[NA]National News Sources[NA]

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,774
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
Very frustrated. I guess I could just wean myself off it altogether. But it seems a reasonable person should stay apprised of the world around him/her.
I am almost sickened by some sources of online news.
Let's stay out of SZ, but discuss good sources of news.

Here are the problems I am seeing:
It seems like you have to choose "I want to hear seriously left-leaning news" or "I want to hear conservative, right-leaning news" when you pick a source.

That, plus: What is this latest trend of delivering news solely with the intent of directing your opinion about something. The titles often say it all; they present the info in such a way as to indicate "if you don't think this way, you're all washed up". Huffpost is the absolute worst. I read it for entertainment but they rarely present facts...its their one-sided standpoint on a topic. It pains me to think of people out there who are without the mental strength to see the difference, gobble that trash up like it is the only way. Fox is not without its faults in this regard too.

OK, it's SZ no denying it. But compassionate, non-hardliner, non-partisan people seek alternatives!
 
I do not mind if someone wants to PM me about this, vs posting publicly. I understand.
 
I've learned to not trust anything.

Once you realize how bad most reporting is on aviation topics you should realize that reporting is at least as bad/inaccurate on every other topic, most of which are far less cut-and-dried than aviation.
 
The VAST majority of democrats believe that FOXNEWS is all right wing, when in fact, the truth si that they refuse to broadcast only the left wing views, which infuriates the left wing.

Why do you think the left took over education? It's because they HAVE to control what children are taught to survive as a viable political movement.
If the left had to make do with equal time, they would never win an election, and couldn't muster much of a class of followers, beyond the lunatic corner.

Anytime anyone wanders off of their carefully controlled plantation, they are the enemy, and attacked senselessly forever.
 
You have to take all news reporting,with a grain of salt,they give you a little of the subject,and then spin it politically. I like to watch Fox News and CNN in the mornings at the gym. Then form my own opinion.
 
I had the same frustration. www.reuters.com seems to just report the news without adding unnecessary drama or hyperbole. Very business focused though.
 
I get the "Early Bird" newsletter which carries all the defense related news and pretty much ignore the rest.
 
I read AP online. Thread is going on ignore now, easy to see where it's heading.
 
Thanks for the sensible comments; appreciated.
I think there is a huge quiet majority out there who do not want or need the media theatrics to learn about the world around them.
 
I think they all have their agenda and I just take that into account. I watch and read Fox .... CNN .. PBS .. and then I form my own opinions on where the truth lies.

I refuse to listen to talk radio (ie: Rush) .. it's just extremist entertainment.


RT
 
Some homepages such as ustart.org allow you to add RSS feeds to your homepage and customize it. Ustart.org has links for many feeds for a variety of news such as politics, business, finance, tech, world, etc.

Go here: http://www.ustart.org/#Home
Then click the "customise your page" (misspelled on the page) link in the top right of the page. A pop up will show links for a boatload of RSS feeds to choose from.
 
I used to like a combination of CNN and the BBC. But their websites changed to formatting I cannot stand. I'm actually partial to Al Jazeera, they're outsiders to our politics and as such have no dog in the hunt.
 
Last edited:
What drives me nuts are the apps that package the "news" for you.

Yesterday was a perfect example. I'm at dinner, and CNN is playing on the ever-present boob tube in the restaurant. They are showing a blurb about some guy shooting something, and how the FBI had warned the local cops.

Of course, without sound there was no way to figure out any details, or even where this was taking place -- so I went to one of my news aggregator apps, Newsstand, for details.

Nothing. Nada. Zip. I could learn everything there was to know about Kim Kardashian, but this so-called news app would not bring up a shred of "news" on this event, even though both CNN, Fox News, BBC, and others are selected to be part of the aggregate. WTF?

It's as if the aggregators were deliberately trying to dumb-down the news, although it's more likely simply incompetence on the part of the app's authors.
 
