<p>Booklady, I adore Andrew Sullivan’s blog, too! Things just aren’t the same when he’s on vacation.</p>
<p>i check bbc news online (the international version) and nytimes.com compulsively. lol. aside from that, the daily show and the colbert report :)</p>
<p>1.) MSNBC</p>
<p>2.) NPR</p>
<p>3.) Major newspapers and credible blogs.</p>
<p>4.) CNN</p>
<p>That said, I think that differing news sources does not account for the differing opinions here on CC or in this country in general. Other things like ideology, education, etc. ultimately influence how and whether or not we understand news.</p>
<p>I haven’t had a television set in over 20 years (and my several children are all great readers consequently).
I get my news from Yahoo when I check my email, from the radio as I drive, and from scattered sources. I used to get the newspaper, but not lately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. The subs all post too much!</p>
<p>I’m a heavy duty news junkie – my wife and kids are so sick of me telling them i have to watch/listen to the news. thankfully though, the wife is interested in politics and this habit has made the kids much more attuned to current events. we talk constantly about the elections, the war, the economy, or whatever the local outrage du jour is. </p>
<p>Serious Reading: NY Times, Wash Post, Wall Street Journal</p>
<p>Skim online almost daily: Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Christian Science Monitor </p>
<p>Occasional reads: NY Daily News, NY Post, NY Sun</p>
<p>Magazines: The New Yorker, Time, BusinessWeek, Fortune</p>
<p>Regular TV Watching: Countdown on MSNBC (love the snark of Olbemann, who though openly anti-Bush, is actually a good reporter), BBC nightly, CNN for breaking stuff, local 11 oclock news every now and then. </p>
<p>I guess i’m too much of an old-school print type to get into blogs very much. I prefer info that has been vetted by news professionals , although I have seen some interesting things on the DailyKos. Most blogs, though, seem to me to be just unedited, uninformed opinion, like talk radio. For that I could stand on a street corner and save my bandwidth.</p>
<p>edit: I almost forgot to include the true mark of a news junkie. Maybe once or twice a week, i find my hand on the remote and somehow – how does this happen???-- I end up watching C-Span!</p>
<p>NPR, Wall Street Journal, Google News, CNN, 1 local paper in print, 2 local papers online, Politico (website). And my absolute favorite, the website [Wonkette:</a> The D.C. Gossip](<a href=“http://www.wonkette.com%5DWonkette:”>http://www.wonkette.com). Good for several laughs a day and a lot of links to political news.</p>
<p>In general it seems that we go to sources that reaffirm our existing political beliefs.</p>
<p>I too stopped watching Fox when they decided to out-CNN CNN. Lucianne features articles from a variety of sources, but the comments are overwhelmingly conservative.</p>
<p>That said, I KNOW that my sources are biased. Heck, even what a source deems newsworthy or unnewsworthy shows bias (e.g. LA Times telling their reporters and bloggers to not even mention the Edwards story).</p>
<p>My husband’s “first law” is that your level of confidence is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence you have to support it. The ultimate expression of this is faith – the absolute belief in something that by definition is unprovable. </p>
<p>Something else he jokes about is “selective amnesia” – when we read an article about something we know first-hand, we can scoff that the article has the facts, mood, tone, meaning (whatever) wrong. Then we read the rest of the paper with absolute faith that the other articles are completely accurate.</p>
<p>I think going to multiple sources that are somewhat balanced is a good idea. Must admit, I can’t stomach FOX. But a mix of the Wall Street Journal, NPR, and Google (which has a very broad variety of sources) makes me feel like I see the news and current events from multiple angles. And consistently keeping up with those sources (pretty much every day unless I am on vacation) is good, it gives me more perspective when something new happens because I know the backstory. One of my pet peeves, though, is that when I was in high school the history of the last 25-30 years prior to that time was simply not taught; I think the teachers didn’t view it as “history” because they lived it. And we ran out of time at the end of the semester when they might have covered it anyway… So I have these annoying gaps in my knowledge of American and world events during that period. It would help a lot in areas like the Middle East to have that background. I’m filling it in, but am sometimes tripped up by those gaps when trying to decipher current events.</p>