NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd have to say the New York Times is a head above the rest, television provides infotainment, the internet is filled with the websites of whackjobs and while there may be a few other newspapers of repute, the Times stands above the rest in terms of both journalism and op/ed.
The International Herald Tribune is owned and operated by the Times so it doesnt really count.

Read for free:
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.iht.com

The BBC

Womens gossip is the best news source.

Fox News and the Drudge Report. No one else comes close.

Weekly World News
8)

The smoke signals rising out of the southwest give me the news every morning. *nod*

Depends what news you're after. The BBC is excellent in reporting some things, and is being a complete pile of rubbish when reporting others. So is the CNN and any other news source. Besides, I don't think that, suppose, British people would receive better coverage of their local news from The New York Times than from their very own BBC.

Fox News and the Drudge Report. No one else comes close.


No, no, he said news as in factual information.

aye, sorry womb, i mean from an american persepctive.

I second the BBC. But from the list you give, the Guardian.

Fox, BBC, and Fark

To me, the NY Times lost all credibility after the Jayson Blair incident.

The LA Times is a pipe organ for liberal causes, and so is the New York Times. But they have pages upon pages of articles, so some unbiased information is in there. From your list, the New York Times is the best.

The editorial page of the Times is indeed liberal, but in term of journalism they keep their opinions out of their reporting.

They have a couple conservative columnists too.

If you rely on a single source for information you should be ashamed. I would never accept anything as gospel if I only had one source telling me it is so. I choose rather to take as many sources in as I can and gleen what I percieve to be the truth myself. I am always looking for new sources of information.

The editorial page of the Times is indeed liberal, but in term of journalism they keep their opinions out of their reporting.

They have a couple conservative columnists too.
Yeah I know. They have some very extensive reporting, and as a news buff, I love it.

If you rely on a single source for information you should be ashamed. I would never accept anything as gospel if I only had one source telling me it is so. I choose rather to take as many sources in as I can and gleen what I percieve to be the truth myself. I am always looking for new sources of information.

Not even gospel?

Unquestionably, either The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC - go to www.cbc.ca/news ), or the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). In America, only PBS and NPR can be trusted.

The Daily Show

Also The Daily Show can be trusted :D

Also The Daily Show can be trusted :D


It may be not totally true but its always interesting when I'm talking about a totally different version of events than everyone else..........Why did John Kerry have sex with that moose? I should start a thread about that

Any financial paper.

the answer is easy, but not listed as an option on the poll

Fox News

Apart from the ABC (AUSTRALIAN broadcasting corporation), I'd have to say a high school english teacher, they're not too bias and they always seem to know all the interesting details...

the answer is easy, but not listed as an option on the poll

Fox News

Fox News is utter crap.

Its the most politically biased media channel on TV today.

If people dont understand that, there really isnt any hope for you.

the answer is easy, but not listed as an option on the poll

Fox News

Fox News is utter crap.

Its the most politically biased media channel on TV today.

If people dont understand that, there really isnt any hope for you.

A Major in the US Army showed me a DoD study of the embedded journalists reports when they were in Iraq, and Fox news was rated the highest out of all with a 39.something accuracy rating.

40% right won't pass you on a test in any college, but it is the best reporting of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Embedded reporting was a joke.

A Major in the US Army showed me a DoD study of the embedded journalists reports when they were in Iraq, and Fox news was rated the highest out of all with a 39.something accuracy rating.

Just because Fox is accurate, doesn't mean it isn't biased

Embedded reporting was a joke.
yes it was, but Fox News had the best embedded reporting, thats a fact

I suppose that if accurate reporting of irrelevent events makes for fine journalism, fox took the cake with the iraq war.

the answer is easy, but not listed as an option on the poll

Fox News

Fox News is utter crap.

Its the most politically biased media channel on TV today.

If people dont understand that, there really isnt any hope for you.

A Major in the US Army showed me a DoD study of the embedded journalists reports when they were in Iraq, and Fox news was rated the highest out of all with a 39.something accuracy rating.

