Where Do You Get Your News?

[RiverDog]

I thought that this might be an interesting topic, so I'll start it off with a description of where I get the majority of my news:

I have a start page on my tablet, a Microsoft Surface, and have customized it to show feeds from a variety of sources, including but not limited to Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Breitbart, Reuters, WSJ, Bloomberg, BBC, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, NYT, Huff Post, The National Review, and many others. I've selected topics of interest, including politics, sports, tech, travel, science, and so on.

I also follow a number of Facebook pages from local and regional news sources, including our local newspaper, local radio and TV stations, police and sheriff departments, Corps of Engineers, utilities, non profits, state departments like wildlife and transportation, the state patrol, and so on. I've had to unfollow many of my friends for posting too much political garbage from both sides of the spectrum as it clutters up my news feed. I won't bother reading a shared article unless it's from a trusted source, or if I see a story from a source that looks shady, I'll do a search and read the same story from a conventional news agency that has some accountability for being accurate and reliable.

My wife watches the morning and evening news, mostly from NBC as they have newscasters and weathermen that she has developed a personal liking to. I'll also watch either Fox News or MSNBC on the tv monitor as I exercise on a treadmill, aerobic, stationary bike, when there isn't a sporting event available that might interest me.

I subscribe to our local daily digital newspaper, the Tri City Herald, but much of their content is exact duplicates of stories I've already read via my Facebook news feed. After all, it is a day late. They also have some good articles regarding national and world wide subjects.

And, of course, I get a lot of information right here in the Shack. Believe it or not, I do learn a thing or two from you guys.

[I-5]

Great post, Riv. You are certainly thorough and balanced in how you get your news. I'm much lazier. For me, I have CNN and Reddit on my phone. I did have Fox News app to balance CNN out, but whereas CNN is biased, I did find Fox News to go even beyond biased (case in point, the day of the Helsinki press conference, they didn't even mention it on their home page...WTF), so I got rid of it for now. But I'd say my main way of getting news is google, by picking a search topic and seeing multiple headlines from around the world pop up, so that I can get somewhat of an agreggate of what headlines are out there.

I agree, the Shack is a good resource!

[c_hawkbob]

I watch my local newscasts (an NBC affiliate) sandwiched around a half hour of NBC evening news every night, local news and NFL network in the mornings. On my computer I evidently visit Yahoo and MSN homepages the most. Other than that I vet stories on FB using Google and Snopes.

Oh, and Fox sports and NPR radio in my truck

[RiverDog]

Great post, Riv. You are certainly thorough and balanced in how you get your news. I'm much lazier. For me, I have CNN and Reddit on my phone. I did have Fox News app to balance CNN out, but whereas CNN is biased, I did find Fox News to go even beyond biased (case in point, the day of the Helsinki press conference, they didn't even mention it on their home page...WTF), so I got rid of it for now. But I'd say my main way of getting news is google, by picking a search topic and seeing multiple headlines from around the world pop up, so that I can get somewhat of an agreggate of what headlines are out there.

I agree, the Shack is a good resource!

I don't see a problem with reading a news article or opinion piece that's biased so long as you recognize that it's biased. It's when people get attached to a certain POV and watch/read it exclusively that they start to believe anything and everything that they see and hear from that source that it actually gets to the point where it ceases being news and becomes propaganda.

As far as Fox News goes, I'll watch some moderators but others I stay away from others. I really like how Chris Wallace moderates a debate, but I won't patronize Jesse Watters as he's nothing but a political hack. Same with MSNBC. I used to like Chris Mathews as he used to be more of a centrist, but I don't like him on his show "Hardball".

Some of my friends eyes pop wide open when I tell them that I occasionally will watch Fox News, and likewise, Idahawkman has called me a stooge of the MSM because I told him that I'll watch CNN. That's one of the problems with how our society has become so polarized, too many people have adapted a preferred news source and won't listen to anything else.

One of the things that we have to keep in mind is that news programs are a for-profit business, so they are going to report on stories that their audience wants to hear so they keep tuning in. The lead story on Fox might be an illegal alien murdering a college student in Iowa while the lead story on MSNBC would be the mistreatment of immigrants at the southern border. Rush Limbaugh admitted that he tells his call screeners to put callers on that will make the host look good as it helps him retain his audience. That's why it's important to get your news from a variety of sources.

