Poll: Which news station do you watch?

[NusuniAdmin]

Wow this is the 3'rd thread ive opened in past week. Oh well, so which news station do you watch, I usually like to watch Fox as well as ABC.

[King Cobra]

If anything at all, it's whatever I look at over my shoulder in case something appealing shows up. I don't care for news stations, in general.

Vote: None in particular

[gwuMACaddict]

usually fox. cnn drives me nuts with their slant. while most people will complain that fox is slanted the other direction, i just think because it's more central that it seems slanted.

[wdlove]

I just have basic cable so I don't get CNN or Fox. I stopped watching ABC, CBS, or NBC a long time ago because of their profound bias. The only TV news that I watch is our local 11pm news on WCVB.

[NusuniAdmin]

usually fox. cnn drives me nuts with their slant. while most people will complain that fox is slanted the other direction, i just think because it's more central that it seems slanted.

it is pretty funny watching O'Reily bash on liberals :D :p

[Macmaniac]

When we cut back on our cable I lost CNN, and CNBC, I also watched MSNB often, now I just read websites for my news, or I watch the 10 o'colck news which is usually FOX, being FOX our local news is actually quite good and surprisingly balanced, I guess old Rupe has not dug his fingers too far into my local station;)

[MongoTheGeek]

it is pretty funny watching O'Reily bash on liberals :D :p

O'Reilly is a self important nutjob. At one point he was rational but he has slid from the realm of reason.

[womencantsail]

it is pretty funny watching O'Reily bash on liberals :D :p

Read this (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly)

[mactastic]

All of them.

[jzieske]

I too have gotten sick of CNN's constant Left leaning bias, and now only watch FOX News. It may lean right, but they are not afraid to bash republicans who screw up too. I got sick of CNN bashing Bush all the time and never saying a thing about democrats doing anything wrong.

[Thomas Veil]

The networks liberal? Oh, puh-leeze. In years past, they used to ask a lot more hard questions than they do now that they're all owned by other big corporations.

For a number of years CNN was a bastion of hard news, but since Ted Turner's gone they've become just a national version of your typical local "happy talk" news.

I suspect everything I hear on Fox.

[Dippo]

I too have gotten sick of CNN's constant Left leaning bias, and now only watch FOX News. It may lean right, but they are not afraid to bash republicans who screw up too. I got sick of CNN bashing Bush all the time and never saying a thing about democrats doing anything wrong.


I have to agree with that...

My favorite news station is Fox News, but I do try to watch CNN as much as I can so that I can get "both sides of a story".

I also like to watch news from other countires, but I don't get to do that often.

I don't care much for network news, and so I don't watch it.

Maybe this could be a Macrumors poll?

[Dippo]

I suspect everything I hear on Fox.


I suspect everything I hear PERIOD!

[blue&whiteman]

news and media in general are all evil to a certain extent. I don't watch TV much, never watch news.

the worst kind of media are the shows based on celebrity news. its all just a haven for nosey people with no life and needs to be stopped. just because someone is in the public eye does not mean we should know who they are having sex with or who they did drugs with etc.

[macka]

GAh! American news...I read cnn.com, when I can be bothered to put up with the ads, is that close enough? :D

[evil]

the best one out of the choices available is cp24.

[blackfox]

BBC...when I have the chance...mostly I just read the news...most often from the NYT or from the Wash. Post when I can find it...don't get me started on Fox News...but in fairness, they are all pretty bad as they are owned by big business...again, why I watch BBC

[wordmunger]

I get all my news from the Daily Show. I'm serious--I Tivo it, and that's how I make sure I'm up to date on the top news stories. Yes, I realize it's fake, but you can find out a lot from that show.

Besides that, I read the NY Times online and subscribe to the local newspaper, and I listen to NPR whenever I'm in the car. I never watch TV news. I can't stand it.