CNN ****es me off because their videos autostart and that "feature" cannot be disabled. Love or hate 'em, at least Fox News allows you to disable that
 
I like Al-Jazeera as well as a bit of BBC. I also like NPR though I could see it as maybe a bit left leaning, when they don't report on anything political they are quite fun. Usually foreign news sources are the most neutral when reporting American events.
 
I look at both Fox and NPR, and assume that the truth is somewhere inbetween.

Whenever I start to take something at face value from any news agency, I think back to the last time I read an aviation-related story from that source. Helps to bring you back to reality about their accuracy on other subjects.

:mad2:
 
Certainly the "grain of salt" or "trust nothing" approach is a passable alternative for an individual, but the larger problem is that there is no one source of news trusted by all or almost all Americans.

If I quote or link Reuters to a friend who insists something is "true" but Reuters says otherwise, can we both agree that Reuters has the "truth" and move forward from there to form our own opinions about the news? My experience has been: No. Many people want to believe whatever "news" or "fact" suits their own beliefs (beliefs!) or agenda. They do not really want the truth. But I do.

It is this lack of consensus about what the facts are, and where to get them, that keeps us polarized.

I miss Walter Cronkite. For years he was voted the most trusted man in America.

But who knows.
 
Fox NEWS, vs Fox Opinion, is reasonably balanced and has been found to be so on numerous occasions. Hannity, Oreilly, The Five, Gutfeld are not News, they are Opinion.

I personally use Drudge for headlines/aggregation (linked to mostly left wing/liberal/drive-by sources btw), Fox News and BBC for actual news (very liberal bias at the Beebs but better worldwide and occasionally American news than any liberally biased American source IMO).

Of course, YMMV.

'Gimp
 
Becky said:
Certainly the "grain of salt" or "trust nothing" approach is a passable alternative for an individual, but the larger problem is that there is no one source of news trusted by all or almost all Americans.

If I quote or link Reuters to a friend who insists something is "true" but Reuters says otherwise, can we both agree that Reuters has the "truth" and move forward from there to form our own opinions about the news? My experience has been: No. Many people want to believe whatever "news" or "fact" suits their own beliefs (beliefs!) or agenda. They do not really want the truth. But I do.

It is this lack of consensus about what the facts are, and where to get them, that keeps us polarized.

I miss Walter Cronkite. For years he was voted the most trusted man in America.

But who knows.
Click to expand...

Walter Cronkite had his own biases as does everyone. I think the only reason we thought we were more unified back in the 60s, as far a news is concerned, is that there were only three networks and they were all "mainstream". Now many viewpoints are represented by a multitude of sources which cater to their own audience.
 
Reported news is all old news. I'm holding out for some news that will tell me what will be happening.
 
I only look at the headlines and then research anything that I'm interested in online where I can look at many sources.

TV news is so slanted and dumbed down that I can't stand watching anymore.
 
There is no good source. At least foreign broadcasts don't have a bunch of people trying to out shout each other. Much more professional. The leftist slant has been bleeding through too much even there like with reports on Ferguson, MO. The foreign reports are at least more "complete world" international. With the internet, TV news programs from many countries are available.
 
Everskyward said:
Now many viewpoints are represented by a multitude of sources which cater to their own audience.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem. Facts, i.e., what actually happened, are not viewpoints. When it comes to facts, we, the people, are ONE audience, not many.
 
Becky said:
And therein lies the problem. Facts, i.e., what actually happened, are not viewpoints. When it comes to facts, we, the people, are ONE audience, not many.
Click to expand...
Facts are interpreted differently depending on viewpoint. Even choosing which facts to report would introduce bias.
 
Last edited:
Becky said:
I miss Walter Cronkite. For years he was voted the most trusted man in America.
Click to expand...
After fifteen minutes Uncle Walter closed with, "And that's the way it is," and we went on to The Red Skelton Show. Now they have to fill 24 hours of air time with fifteen minutes' worth of information, so naturally opinion, bias, Kardashians, and all manner of other garbage will seep in.
 