[I-5]

I don't see a problem with reading a news article or opinion piece that's biased so long as you recognize that it's biased. It's when people get attached to a certain POV and watch/read it exclusively that they start to believe anything and everything that they see and hear from that source that it actually gets to the point where it ceases being news and becomes propaganda. As far as Fox News goes, I'll watch some moderators but others I stay away from others. I really like how Chris Wallace moderates a debate, but I won't patronize Jesse Watters as he's nothing but a political hack. Same with MSNBC. I used to like Chris Mathews as he used to be more of a centrist, but I don't like him on his show "Hardball". Some of my friends eyes pop wide open when I tell them that I occasionally will watch Fox News, and likewise, Idahawkman has called me a stooge of the MSM because I told him that I'll watch CNN. That's one of the problems with how our society has become so polarized, too many people have adapted a preferred news source and won't listen to anything else.

100% agree. I also enjoy Chris Wallace and a few others on Fox. I stay away from the extreme bias on both sides. Even though I think Cuomo and Cooper are more truthful, I know their disdain for anything right-leaning, so I stay away from them too.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't in general watch any news except the occasional Youtube or internet video. I don't have regular TV as I do everything through the computer. I feel video generated news other than an occasional good documentary is an insufficient learning tool that lacks depth and usually only gives a brief, often biased, imprecise, and lacking view of a topic. It can be good for a starting point for learning, but not at all a great way to learn or obtain a quality understanding of a topic.

As far as how I get my news, I go to a variety of web sites. See what's interesting. If I find it interesting, then I read deeper on the topic generally doing internet research. In the past I usually read books or magazines or took classes on a subject. I like to read on a variety of subjects of interest to study them in depth. The internet has been an amazing resource for those of us that like information. Greatest in history. That's why I'm always surprised at people who say the world is worse, yet we have all these amazing tools for self-improvement and education at our fingertips for an incredibly low price. The Internet has taken information once the province of Ivory Towers, Boardrooms, and Acaedemia and put it at our fingertips. The internet is an autodidact's dream.

I also consider people one of the best sources of information for a starting point, especially when you are learning about another culture. No one can give you a better view of a culture than a member of that culture. You can verify information on the Internet, but the information distributed in other cultures often differs greatly from what we are told in the United States. They lie or shape the truth over here quite a bit to push their agenda. You really have to wake up to not get snookered by our government and media. I'm not saying they are conspiratorial, but like all nations we generally tend to shape the story to fit a cultural narrative Americans will support and buy into, same as they do in other nations. I prefer not to get dragged into that mob thinking.

I don't have a single source, just a process. News stories or videos are a starting point. Then I pursue research from a variety of sources to try to see the entire picture, so I can understand a topic better. I hate deciding things using personal bias or lacking a good thorough investigation into a topic. I don't want much to do with talking head narratives from people putting out videos. I can't stand when people obtain their viewpoint from a talking head. It means they spent near zero time investigating if the talking head was truthful, factual, biased, or what not. You can't make good decisions absent deeper thought and investigation.

[RiverDog]

Good point about documentaries. I watch A LOT of them. My two favorite programs are on PBS, Nova and American Experience. Most documentaries that I watch are about history, nature, or science and not a lot are about current events, but I do watch the occasional 60 Minutes or Frontline that has some good stuff on contemporary problems like drug addiction, global warming, homelessness, immigration, and health care. The History Channel and the Smithsonian are two of my favorite cable channels.

I do read some stories off the BBC, CTV, the and Al Jazeera as they're part of my news feed, but most of my sources are US based. I agree about face to face communication with people, particular those not born in this country, is a great way to learn about other cultures and their takes on international issues, but it's not very good at getting information on domestic issues like health care or the economy. Unfortunately, that's one of the things I really miss about being retired. I'm a lot more isolated from human interaction.

[Hawktawk]

Print media is Drudge report , a generally conservative media maven who links to everything imaginable news wise. Not much evening news, whatever channel is on other than one. No Faux, they got banished in mid 2016 and as long as they have so many anchors running interference for this corruption pravda style they will remain banished. I like Morning Joe when I'm getting ready for work. It's a good hangout for never trumpers and former republicans.

[RiverDog]

Print media is Drudge report , a generally conservative media maven who links to everything imaginable news wise. Not much evening news, whatever channel is on other than one. No Faux, they got banished in mid 2016 and as long as they have so many anchors running interference for this corruption pravda style they will remain banished. I like Morning Joe when I'm getting ready for work. It's a good hangout for never trumpers and former republicans.

I'd encourage you to watch some Fox News just to get a well rounded perspective. Not all of their anchors run interference for Trump. Chris Wallace does an excellent job moderating on his Sunday program and has become one of my can't miss programs.

[Hawktawk]

I still hear Chris Wallace quotes elsewhere without supporting Murdoch or the advertisers who support Fox. Their propping up of Trump is unforgivable.
No chance they get flipped back on as long as trump is president.