[WinterMute]

BBC news 24 mostly, although I'll try to catch a headline from CNN just to see how badly wrong they are getting it..... ;) :D

The BBC may have had it's ups and downs lately, but it's still the best news gathering service on the planet.

[iGav]

BBC News 24 (although their reporting is sometimes as biased as any other)

And SKY News too... they're more diverse.

I read lot's of newspapers as well, I like to have a relatively broad general knowledge of what is going on in the world, so I'll read The Times and the creatives cliche, The Guardian. heheh

[Blackstealth]

BBC News 24 ...
And SKY News too
Ditto. I have News 24 turned on all the time and I also keep a copy of the Reuters news site (http://www.reuters.co.uk/news.jhtml) open whenever I'm at a computer (I guess I'm a bit of an information junkie).

[OutThere]

I stay away from the TV news...I just check http://news.bbc.co.uk. You should too.

[PalmHarborTchr]

The networks liberal? Oh, puh-leeze. In years past, they used to ask a lot more hard questions than they do now that they're all owned by other big corporations.

For a number of years CNN was a bastion of hard news, but since Ted Turner's gone they've become just a national version of your typical local "happy talk" news.

I suspect everything I hear on Fox.
Now, be fair..FauxNews appeals to a very large community in the
US...the "Stupid Community" as well as the "Brain damaged Community".
They need a source that reflects their thinking too. :D

[Kid Red]

Fox is so slanted they make Rush look like Clinton's strip club buddy. They are sooo far right it's not even worth arguing about. They make it known. Just watch one of their typical shows that has a democrat on and watch them rip him/her. They are too far right for me. They are too biased, too blind and too ignorant.

I watch CNN because they seem to have a fairly split view. I think they might be more open minded to the left, but have a lot of right handed topics/opinions that they are fairly centered. They at least let the right have a voice, but with guests/topics and viewer comments.

Fox is just so far right they try and stifle the left's voice/opinion and then try to belittle their view.

[Dippo]

Fox is so slanted they make Rush look like Clinton's strip club buddy. They are sooo far right it's not even worth arguing about. They make it known. Just watch one of their typical shows that has a democrat on and watch them rip him/her. They are too far right for me. They are too biased, too blind and too ignorant.

I watch CNN because they seem to have a fairly split view. I think they might be more open minded to the left, but have a lot of right handed topics/opinions that they are fairly centered. They at least let the right have a voice, but with guests/topics and viewer comments.

Fox is just so far right they try and stifle the left's voice/opinion and then try to belittle their view.

Actually ALL NEWS is slanted whether you think it is or not.
If you have "left" views, then CNN will seem more "center" and Fox will seem "far right".
If you have "right" views, then CNN will seem "far left" and Fox will seem more "center".

Calling everyone at Fox News blind and ignorant is nonsense. They know exactly what they are doing, and they are giving their audience the news they want to see, which is no different than any other news station.

[Thanatoast]

I read Yahoo, to find out which celebrities have died, BBC, to see the news, and the NYT, to see the American slant on the news.

The reason Fox News is so hated by the liberal community, I think, is because commentators have been known to shout down opponents, belittle their opinion without addressing the facts, and then declare themselves paragons of virtue and knowledge. I have never seen a liberal commentator do the same.

[Lyle]

Fox is so slanted they make Rush look like Clinton's strip club buddy. They are sooo far right it's not even worth arguing about. They make it known. Just watch one of their typical shows that has a democrat on and watch them rip him/her. They are too far right for me. They are too biased, too blind and too ignorant.

I watch CNN because they seem to have a fairly split view. I think they might be more open minded to the left, but have a lot of right handed topics/opinions that they are fairly centered. They at least let the right have a voice, but with guests/topics and viewer comments.

Fox is just so far right they try and stifle the left's voice/opinion and then try to belittle their view.

