Where do you get your news, and who is your favorite "real" journalist?

Technarchy

macrumors 604
Original poster
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Reading through this thread, http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1696223 , got me wondering....

Where do you get your news, and who is your favorite real journalist?

Don't be ashamed to say Anderson Cooper, John Stewart and ‎Cenk Uygur, because you know you're out there.

For me...

Internet and print news: New York Times, The Economist, The Nation, The Guardian USA

Internet Blogs: The Blaze, The Daily Caller, Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics

TV: MSNBC (Chris Matthews only), snippets of Fox and other MSNBC personalities from time to time.

Radio: Various talk radio shows, no real preference, but usually on in the car only.

Journalists: Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald. Why? Because they are actually living up to what the press should do. Hold government accountable to the people. Not shill for the White House or corporate money.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
South Park ...... :D


But seriously ... I get my news from everywhere possible. Rarely listen to news on the Radio, but when I do, it's most likely 1010 WINS in NYC.


TV: MSNBC (Chris Matthews only), snippets of Fox and other MSNBC personalities from time to time.
I enjoy Chris Matthews.

I also like the way Rachel Maddow puts things together like a story book from beginning to end with just the facts. Even Bill O'Reilly gives her credit.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
I like to vary the news I watch on TV, so I scan BBC, Al Jezeera, RT, NBC, CBS, etc. I only watch Fox news out of morbid fascination. I have an app called Hourly News that presents radio broadcasts from different sources that you specify (I use NPR, BBC, VOA, CBC, ABC, & CBS when I get up on the weekends). For written news I like the BBC, Huff Post & the Guardian.

The funny thing is, typically the information presented by all of these sources is roughly the same, but the interpretation that each adds is distinctive. Clearly some of these news sources reflect the agenda of their country - RT is particularly informative, with a good in-depth stories, but it is laughably biased in favour of Russia. The Chinese news channel is hilarious when they interview people from the US, for it is clear those being interviewed do not want to get their interviewers in trouble by saying the wrong thing.

I do not follow a particular journalist because I think it naive to trust a single source of information and I do not have a regular schedule.
 

sviato

macrumors 68020
Oct 27, 2010
2,274
44
HR 9038 A
WSJ, Bloomberg, Quartz, Guardian, Financial Times. I'm pretty much only interested in business news, and go to various tech sites and blogs tech info.
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
NPR radio (Morning Edition, All Things Considered)
Reddit r/news r/politics

That's about it. NPR provides the vast bulk of my news/current events knowledge.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
I watch some TYT sometimes, some Daily Show, and just smatterings of just about anything I can get my hands on. I typically do it all online, though, so that limits things slightly.

The important thing to do if you're going to watch TYT, by the way, is to click the link in the description to read the source. I've caught them... possibly take a couple things here and there out of context to suit their agenda. Also, you'd be surprised how much random political things you can get from a blog like ZDnet. >_>;

Good things these sources, even the ones that have a cable news show, tend to put a lot of content online.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Me? Someone already had listed a number of sites I use, so I'll add the other two I frequent daily:

www.theage.com.au
www.smh.com.au

As for the US, I do, though very rarely, watch local news to get caught up on things that happen around me. Other than that…

NPR. There really isn't a journalist there who hasn't won a prestigious award. There really isn't, so you could take your pick on anyone to be a favorite. They still care about and maintain integrity and journalistic standards instead of sensationalism.

But currently, my fave would be the last of the old school journalists left (Murrough, dead. Cronkite, dead. Jennings, dead. Brokaw, retired. Rather, retired): Karl Kassell.

Besides, you have not lived until you have him record your greeting on your home answering machine or voice mail. ;)

BL.
 

Raid

macrumors 68020
Feb 18, 2003
2,144
3,927
Toronto
I get news from a few sources like local TV (CTV News, CanadaAM, CP24) I get American versions of the news from CNN primarily, and I get a good rundown of the political theater from Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report. My international news is pretty weak, I catch the odd BBC news report and read "The Economist" as my office has a subscription. :)

Funny you mention this because a web comic I read has some interesting insight this week on the media:

&
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,989
John Pilger, Amy Goodman, Jeremy Scahill, Books by Chomsky, Paul Jay.

Sources visited regularly, The Real News Network (Baltimore Based), Alternet, TomsDispatch, Cryptome (for source documents, such as the COINTEL documents), TruthDig, The guardian, al jazeera.

Basically I watch cable news, then go hunting through non mainstream media (non corporate supported as often as I can) to look at the sides of the story that have been omitted.

Basically if a topic interests me enough, I go looking for information on "both sides" and if you know the usual tactics of disinformation you can see it from any corporate media. That's why for the subjects that matter to me I'm constantly collecting as many books and articles as I can, but most importantly I go looking through the sources of those stories down to as much original documentation as I can.

I find the most important thing you can do is read as much as possible in the long form. So much is lost in the media. While I usually "know more" on a subject then people I discuss issues with I never consider it so unless I've read multiple books on a given subject. It takes me about a day or two to read through a typical 400 pager, but then I also go through the cited sources and go through the studies and articles that are listed there.

That said, I'm the "news junkie" guy who finds himself more comfortable talking to the older crowd at an event than the people in my age group. :eek:
 

Tilpots

macrumors 601
Apr 19, 2006
4,191
71
Carolina Beach, NC
Lately I've been getting much of my news from people I follow on twitter. It's so much more efficient than combing over 10 different sites. It's also almost guaranteed to be relevant to me because I follow people with whom I already share an interest. I also feel like I read a wider scope of articles that come from sources I previously wouldn't have known.

