
<p>Also CNN sometimes. Fox when I feel like reacquainting myself with all that’s wrong in the world. Huffington Post as well, though that’s more for the commentary and less for the news. </p>
<p>Reuters as well, though that’s more periodic.</p>
<p>For me, (online) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Google News and Wikipedia regularly.
Huffington Post, Drudge, NYT and the Washington Post on a more sporadic basis. </p>
<p>On the television I tend to watch the BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera English and NDTV (India).</p>
<p>Yes, Jmmom, I have been almost mowed down a couple of times while walking the dog and reading the NY Times but I’m pretty good at it. We don’t live on a major thoroughfare so I’m lucky in that regard!</p>
<p>Point 1)
Point 2)
Point 3)
It’s Fox news–see point 1 when considering your point on ignorance and Democrat/Republocrat ■■■■■■.</p>
<p>The Democrat calls the Republocrat ignorant–too rich!</p>
<p>For fair and balanced I rely on the checkout tabloids. I get all the latest about Tom & Katie, Brad & Angelina & Jen, Britney, Anna Nicole, etc. PLUS Cosmo tells me “Secret New Tricks to Drive (My) Man Wild” every single month. That’s news I can use. </p>
<p>And then there’s NPR–to find out what the liberals are up to.</p>
<p>The term “Faux News” is well earned by their content. They should register as the propaganda arm of the Republican party, not an independent [sic] media organization [sic] [sic] [sic].</p>