I read all three Web sites, but I am starting to prefer Fox — despite I am a Democrat — simply because it is easy to use. I hate the fact the CNN demands I look at videos to get some news, when I would rather read the story.

What do the rest of you prefer?

I use MSNBC, mostly because that's what's linked to my MSN homepage. I find Fox's news to be too slanted and not trustworthy, and honestly, I just don't bother to vist CNN or any other site because MSNBC covers everything that's going on in the world. I too do not like looking at videos, I'd rather read...videos take too much time.

On the internet its Drudge. Television its CNN. And if I read print its USA Today or Newsweek.

I don't read any news site regularly - instead I use Google News as a meta site. I also read the BBC headlines Firefox shows on the toolbar. And I listen to NPR and watch OPB. I don't trust any of the mainstream print or broadcast media to tell me the real "news" anymore, really.

Andrew

Well said, Andrew.

Like Andrew, PBS and Google for me. For whatever reason, FOX makes their viewers the least educated among all major networks.

Mostly the same here.

I do follow a few blogs. Typically, they've got the good elements from each news cycle up for discussion. From there, it's easy to go link hopping and scope out what others are thinking and look the different versions of the stories over.

Google for news gathering, blogs for opinion. I would agree that MSNBC's website is superior to most news organizations. CNN's is just too difficult to work around.

I really am not happy that MSNBC moved on Comcast. Now I have to be downstairs to see it. Olberman is my guy.

I like to watch O'Reilly at 8pm and then Olbermann at 9pm. Talk about a contrast of truth and lies...

PS, get digital cable, MSNBC is on channel 128. I'm sure Comcast moved it to force more people to upgrade and pay more $$$.

Yeah, I have digital, but only on one set. I guess I need to bow to the power of Comcast and go get another box for additional $$.

It's more the way they did it than what they did.

I really can't stand to even look at O'Reilly. He's just such an a**.

I get pretty fired up watching him too, but I like to study the competition because it makes it easier to defeat them when debating issues. I'm also known for tuning into Hannity and Colmes for the same reason.

I used to watch CBC Newsworld on DirecTV, but they dropped it a while back. Now, there's essentially no acceptable television news source.

Headline News used to be a decent way to get informed... now it's gone from "around the world in 30 minutes" to either repeating the same shit every 10 minutes, or some irritating host such as Nancy Grace screaming about something entirely non-news.

For online news, it's Google News all the way.

The Rick Emerson and the worlds greatest news man Tim Riley is where I get my news from.

I really can't stand to even look at O'lbermann. He's just such an a**.

" The Rick Emerson and the worlds greatest news man Tim Riley is where I get my news from."

No shit.

Between " two girls one cup " and " Jenkem " I feel fully informed.

"I really can't stand to even look at O'lbermann. He's just such an a**."

I can understand that position.
Particularly if you would prefer that Repuglican malfeasance fly beneath the radar.

Countdown is one "news" show that I seldom miss.
I upgraded to digital cable to be able to keep watching it.
(BBC America with Dr. Who & Torchwood was an unexpected bonus!!!)

But admittedly, I watch Countdown more for entertainment than information.

My preferred news source is BBC.co.uk
You get information there that you can't get elsewhere.

Here is an example:

Here is a link to what I think is a really significant development in Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7106335.stm

(John Bolton was TV yesterday promoting the bombing of Iran)

I tried, but was unable to find any mention of this event in any of the above news sources.

Why do you think that is?

Probably because nobody cares. Well Al Franken might.

Really?
Nobody cares that the real powers that be in Iran, are smacking down Ahmadinejad?

Do you really believe that?

Anyone else hear?
Ahmadinejad called Bush on the phone today.
Only thing he said was "this year, the turkey pardons you."

Fox has the best website. The headlines are a little sensational, but the stories are usually from the AP and I don't detect a slant. Editorially, yes, they lean right. But the website's news coverage is informative and fair.

Even if FoxNews.com gets its stories from AP, they also choose what stories to feature (if at all) and where. That's where a bias can creep in.

Andrew

"I don't detect a slant."

Research evidence says otherwise. More FOX viewers think WMDs have been found in Iraq than any other the other big network viewers. Why would this be?

I prefer "NEWS IN THE NUDE" but without cable I rely on Inside edition and Entertainment 2-nite
to give me the hard hitting no holds barred important news.

Hey everybody, there is a war in Iraq, some people are losing their homes, SUPER-DUPER-MEGASTAR Lindsay is back in rehab, Nicole is still pregnant, and Britney is still trying to be a good mom. Poor girls :-( On a positive note, Marie is in the finals! :-)

So, what is the big deal about women who strip while reading the news? Almost any channel you turn to has boobs doing a newscast.

To my comment "I don't detect a slant", you said:

"Research evidence says otherwise. More FOX viewers think WMDs have been found in Iraq than any other the other big network viewers. Why would this be?"

My guess would probably be because Fox leans to the right editorially, as I admitted, so it attracts conservative viewers. And if you're referring to the PIPA study conducted back in 2003, some people were still expecting us to find them at that time (the war STARTED in 2003);the war was new and a lot of conflicting reports were flying around!

Shane writes:
"Research evidence says otherwise. More FOX viewers think WMDs have been found in Iraq than any other the other big network viewers. Why would this be?"

My guess would probably be because Fox leans to the right editorially, as I admitted, so it attracts conservative viewers. And if you're referring to the PIPA study conducted back in 2003, some people were still expecting us to find them at that time (the war STARTED in 2003);the war was new and a lot of conflicting reports were flying around!

