Jump to content

best news programs


endcruelty
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't have time to actually sit and watch news, but I check CNN.com several times a day. Local news, I check the online site for the Oregonian newspaper.

I do try to catch the Daily Show for entertainment though...oh how I love Jon Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox most often, but I also watch MSNBC, CNN & BBC It is amazing how all the stations can tell the same story a little differently. I suppose the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

I would love to have a station that gives just the facts, no hype, no opinion. I tire of the spin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill O'Reilly asserted that "[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on," stating that they "get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers." In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers of The O'Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003

 

lol .... now....... who will still watch fox after reading this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont actually go out of my way to catch news anymore. I'll get some from the web, or radio. I only watch news shows when i go to my parents house. I'm very passive with my media consumption. and Tarz i would never only rely on fox for my news. I think they consistently misreport things. My statement was meant to be ironic since fox seems to support the president unquestioningly, which I would say is very big brother friendly. Infact the only show I can stand to watch on fox is Oreilly since he makes a point I agree with every once in a while. I must also add that Rupert Murdoc...the owner of Fox supports hillary clinton, I know some of you were thinking of voting for her, but I'd just consider who her friends are because that is who she's going to listen to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Bill O'Reilly asserted that "[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on," stating that they "get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers." In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers of The O'Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003

 

lol .... now....... who will still watch fox after reading this?

 

Actually, if you follow your link to the media maters article, the survey mentioned in the opening paragragh does not compare viewers of the Daily Show with viewers of the O'Reilly Factor. It compares viewers of late night comedy programs( Jon Stewart, Letterman, and Leno) to each other. I don't watch late night tv but I have over the years seen all of them at dsome point - it is no surprise that Stewart viewers would be more knowledgable of polical happenings considering that his whole show is based on the news. Leno and Letterman are not in the same category.

 

This is a biased article - it made a claim, and backed it up with a poll that didn't even prove that claim. That to me is offensive - do they think people are to stupid to see through it? I didn't even bother reading the rest of the artical after seeing that they were manipulating the data.

 

The botton line is that all media is slanted and biased to some degree. You have to listen to or watch a variety of networks in order to get the whole picture. When I have time to sit and watch the news, I flick back and forth between our local station to get the weather and "feel good" stories, Fox, and CNN. I also like to listen to Jay Severin, even though I think he is a complete sexist pig!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they're all biased but... if they have millions of dollars behind them then they have a big money bias. IOW, if it's on TV than it's got the same bias at least to a large extent.

 

I try to balance it out with sites that don't have all that money behind them.

Counterpunch.com

commondreams.org

buzzflash.com

thirdworldtraveler.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to argue.

 

It is silly to say CNN is biased differently from Fox, etc. They are all pro businesses and pro status-quo (conservative) and all those networks have the same bias - advertisers. Their business models are such (most of their revenue comes from advertisers) that they will not present anything that materially makes their advertisers uneasy and will slant stories for their advertisers preferences (pro consuming, spending etc.) Also, advertiser routinely have stories killed. Those large networks also create and show news that attracts a better audience for advertisers. For example, one of the more lucrative audiences, for advertisers, are young women (ages 20s and 30s.) This is why you see the soap-opera stories such as Lacy Peterson or Nattily Holloway stories go on-and-on. This last part is why I do not even really think they are "news" shows but more tabloid and entertainment oriented.

 

While I would still questioned its neutrality to issues, National Public Radio is closer to being neutral, in that they predominantly report facts and details and do not base their news on advertisers' preferences but they still decide which news stories to present (which ones are we missing?) I have never tried it but I have often heard that if you were to view a routers news tape you would be dumbfounded as to how many important news stories do not make the "news." This is because of two reasons: (1) Revenue: advertisers do not want news that makes people opposed to consuming or that reflect badly on them and (2) Costs: so many large companies have bought smaller news agencies, turning them into these large networks, that they have fired news gathers replacing them with small shops that disseminate the news to a the "talking heads" on TV. These large companies have consolidated news gathers into one one small group for the whole network, whereas the local affiliates used to have their own news gatherers. This has happened largely in radio and television but is happening in newspapers now.

 

Soon we will have no "news" shows, although they will call themselves that and instead "entertain-news."

Edited by 9nines
Link to comment
Share on other sites

End was that clip about Orielly's boycott of France supposed to get me not to like him? Here is a guy that on national TV speaks against SUVs, he is pro alternative energy, and takes rational stances on plenty of issues. I disagree with his adamant support of the president, but he is questioning the war on Iraq. I do strongly disagree with his asertion that diminishing the oil supply (Iran's doing) is an act of war. He is also for national ID cards which I am against. But still anyone who on national tv is against SUVs i'll at least listen to. And of course he is a liar he never listens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...