<rant>
</rant>
Going to MSNBC for the evening news is like going to an ice cream parlor for health food.
</rant>
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I miss Walter Cronkite ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I found the following to be interesting ...
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
An agreeable opinion piece since my news link folder contains 8 of 10.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
It is also unfortunately the most likely place you will find daily reports of Bibi's pacification efforts.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The only two I have read are the guardian a traditional liberal leaning and owned paper. And the BBC who will sack journalists for crossing the line between news and opinion.
The Guardian makes it clear which is which, so no problem.
Most social media is one sided or biassed sometimes accurate and often not.
Such American news as I have read has always mixed opinion and news. As does their TV.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
As a new junkie, I monitor all 10, although I stay outside of the NYT paywall. I also watch MSNBC, because I like ice cream for news junkies.
AP. In the old days when I read the newspaper, the articles identifying themselves as from the AP always caught my attention. I should seek them out now online.
Reuters. I find them fair and balanced and read them in rare occasion.
NPR. I don’t read NPR, but I listen to their radio programs fairly frequently. That said, I don’t think they qualify as unbiased. They are clearly left leaning which is somewhat troublesome for a public station.
BBC. My primary news source. I read them every day.
PBS News Hour. I’ve never watched or read PBS for news. Maybe I should start.
CBS news. I often turn to CBS during debates and on election night. Better than watching the paid for “news” programs on the right and left.
The Guardian. I read from time to time. They do good work.
The NYT. I read occasionally when there are free articles. I don’t pay for full access.
CNN. Not bad. I turn to them as well during debates and in election night.
NBC news. Gag.
Reuters. I find them fair and balanced and read them in rare occasion.
NPR. I don’t read NPR, but I listen to their radio programs fairly frequently. That said, I don’t think they qualify as unbiased. They are clearly left leaning which is somewhat troublesome for a public station.
BBC. My primary news source. I read them every day.
PBS News Hour. I’ve never watched or read PBS for news. Maybe I should start.
CBS news. I often turn to CBS during debates and on election night. Better than watching the paid for “news” programs on the right and left.
The Guardian. I read from time to time. They do good work.
The NYT. I read occasionally when there are free articles. I don’t pay for full access.
CNN. Not bad. I turn to them as well during debates and in election night.
NBC news. Gag.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Or like going to a health food store for ice cream.
That about describes me...
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Going to Fox News for the evening news is like going to Jim Jones for a Kool Aid party.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
And that's why I don't go there.Going to Fox News for the evening news is like going to Jim Jones for a Kool Aid party.
All advertising or tax supported news outlets are part of a patronage system. At the end of the article is a list of sources we should stay away from, but I think most things in the top should also be in the list. An informed individual is educated and tracks the bills and executive decisions being made. These patronage supported news systems discourage it. They also cannot make up for the lack of informed people. The most they can provide is a description of current events, which they often neglect to do and instead focus upon thinking for us. That's what most of their talk is -- thinking for us. It is opinion or spin.
The article lists several of these as 'Most unbiased' which with the way it is set up is as dishonest as calling them 'Safe'. They are not.
I like NPR, sometimes, but the attitude at NPR is "Let us think for you, because we are good people!"
BBC defines what the UK citizens are to think on every topic of import. It is unsurprising given the class system in the UK. Its an example of a patronage system that believes it knows best.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Please
give us a list of nonsupported sources neither by advertising or tax or donated money so we can compare their relevance and accuracy?
I merely pointed out that almost all listed were not subscriber supported. They had patrons -- patrons who favored a political party, favored an economic policy and favored various domestic policies. Hardly unbiased, but the article wanted to put them forward as 'Most unbiased'. Nothing could substitute for a person educating themselves, but these sources would discourage anyone from doing so. The patronage system tends to result in a patronizing attitude. "Our opinion is the best thing for you."
Pogo
Well-Known Member
What percentage of NPR is funded by the government?
NPR receives a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to less than 1% of revenues.
Now I ask again, what sources are not supported by external money?
How are you defining these sources and does the idea that Tucker Carlson is a subscription supported site improve his veracity?