Well, actually, the study didn't measure just Fox viewers - it measured viewers of MSNBC, CNN, and PBS/NPR. Fox viewers were far more likely to believe WMDs had been found than viewers of CNN and MSNBC and PBS/NPR viewers/listeners were the least likely to think they had been found. Why do you think Fox viewers were so much more likely than viewers of other media to believe WMDs had been found at that point?

Andrew

Why do you think Fox viewers were so much more likely than viewers of other media to believe WMDs had been found at that point?

Great question Andrew. For a change, I will attempt to give a one word answer: Agitprop.

No person is well served by single source media.

And that perhaps is one of the strongest points in favor of not allowing further media consolidation to occur.

Missing, once again you've hit the point.

I propose that media consolidation was the first ugly step towards media and government manipulation of the masses. I say, without the consolidation we've seen, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Haliburton would not have risen to the level they have.

Discuss.

I believe this absolutely.

Ed linked a Media Matters study here a while back. I think the thread was called "the myth of conservative america" or something like that. Anyway, it really had an impact on what was already a pretty strong suspicion of our traditional media forms not working in our best interests.

Truth is, the media bias in general, is corporate. If it's gonna be good for corporations, it's always gonna get covered. If it's not, then it's not gonna see so much coverage.

This bias impacts everything these days, save some Internet bloggers.

The list of issues that should be seeing a lot of solid coverage, often, is long and growing nicely.

Of course, this administration has been extremely good for larger and multi-national corporations. Been good to the point of actually harming smaller ones to make room for larger ones to just continue to grow larger!

(wish more small to mid sized companies would realize this and vote accordingly. They don't because they are reinforced by corporate media, thinking what is good for the majors is good for them, but it just isn't, for the most part.)

My guess would probably be because Fox leans to the right editorially...
I used to watch Fox News Channel myself, mostly because they really did seem to be first with the big announcements and such. They don't just 'lean right editorially!'

Truth is, the media bias in general, is corporate. If it's gonna be good for corporations, it's always gonna get covered. If it's not, then it's not gonna see so much coverage.
Or, if it does get covered somehow, it's portrayed that it will harm every living person on the planet or whatever.
I find it amazing that people say they are skeptical of government interference, i.e. people that don't claim income tax credits because they 'don't want to provide information for a government database,' or RFIDs, or telephone call recordings; but see no problem with huge private databases like Myspace, Livejournal, Blogger, etc., where the same people post exact dates of previous schools, employment, just about everything about themselves, what they had for breakfast/lunch/dinner yesterday, etc.

What missing blond co-ed is FAUXNews talking about today???

Roger said
"I prefer "NEWS IN THE NUDE" but without cable"

That would be "Naked News". It is from Canada. It is on the Canadian PPV channels on their satellite.
You can also get it on the internet.

"Why do you think Fox viewers were so much more likely than viewers of other media to believe WMDs had been found at that point?"

Because, as I mentioned, Fox leans to the right editorially. Therefore, it attracts consertvative viewers. Back in 2003, a lot of conservatives were probably still expecting WMDs would be revealed in Iraq. This study does not prove that Fox slants it's news coverage, only that it attracts conservative viewers beacuase of O'rielly/Hannity, etc.

Shane writes:
Because, as I mentioned, Fox leans to the right editorially. Therefore, it attracts consertvative viewers. Back in 2003, a lot of conservatives were probably still expecting WMDs would be revealed in Iraq. This study does not prove that Fox slants it's news coverage, only that it attracts conservative viewers beacuase of O'rielly/Hannity, etc.

Well, I'd say pretty much all of us (including me) thought some sort of WMD would be found in Iraq in March, 2003. But you think, instead of Fox News intentionally giving the wrong impression about WMDs to their viewers that conservatives ignored what they were hearing/seeing reported on Fox news about WMDs and continued to cling to the delusion that they would still be found?

Well, you might be onto something about Conservatives being out of touch with reality and the facts. After all, they've been told for years by Republican leaders is that the best way to be fiscally responsible is to spend more money, cut taxes, and borrow more and more money to pay for it. But I think that's probably too small of a number to account for the polling between Fox and the others.

I still think it's the more obvious answer, that Fox "News" gave the impression to its viewers that WMDs had indeed been found. To be fair, though, I imagine Fox viewers are far better informed about other important topics like, say, the latest on the Natalie Holloway murder, than viewers of CNN and the others.

Andrew

Some would say that Fox News viewers are also better informed about soft porn than others as well.

http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/18867-fox-news-porn

To convince me, you'll have to show me an example of Fox News claiming WMDs had been found in Iraq. I don't mean an example of Hannity guessing they are there and about to be found (which would be an editorial), but an example of false info regarding WMDs being reported by Fox News. Then I'll believe it. Otherwise, it's just an example of a believe held by people who tend to watch FNC. Big deal... that doesn't amount to an inditement of FNCs reporting.

Does this convince you?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

How about this?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/fox-conspiracy/

I don't personally think Iraq had WMDs that they moved to Syria. But interviewing a General who does is absolutely newsworthy!

"I don't mean an example of Hannity guessing they are there and about to be found "

Maybe that's the reason right there. Hannity's guessing is F-ing up the critical thinking of FOX viewers.

Think what you want. The evidence speaks louder than anything a poster in a forum on the internet can muster.

I get Fox and Cnn at
http://www.tvthug.com
No need to pay Comcast!

FAUXNews has become the Co-ED/Soft porn channel.