Where Do You Get Your News?

[russ_watters]

I guess I don't understand. You said you desired opinion content to come from "a separate commercial entity". Is that really what you meant? I don't think many such organizations exist and I think such content makes up a very large part of print and TV media. What am I missing?

My local news radio station is a rare example of a news only and they run it on a 20 minute loop, with weather and traffic every 10, thus avoiding 99% dead air (OK, 49% commercials, 1% news and 50% dead air). CNN Headline News channel used to be similar (not sure if it still is), but I don't think there is anything else even close. And again, I think the lack of opinion and analysis makes them highly limited.

Expanding the quote:

I see no real justification why news agencies should have opinion pieces rather than said opinion pieces being a separate commercial entity.

So would you strip CNN.com and the CNN channel of opinion content and create new companies, channels and websites for the opinion-only part? Seems cumbersome and unnecessary to me - seems like it would result in twice as much content with only the same total value. In other words, it would de-value the existing sources by eliminating quality content.

Again, the idea (if I understand it correctly) makes no sense to me. The analysis and opinion are a valuable - even essential - part of the news reporting to me. I don't think it is possible to thoroughly understand an piece of news without the analysis.

I also notice you didn't answer Lisa's question: what news do you use? And do you think they come close to meeting your criteria?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think you're conflating analysis and opinion far too much. It is one thing to have an economics expert outline the potential ramifications of a current event and another entirely to have an opinion show where a variety of people sit around and discuss it with whatever political bent they have. Clearly there are still going to be opinions and bias in regular news but I'm more thinking of a greater distinction between that and something like the O'Reilly show.

In terms of what news services I regularly use:

Websites:

BBC
Aj Jazzera
China Daily (less regular than I used to)
CNN (ditto China Daily)
Pink News

News papers:

The Times
The Evening Standard
The Guardian
The Daily Mail (if I need something to boost my blood pressure)

 

[Evo]

Yahoo

 

[Astronuc]

Another possibility - http://www.worldpress.org/

Worldpress.org is a nonpartisan magazine whose mission is to foster the international exchange of perspectives and information. It contains articles reprinted from the press outside the United States, as well as originally written material. Reprinted articles are subject to editing, translation, and excerpting. Illustration and photo selection, captions, and some headlines accompanying reprinted articles are by Worldpress.org's editors. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

. . . .

http://www.worldpress.org/about.cfm

 

[russ_watters]

I think you're conflating analysis and opinion far too much. It is one thing to have an economics expert outline the potential ramifications of a current event and another entirely to have an opinion show where a variety of people sit around and discuss it with whatever political bent they have. Clearly there are still going to be opinions and bias in regular news but I'm more thinking of a greater distinction between that and something like the O'Reilly show.

Ok, well fair enough: but are there any major news outlets that have separate business units for news an opinion? I don't think any do.

 

[ZeroPivot]

I'm confused as to why you would avoid AlJezeera (IMO a great news source and one of the few not to give a standard western perspective) because it might have bias but still watch FoxNews...

i watch Fox News for the bigoted hillbilly redneck reaction to the news. CNN is no better to be honest. i mean in reality theres no such thing as "journalism" its all propaganda. But when it comes to the Syria crisis AlJazeera really is one-sided in their reporting cause they are backing the terrorist Al-qaida rebels, so i would stay clear for real news from them.

 

[lisab]

i watch Fox News for the bigoted hillbilly redneck reaction to the news. CNN is no better to be honest. i mean in reality theres no such thing as "journalism" its all propaganda. But when it comes to the Syria crisis AlJazeera really is one-sided in their reporting cause they are backing the terrorist Al-qaida rebels, so i would stay clear for real news from them.

I won't let this thread become a Syria thread (we have some going already in Current Events), but I've never seen a slant towards terrorism in Al-Jazeera and I've read them for quite a while now. I equate them with BBC as far as quality of reporting, but of course their point of view is a ME one. I think it's good to know what that view is, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can't remove bias from news reporting. (I prefer "slant" - "bias" implies inappropriate behavior). News outlets can't cover everything, and they certainly can't cover everything in the same depth. So they have to pick and choose.