40% right won't pass you on a test in any college, but it is the best reporting of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

and thats not surprising considering that Fox News had made a lot of money repeating what the whitehouse has instructed them to.

Does this surprise you?

What better "news" agency to have following you around, than one who is dedicated to putting a positive spin on whatever you do?

I like al-Jazeera, the BBC, and the CBC.

I suppose that if accurate reporting of irrelevent events makes for fine journalism, fox took the cake with the iraq war.
if a war which has resulted in the deaths of over 500 US soldiers and the liberation of an oppressed country was "irrelevent," than you are right.

Pictures of tanks shooting at buildings, or driving through the desert, or shooting down radio towers are irrelevent.

Relevent things to report on would include the validity of the rationale for attacking iraq in the first place.

Responsible, relevent journalism would focus on whether or not the nation was lied to when hundreds of americans were sent off to die.

Grainy pictures of tanks and army troops is a filler. It's like showing a stretch of freeway and calling it 'news.'

and thats not surprising considering that Fox News had made a lot of money repeating what the whitehouse has instructed them to.

Does this surprise you?

What better "news" agency to have following you around, than one who is dedicated to putting a positive spin on whatever you do?
an independant audit by the DoD to see how accurate the embedded journalists were proved this. at times this was not necessarily what was being said by the whitehouse. in fact, the report cited dozens of incidents when the embeds were correct, while the information the Whitehouse was supplying the public was wrong (many differant news services were cited in the report as having the right info when the US public was not informed, not just FOX). this audit was to see how accurate the journalists were trained by their 2 week "boot camp" before they were allowed the enter the combat zone and to see if it was a good investment by the DoD to allow this tax money to be used on privately owned news agencies' journalists.

Even if the highest "grade" was 40%, I still think that was higher than the Iraqi News Agency's embedded journalists and Minister of Information.

Relevent things to report on would include the validity of the rationale for attacking iraq in the first place.

This has nothing to do with the accuracy of news reports. That is called investigative journalism.

I like al-Jazeera, the BBC, and the CBC.

To compare the CBC & BBC with al-Jazeera seems a blatantly mischevious attempt to mislead people about the first two fine news sources.

I read The Guardian every day but Sunday (when it becomes The Observer).

Worth a mention: Le Monde, Libération, El País.

The BBC is fabulous, and I hope the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Radio-Canada) is as good as it used to be.

The Internet, where all of those sources and many more are available.

Depending on one source seems counterproductive to me. It is important to see how the news is perceived and delivered in other places, how it is colored by cultural norms/excesses. Often it is easier to find unbiased reports from sources outside the situation.

Reading multiple accounts and finding the correlations helps weed out the propaganda. Being aware of the discrepancies helps pinpoint cover-ups. (Those are the positives of correllations and discrepancies. They do have downsides - spreading propaganda and enforcing cover-ups, in some cases.) They key to utilising information is thinking about what you learned. So, I believe, the best source available is the one that allows you to search and compare the most individual sources.

I didn't vote in the poll. While the last option did mention the web, the 'peoples websites' sounds more like opinion pieces than news sources.

The Daily Show

Yeah that's my favorite source for news :P

Fox News all the way. No one else comes close to being fair and balanced. :D

Fox News all the way. No one else comes close to being fair and balanced.

I like al-Jazeera, the BBC, and the CBC.

To compare the CBC & BBC with al-Jazeera seems a blatantly mischevious attempt to mislead people about the first two fine news sources.

I find that al-Jazeera is more factual and more in depth in Middle East events than any other news service - especially Fox News, who reports lies and half truths... for example, last night I was watching Fox. Women reporter came on and said that Muqtada al-Sadr had told his people to stop protesting against the US. When in actuallity, he had told them to stop protesting but to take up arms and fight the occupations also. A half truth. They also reported that US deaths reached atleast 610, another half-truth as it is now over 625 dead as reported here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm .

CBC and BBC are more accurate but are definately not as good as al-Jazeera when it comes to Middle East affairs. Much better than anything around at the moment.