The situation, which you're indirectly described, is that the line between news and commentary has become so blurred on most of the 24 hour "news" stations that it's hard to tell the difference. Shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity and Colmes" (on FOX), or, I dunno, "Crossfire" on CNN, are not news programs, they're commentary. And it makes sense (to me, anyways) that the hosts of those shows have specific points of view (or biases).

The problem is when a program that presents itself as straight news (e.g. "The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather", or whatever) starts making decisions about suppressing certain stories, or glossing over parts of stories, based on the political biases of the "journalists" and their staff writers. (And I'm not picking on CBS, just using them as an example. I think pretty much every news organization out there is guilty of this to some degree). You're probably not going to see people screaming at each other on one of these kinds of news programs, but you will pick up on differences in which stories they report and how they present the information.

[blackfox]

The situation, which you're indirectly described, is that the line between news and commentary has become so blurred on most of the 24 hour "news" stations that it's hard to tell the difference. Shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity and Colmes" (on FOX), or, I dunno, "Crossfire" on CNN, are not news programs, they're commentary. And it makes sense (to me, anyways) that the hosts of those shows have specific points of view (or biases).

The problem is when a program that presents itself as straight news (e.g. "The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather", or whatever) starts making decisions about suppressing certain stories, or glossing over parts of stories, based on the political biases of the "journalists" and their staff writers. (And I'm not picking on CBS, just using them as an example. I think pretty much every news organization out there is guilty of this to some degree). You're probably not going to see people screaming at each other on one of these kinds of news programs, but you will pick up on differences in which stories they report and how they present the information.
Very good point...it should be said, however, that it is probably not Dan Rather(to use your example) picking content, but some nameless suit of CBS or its' parent company...

[sethypoo]

Vote: All Things Considered on National Public Radio.

[King Cobra]

Uuughhh...are discussions about news channels and/or online new sites going to be boiled down to their apparent political demonstration? Greg Dann, it's just a freakin' NEWS CHANNEL! Who cares if they're left-wing, right-wing, whatever...? Find out what you want to know about what's going on in the world, or locally, or wherever, and that's that. Political discussions, as I see them, should be reserved for government and/or world issues, not on how some organization reports them!

Now, seriously, I try to stay away from politics, because I don't care for them, but I am finding that impossible because political issues are being "leaked" out of the Political forum and into: Current Events, MacBytes, other Community section topics, etc....hence my need to vent and make that clear to some people.

--
EDIT: And, just recently, this thread was moved from the Community Section to the Political section...no wonder what I just said about the "leakage" doesn't seem proper. Gah!
--

With that said:


I also keep a copy of the Reuters news site (http://www.reuters.co.uk/news.jhtml) open whenever I'm at a computer
That's probably the only online news site that I dislike more than any other. Reason being: Most often, the authors of the Reuters reports don't explain things clearly in their reports, and/or random figures are quoted, which makes the final article seem random. But I suppose if you're an info junkie, then Reuters is for you.

[Blackstealth]

That's probably the only online news site that I dislike more than any other. Reason being: Most often, the authors of the Reuters reports don't explain things clearly in their reports, and/or random figures are quoted, which makes the final article seem random. But I suppose if you're an info junkie, then Reuters is for you.

I don't read Reuters for the content, it just gives a reasonable overview and is updated pretty frequently for a newswire. If there's anything interesting I'll wait for it on the BBC or dig it up through other channels...

Oh, forgot the the world section of the FT - that usually makes for a good read.

[takao]

i don't really watch much news stations ..and if i watch ...i only a have a slim choice

cnbc europe,cnn, n-tv(german) and on the other tv i can get sky something too but thats it....

[musicpyrite]

I don't watch TV new much, but when I do, it's usually FOX. I listen to the radio alot more (it's easier to sit in the back of my English class and listen to the radio rather than the TV). If you live in the NE, go to 96.9 FM and lisen to Howie Carr; he's on at about 3 PM.

[mactastic]

Link to Study (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html#conclusion)

Executive Summary

The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.

The findings include:


On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.
This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and trade—issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action.