[RiverDog]

I still hear Chris Wallace quotes elsewhere without supporting Murdoch or the advertisers who support Fox. Their propping up of Trump is unforgivable. No chance they get flipped back on as long as trump is president.

It's not Wallace's quotes that I watch Fox for, it's his guests that he does a great job getting them to answer tough questions in a very non partisan, non threatening way. You can't get that by simply looking for his quotes. There's a couple other mods that do an equally good job of framing a discussion.

Fox's "propping up" of Trump isn't what's unforgivable. It's the American public's gullibility and their ability to rationalize anything that runs counter to their beliefs that's unforgivable. Fox is simply taking advantage of their weakness. So long as those characteristics are alive and well in people, someone will be playing them in order to turn a buck. MSNBC does the same thing as Fox does on the other side of the spectrum.

Bottom line is that IMO we shouldn't be excluding ourselves to just one POV by doing things like swearing off Fox or CNN. That's how many people develop this inbred dislike for anyone that has views counter to their own.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry no, watching Faux News feels too much like watching Pro Wrasslin.

[RiverDog]

Sorry no, watching Faux News feels too much like watching Pro Wrasslin.

If you watch Hannity, Carlson, or Watters, absolutely, and I won't watch any of those bomb throwers, either. But it's a big network with a lot of hosts and personalities. Geraldo Rivera works for Fox News, and I wouldn't consider him a Murdock stooge. Martha McCallum is another mod that does a decent job of not trying to out shine their guests like those other hacks.

I value your opinion, so do me a favor and tune into Chris Wallace some Sunday and tell me what you think. There's nothing much else on this time of year anyway. I think you'll be surprised.

[c_hawkbob]

Rivera may not be a Murdoch stooge but he's pure National Enquirer and that's just as bad.

The only Faux News host I can say anything good about is Shep Smith. I do stop and watch occasionally as I'm surfing by and it usually seems to be on one of his segments.

[RiverDog]

Although he's no longer with Fox News, George Will is one of my favorite commentators/columnists of all time, a conservative that is as anti Trump as Hawktalk.

[Hawktawk]

MSNBC is more balanced than Fox IMO. On morning Joe I get Joe Scarborough, former contract with America Gingrich wave congressman and still a staunch fiscal conservative, just no longer a republican in the age of Trump.He can rip both parties and does.He hates Trump with good reason but respects his accomplishments and durability. Richard Steele, first african american RNC chairman frequents the program as well as campaign staffers from everyone from McCain, Bush, Clinton, Obama etc. Republican congressmen are regularly invited to appear but most decline. Those who do are treated to tough questions but civil discourse, not the shoulting common on most political shows. As I say MSNBC, even CNN is not afraid to criticize the democratic party. I appreciate Chris Wallace but he's a democrat so his take isn't surprising . Shep Smith was another good one but he walked away rather than take the constant threats from viewers. Cavuto will occasionally challenge Trump .

On the balance I just feel the entertainment people at Fox, Hannity, a truly despicable human being, Judge Jeanine , Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Watters etc are so off the hook it's like a circus. I think during the Russian investigation as well as the Ukraine situation Rachel Maddow has been the most dogged, the most fact seeking host. Shes highly partisan but she gets scoops before anyone and if the Mueller report proved anything its that the "fake news" was mostly true regarding the actions of trump and his cronies. Same with Ukraine.

We need adversarial media now more than ever. IMO Fox isn't it right now although they did a hell of a good job during the Obama administration. I can't support a network that allows the likes of Hannity etc to call Mueller part of some crime syndicate, call for jailing the investigators,trashing our intelligence people to spread sheer lies and Russian propaganda.

I won't do it.

[Aseahawkfan]

News other than general information delivery is terrible. I don't even call what they do on MSNBC and Fox News news. It's commentary and ideology attempting to disguise itself as news and doing it badly.

[RiverDog]

News other than general information delivery is terrible. I don't even call what they do on MSNBC and Fox News news. It's commentary and ideology attempting to disguise itself as news and doing it badly.

"News" is a generic term. Most of the established news organizations report the "news" fairly and accurately. The difference is in what news they choose to report on and the editorial analysis of those stories they cover. My favorite example is that Fox will cover the murder of an Iowa student by an illegal alien while at the same time, MSNBC reports on conditions detainees are being subjected to at the southern border. They both play to their audiences.