Tuesday the local NPR affiliate preempted the end of the President's news conference to run a story on the Nobel prizes. Was this right-wing bias? They didn't cover the Speaker's news conference at all. Was this left-wing bias?

There are only 24 hours in a day, and there's more news than fits there. So they pick and choose. Give us their perspective - or slant - on what's important.

 

[jhae2.718]

I like Google's news aggregator.

(Actually, I just believe anything anyone posts in [STRIKE]P&WA[/STRIKE]Current Events...)

 

[lisab]

You can't remove bias from news reporting. (I prefer "slant" - "bias" implies inappropriate behavior). News outlets can't cover everything, and they certainly can't cover everything in the same depth. So they have to pick and choose.

Tuesday the local NPR affiliate preempted the end of the President's news conference to run a story on the Nobel prizes. Was this right-wing bias? They didn't cover the Speaker's news conference at all. Was this left-wing bias?

There are only 24 hours in a day, and there's more news than fits there. So they pick and choose. Give us their perspective - or slant - on what's important.

I think this point is often missed. The very moment a pen meets paper - or a finger meets keyboard - the slant is evident: the writer believed it deserved to be reported. When nothing is written, that too is a slant: the writer found it unimportant.

 

[lisab]

I like Google's news aggregator.

(Actually, I just believe anything anyone posts in [STRIKE]P&WA[/STRIKE]Current Events...)

I haven't tried that, I'll give it a try.

 

[jhae2.718]

I haven't tried that, I'll give it a try.

Hopefully the former and not the latter!

 

[lambda90]

scientific american
science daily
new scientist
nature
phys.org

 

[FreeMitya]

I use the CBC, take advantage of the ten free articles per month on the New York Times' website, and check SciAm every now and then. That's really all I need.

 

[ZeroPivot]

I won't let this thread become a Syria thread (we have some going already in Current Events), but I've never seen a slant towards terrorism in Al-Jazeera and I've read them for quite a while now. I equate them with BBC as far as quality of reporting, but of course their point of view is a ME one. I think it's good to know what that view is, even if you don't agree with it.

the brainwashing has worked.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

the brainwashing has worked.

Can you point to any specific examples where al jazzera has expressed support for al Qaeda?

 

[phinds]

the brainwashing has worked.

Or, possibly, you have some reason to be biased yourself and see bias where none exists.

 

[russ_watters]

Or, possibly, you have some reason to be biased yourself and see bias where none exists.

Again: bias exists everywhere. That attitude only makes you more likely to miss it.

While I can't comment on recent evolution of the network, the past anti-US/ anti-semetic bias is pretty widely discussed: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism

But in its way, it is actually ok: one of the reasons someone might choose to talk to a certain media outlet is because they like their bias. That would explain why terrorist manifestos often get submitted to all Jazeera first.

It is much better to seek out different biases then to fool yourself that the mythical bias-free source exists.

 

[Pythagorean]

There's a spectrum of bias. The minimal bias is to present facts, but you still express bias in the set of facts you choose to present, the order you present them, and the language you use.

But at the other end is dishonest bias, where loosely-associated facts are presented to imply meaning that's not there. Or opinion is passed as fact.

I don't check the news every day. If I hear about something interesting, I check a couple sources, but I also like to look at the comments and discussion on sites like PF/reddit because individuals tend to be more critical, and sometimes provide fact-checking sources.

 

[russ_watters]

I think this point is often missed. The very moment a pen meets paper - or a finger meets keyboard - the slant is evident: the writer believed it deserved to be reported. When nothing is written, that too is a slant: the writer found it unimportant.

That's probably the main reason I check Fox News: they report on different stories than the others and I want to see what I might be missing.