The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to social issues. However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be merely sleight of hand.

This illusion has not been exposed here merely to replace it with an equally false mirror image of the conservative critique. Painting journalists as the core of the "conservative media" does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. Like many profit-sector professionals journalists tend to hold "liberal" social views and "conservative" economic views. Most of all, though, they can be broadly described as centrists. This adherence to the middle is consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy "debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power.

Which brings us back to the conservative critique. It is based on the propositions that: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the general public, and (2) that these views influence the news content that they produce. Having now exposed the first point for the myth that it is, we are left with the issue of personal views influencing news content.

There are two important responses to this claim. First, it is sources, not journalists, who are allowed to express their views in the conventional model of "objective" journalism. Therefore, we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists' personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists "nearly always" turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and right-wing think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; left-wing think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, "liberal bias" is nowhere to be found.

Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country—not surprisingly—tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers.

It is here, at the structural level, that the fundamental ground rules of news production are set. Of course, working journalists sometimes succeed in temporarily challenging some of those rules and boundaries. But ultimately, if they are to succeed and advance in the profession for any length of time, they must adapt to the ground rules set by others—regardless of their own personal views.

The 'Liberal Media' is a myth, much like Bigfoot. Many believe in it, but none have actually seen it.

[SlyHunter]

FOX, BBCAmerica, some NWI and bloomberg.

I prefer www.Drudgereport.com and www.boorts.com for up to date news. Usually by the time I hear about it on TV I already heard about it 15 times on the internet or the radio. Never read the paper unless I have to. They seem to only report old news.

[Sayhey]

The Newshour on PBS. Only place among the major news outlets were there is anything close to in depth coverage.

[Dippo]

The 'Liberal Media' is a myth, much like Bigfoot. Many believe in it, but none have actually seen it.

Have you never listened to Air America Radio?
http://www.airamericaradio.com/

That and most other news including CNN, CBS, etc are liberal.

And don't forget MTV, that crap is liberal as all get out.

[IJ Reilly]

Funny, I never thought of MTV as a news source. Clearly other people have some pretty unusual definitions of "news."

Anyway, another vote for the NewsHour on PBS. That, and NPR -- the only news sources worth watching or listening to, period. All the rest is simply entertainment, to a greater or lesser degree.

[IIvan]

FOX, BBCAmerica, some NWI and bloomberg.

I prefer www.Drudgereport.com and www.boorts.com for up to date news. Usually by the time I hear about it on TV I already heard about it 15 times on the internet or the radio. Never read the paper unless I have to. They seem to only report old news.

What happened to Drudge? He used to be pretty fair, but now hes off on a conservative tangent!


My Vote: NPR

[Thanatoast]

Uuughhh...are discussions about news channels and/or online new sites going to be boiled down to their apparent political demonstration? Greg Dann, it's just a freakin' NEWS CHANNEL! Who cares if they're left-wing, right-wing, whatever...? Find out what you want to know about what's going on in the world, or locally, or wherever, and that's that. Political discussions, as I see them, should be reserved for government and/or world issues, not on how some organization reports them!Unfortunately it's a serious issue. Since most people get their news in 30-second sound bites it makes a huge difference whether the reporting of that news is slanted in one direction or another. I'm sure you can imagine the difference in emphais placed on a story broadcast by, say, a local tv station in Dallas, and one printed in a local paper in Boulder, Colorado. Even between the NYT and the BBC there are differences in reporting, for instance a couple weeks ago the top headline on the NYT site was "US attacks Fallujah" and on the BBC it was "US bombs mosque". Both stories were correct, but you're going to get a different impression of events from either side. The long and short of it is, most people believe what they are told, and it the way in which they were given the information makes a difference in their opinions on the matter.