[Aseahawkfan]

"News" is a generic term. Most of the established news organizations report the "news" fairly and accurately. The difference is in what news they choose to report on and the editorial analysis of those stories they cover. My favorite example is that Fox will cover the murder of an Iowa student by an illegal alien while at the same time, MSNBC reports on conditions detainees are being subjected to at the southern border. They both play to their audiences.

And that's not what I consider news. I consider that an agenda meant to inflame. People watch that and assume it somehow validates their viewpoint even when it lacks comparison and is utterly false. News with an agenda is not news, it's ideology. It's damaging to our nation as has been shown again and again. The divide is not fueled by men like Trump and Obama, it is fueled by the media selling an agenda playing to the fears and prejudices of large mobs.

[RiverDog]

"News" is a generic term. Most of the established news organizations report the "news" fairly and accurately. The difference is in what news they choose to report on and the editorial analysis of those stories they cover. My favorite example is that Fox will cover the murder of an Iowa student by an illegal alien while at the same time, MSNBC reports on conditions detainees are being subjected to at the southern border. They both play to their audiences.

And that's not what I consider news. I consider that an agenda meant to inflame. People watch that and assume it somehow validates their viewpoint even when it lacks comparison and is utterly false. News with an agenda is not news, it's ideology. It's damaging to our nation as has been shown again and again. The divide is not fueled by men like Trump and Obama, it is fueled by the media selling an agenda playing to the fears and prejudices of large mobs.

I agree. As a rule, I don't get my generic "news" via TV. As I am doing this moment, I'll get up in the morning with my cup of Joe, turn on the TV and mute is so I can see the local weather forecast w/o waking up the old lady, then read the top stories of the day on my tablet. What I use the network and cable agencies for is commentaries and interviews. The exception is that if a news story breaks during the daytime. We'll turn the TV onto the closest cable or network station that's carrying the event live.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree. As a rule, I don't get my generic "news" via TV. As I am doing this moment, I'll get up in the morning with my cup of Joe, turn on the TV and mute is so I can see the local weather forecast w/o waking up the old lady, then read the top stories of the day on my tablet. What I use the network and cable agencies for is commentaries and interviews. The exception is that if a news story breaks during the daytime. We'll turn the TV onto the closest cable or network station that's carrying the event live.

Breaking news with information delivery is good. I do like the news for that. And local news is usually informative as well telling you what's going on in your area. I have to keep track of that where I work.

[RiverDog]

I agree. As a rule, I don't get my generic "news" via TV. As I am doing this moment, I'll get up in the morning with my cup of Joe, turn on the TV and mute is so I can see the local weather forecast w/o waking up the old lady, then read the top stories of the day on my tablet. What I use the network and cable agencies for is commentaries and interviews. The exception is that if a news story breaks during the daytime. We'll turn the TV onto the closest cable or network station that's carrying the event live.

Breaking news with information delivery is good. I do like the news for that. And local news is usually informative as well telling you what's going on in your area. I have to keep track of that where I work.

There are times that they tend to sensationalize it, the coronavirus scare being a great example. Even things like common weather events are over dramatized so they can attract and retain viewers. And stories that make for good pictures or video get priority over stories that don't.

A few weeks ago, there was a guy in a local grocery store that slapped a very attractive female wearing tight yoga pants on the behind and said to her "Sorry, I just had to do it" and walked away. The woman reported it to the store, which had recorded the event on their security camera, the police were contacted, they interviewed some witnesses, and it hit the local news cycle, social media, and everyone started chiming in as to what an awful, repulsive act that this man committed and how the police should be doing everything possible to arrest this dangerous and despicable villain. I dared not comment and express my opinion that they were overreacting and that the police had better things to do as a few women I knew had already come out and denounced this horrible and unspeakable crime and I was afraid that I might be thought of as approving of or even patronizing sexual assault.

Man, has the world changed.

[I-5]

Generic news. What a concept that would be. How many here would love to subscribe to a daily news journal that reported on current events without an editorial slant? I do feel like the old newspapers did a fairly decent job of that..though I'm probably wrong about that. The hardest part of generic news would be writing headlines that don't tell you what to think, but reward your intelligence to let you figure it out. I studied journalism in college before switching to design/creative direction, so I have an inkling of the process.

[Aseahawkfan]

Generic news. What a concept that would be. How many here would love to subscribe to a daily news journal that reported on current events without an editorial slant? I do feel like the old newspapers did a fairly decent job of that..though I'm probably wrong about that. The hardest part of generic news would be writing headlines that don't tell you what to think, but reward your intelligence to let you figure it out. I studied journalism in college before switching to design/creative direction, so I have an inkling of the process.

Clickbait headlines are terrible. I despise them. Just a draw for people looking for confirmation bias.