Pilawt said:
After fifteen minutes Uncle Walter closed with, "And that's the way it is," and we went on to The Red Skelton Show. Now they have to fill 24 hours of air time with fifteen minutes' worth of information, so naturally opinion, bias, Kardashians, and all manner of other garbage will seep in.
Click to expand...

I think that's a big part of it. During developing stories they fill airtime with speculation when they have no actual information. Then the commentators will shoehorn whatever particular axe they want to grind into the story- even when it isn't really applicable. The more biased sources are painfully predictable in what side they'll take. They just turn into cheerleaders for their particular political group- a problem I have with political discussion in general. Why won't anyone call out their own side when they mess up? I can't believe anyone in this country still believes the Rs or the Ds really care about common folks anyway so why defend any of them? That might be another discussion though...
 
Newsy is pretty good. It gives you the scoop from different sources perspective, so you can kid of hear both sides.
 
Van Johnston said:
I had the same frustration. www.reuters.com seems to just report the news without adding unnecessary drama or hyperbole. Very business focused though.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion - Thanks!

What I would really like to have is a news filtering application. By and large I get all news from the internet (almost never watch it on TV or listen to the radio. I quit reading newspapers years ago) - and ignore about 95% of it. Google gives you the ability to tailor the content of what you receive to your own tastes - but it doesn't go nearly far enough (IMHO). What I want is the ability to exclude specific subject matter (like Kardashian, for example), specific sources - or whole categories if I'm so inclined. Does anybody know where I might find such a service?

In related matters I am aware that forums such as this one offer various means of filtering content - but have never used them. I simply skip over subject matter or persons that I find annoying or irrelevant. The same principle applies to my consumption of "News". However, there are some parts of the "News" that I want no part of, and resent having same shoved in my face on a daily basis. So a means of excluding the unwanted portion is something I am looking for.

Dave
 
I usually get headlines from anywhere and then track them down myself and compare sources. Yahoo is atrocious when it comes to real news. First thing that comes up when you look at their news feed is:

"Student offended by lottery ticket message"

Whoa! Some seriously important and ground breaking stuff. :rolleyes2:

The comments on articles, especially when it comes to aviation, can be entertaining bordering on the depressing. I have been dragged into trying to correct such people but as you can guess, they have literal decades of experience of being stupid and ignorant.
 
Pilawt said:
After fifteen minutes Uncle Walter closed with, "And that's the way it is," and we went on to The Red Skelton Show. Now they have to fill 24 hours of air time with fifteen minutes' worth of information, so naturally opinion, bias, Kardashians, and all manner of other garbage will seep in.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I remember when (during the Vietnam war) the nightly newscasts were expanded from 15 to 30 minutes. This expansion gave them time to switch from simply reporting events to adding commentary.

Now, multiply 30 minutes times 48, and you've got the amount of time these networks must fill with...something.

Most of it ain't news.
 
When discussing biased news sources, the Associated Press comes to mind...

Somehow those PC MORONS think America should be ashamed of itself because a couple of violent, bloodthirsty, savage muslims needed to try to kill Americans and got dead for it. If that ain't biased, there is no such thing.

Good aim and those two freaks are free to go in search of their 72 virgins...
xap_geller_tweet_1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.15AwjbtBcI.jpg
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Let's stay out of SZ, but discuss good sources of news.
Click to expand...


The internet killed them. There are no pure news plays left. If there were, they'd be hideously expensive.

Since their income is from someone else other than news customers, consider yourself warned that whoever pays them controls their content.

All you have to do is look at the balance sheet to see who's "news" you'll be receiving.
 
I like NPR and BBC. The actual news programs are pretty reasonable...at the very least, they generally go beyond scratching the surface and provide a little more depth than other sources.

I identify as conservative, but don't find them annoyingly biased.

Other NPR / BBC programs can lean far to the left (Diane Rehm Show, etc.), but even so the production quality is high enough that I often find value there even if I disagree with much of the opinion. BBC's call-in talk shows are just as silly and useless as any small-town AM radio call-in talk show, just with call-ins from all over the world....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top