[zimv20]

as reported on tavis smiley's show today (NPR)... an analysis was done of iraq-war related TV interviews in the week before and the week after colin powell's address to the UN (so this was before the war started).

the media examined were CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS. of the 393 iraq-war related TV interviews conducted, exactly 3 represented views of anti-war interviewees.

now let's talk about "fair and balanced"

[Steradian]

I watch DW tv, for news. It is a german Station. very interesting to get their perspective.

[skunk]

In these days of untrammelled partisan newspeak, it seems that you'll get the most real news out of a good satire. Bremner, Bird and Fortune is a brilliant weekly satirical news programme in the UK: pulls absolutely no punches and relentlessly hits its targets.

[Desertrat]

I'm less interested in "slant" or interpretations than in "Did this really happen?" Programs like the "O'Reilly Factor" or "Larry King Live" aren't news; they're news-associated chit-chat and squabbling. I'd watch the Sunday morning talking-head stuff more but for the plethora of soft questions and the unending non-answer spinning.

To deal with "spiking" by any one source, I'll check various TV news programs and/or newspapers or Internet. The International News Service provides information not commonly provided by Dan Blather et al.

Most of the time, I'm in no hurry to reach conclusions about the deeper meanings of all this crapola. At my age, most of it's just a repeat of past events of past decades; only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Have you never listened to Air America Radio?
http://www.airamericaradio.com/

That and most other news including CNN, CBS, etc are liberal.

And don't forget MTV, that crap is liberal as all get out.

I'm talking about 'the media' in general. Conservatives are always complaining about the liberal bias in the media, but do they ever acknowledge FOX, The Weekly Standard, The National Review, the editorial page of the WSJ etc? No they don't. So how does ONE liberal radio station negate the point I made?

If you read the report I posted, and others like it, you'll find that CNN CBS etc are NOT liberal. They are centrist. If you want a liberal perspective read Mother Jones, or listen to Air America. You'll find there is a difference between what you think of as liberal and what an actual liberal thinks.

Do you really get your news from MTV? Does anyone who actually cares about the news get their news from MTV? Ok, even if you did, how much time does MTV devote to news versus say FOX?

[numediaman]

As a media consultant I can tell you that the media owners (I'm just talking about the CEOs, owners and upper level executives) are desperate to make sure Bush is re-elected. I mean desperate. For them it is a matter of life or death.

Bush and Powell (Michael, not Colin) were able to push through their media consolidation scheme last year, and the benefits have not come through because of court action and moves in the Congress. Viacom, Murdoch (Fox), and others are counting on this to continue to scoop up broadcast and print properties. A Kerry victory would be a disaster for the media giants.

[mactastic]

Oh, I might add that I think the Christian Science Monitor is an excellent source of news as well.

[King Cobra]

Unfortunately it's a serious issue. Since most people get their news in 30-second sound bites it makes a huge difference whether the reporting of that news is slanted in one direction or another....The long and short of it is, most people believe what they are told, and it the way in which they were given the information makes a difference in their opinions on the matter.

Agreed...but what type of opinions are certain people getting out of (or forcing from) reading news reports from certain organizations? I think that we all wouldn't have so many "serious issues" (name calling or political references against news organizations) if those certain people that generate the issues either (A) compare the report to other articles for multiple perspectives and/or more refined facts, (B) base their opinions of any news article on only facts and not immediate stereotypical assumptions, even though it can be tempting to do so with some articles, or (C) do both a and b. Though my guess is those who have lived deep in the political quicksand of those "serious issues" aren't going to be willing to do either a or b.

[Mr. Anderson]

I try not to watch the news....over sensationalization is rampant. I'll get my news on line...

D

[Neserk]

Don't watch the news. It is (a) too depressing, and (b) they don't tell you anything anyhow. I don't have cable/satellite so CNN etc isn't an option. I generally read my news via the internet. I don't generally trust the media, anyhow. I'm skeptical of anything I don't see with my own eyes :D That comes from having actually witnessed two events and seen them on the news and was somewhere between cursing the newscasters and laughing my head off at how inaccurate they were at reporting the events.