@DavidGrann is one particular journalist I follow because of his knack for finding great reads. I found him from a retweet of a MR member I follow.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I now get most of my news from Twitter and RSS feeds. I read pretty much anything Andrew Sullivan and Ezra Klein write.

I follow about 20 RSS feeds from left and right sites plus the BBC and Guardian and read a good bit of almost all articles posted.

When I work from home (2-3 days a week), I have cable news on in the background. I watch all 3. Wish my cable company would pick up Al Jezeera.
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
NPR Morning Edition/All Things Considered is 99% news, there's no opinion. It has no bent, liberal or otherwise.

Yes, it explains I listen to unbiased news that talks about all kinds of different subjects.
Actually, NPR IS biased because they exclude many sides of an issue in their reporting. Often, they only discuss one side of a story, usually the liberal side (surprise, surprise!). I know this because I listen to NPR too (along with a variety of other news sources), and am constantly yelling to Nina Totenberg or whoever "What about the other people's positions on this issue? Where is their viewpoint?"

So don't consider yourself informed just because you listen to NPR. In the vast majority of cases, they're leaving out a lot of information.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
Actually, NPR IS biased because they exclude many sides of an issue in their reporting. Often, they only discuss one side of a story, usually the liberal side (surprise, surprise!). I know this because I listen to NPR too (along with a variety of other news sources), and am constantly yelling to Nina Totenberg or whoever "What about the other people's positions on this issue? Where is their viewpoint?"

So don't consider yourself informed just because you listen to NPR. In the vast majority of cases, they're leaving out a lot of information.
First, I've talked at length about the need for a 'news diet,' which means you can't just learn about the events of the day from one new source or genre. That said, I'm not sure that Totenberg's segment says much about the bias of NPR.

She's a commentator, who 'rounds-up' a SCOTUS case, explains the major issues, and the judges responses. She's not really there to give an equal balance to the arguments, but rather to analyze how the court responded to those arguments and eventually ruled.

And, she quotes the justices directly and manages to condense a great deal of information into a few minutes. Her show isn't perfect, but I would argue she does a better job of offering a synopsis of the court than nearly anyone else—save SCOTUS blog.

This is one of the reasons personal anecdotes about bias are so ephemeral. You're not judging the show based on overall accuracy, but on the lack of a particular viewpoint.
 

LadyX

macrumors 68020
Mar 4, 2012
2,358
249
I have Circa, BBC News, Yahoo News Digest, and Breaking News on my iPhone.

I access CNN, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Al Arabiya, and Al Jazeera online.
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
First, I've talked at length about the need for a 'news diet,' which means you can't just learn about the events of the day from one new source or genre. That said, I'm not sure that Totenberg's segment says much about the bias of NPR.

She's a commentator, who 'rounds-up' a SCOTUS case, explains the major issues, and the judges responses. She's not really there to give an equal balance to the arguments, but rather to analyze how the court responded to those arguments and eventually ruled.

And, she quotes the justices directly and manages to condense a great deal of information into a few minutes. Her show isn't perfect, but I would argue she does a better job of offering a synopsis of the court than nearly anyone else—save SCOTUS blog.

This is one of the reasons personal anecdotes about bias are so ephemeral. You're not judging the show based on overall accuracy, but on the lack of a particular viewpoint.
Thanks! That's what I thought...it's facts and explanation, not opining.

And believe me, they talk about Republicans the the GOP *plenty*, and again, not in a negative way....just facts/explanation. There was endless coverage of the Romney campaign last year (I still cringe when I hear Ari Shapiro's voice)
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
First, I've talked at length about the need for a 'news diet,' which means you can't just learn about the events of the day from one new source or genre. That said, I'm not sure that Totenberg's segment says much about the bias of NPR.

She's a commentator, who 'rounds-up' a SCOTUS case, explains the major issues, and the judges responses. She's not really there to give an equal balance to the arguments, but rather to analyze how the court responded to those arguments and eventually ruled.

And, she quotes the justices directly and manages to condense a great deal of information into a few minutes. Her show isn't perfect, but I would argue she does a better job of offering a synopsis of the court than nearly anyone else—save SCOTUS blog.

This is one of the reasons personal anecdotes about bias are so ephemeral. You're not judging the show based on overall accuracy, but on the lack of a particular viewpoint.
OK, but just to be clear, I've noticed that it's not just Nina leaving stuff out. Seems like all the reporters leave out other sides to an issue. Maybe its due to limited broadcast time, I don't know. But the omission of other sides does give the impression, or lead the listener to conclude, that there is some aspect of bias, whether it is intentional or not.

Second, I'm not questioning her accuracy, which I agree is very good. My problem with her and a lot of the other NPR hosts is that they don't tell you the whole story. Don't you think it would be better if all sides are presented? You know, Fair and Balanced (can I say that?? :D )
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
OK, but just to be clear, I've noticed that it's not just Nina leaving stuff out. Seems like all the reporters leave out other sides to an issue. Maybe its due to limited broadcast time, I don't know. But the omission of other sides does give the impression, or lead the listener to conclude, that there is some aspect of bias, whether it is intentional or not.

Second, I'm not questioning her accuracy, which I agree is very good. My problem with her and a lot of the other NPR hosts is that they don't tell you the whole story. Don't you think it would be better if all sides are presented? You know, Fair and Balanced (can I say that?? :D )
Totally honest request: Can you go on the NPR website and find a Morning Edition or All Things Considered story that is one-sided or leaves out the parts of the "whole story"? Maybe one of the Totenberg SCOTUS stories from the last few days?

I know it's work, but I'm seriously interested in your analysis.

Edit: For your convenience:

Totenberg:

Not Totenberg:
 
Last edited: