NationStates Jolt Archive

I discovered NPR only 6 months ago and wish I wouldve learned about it much sooner. Finally, a news outlet that wont feed me garbage on runaway brides and Michael Jackson all day long. Seeing as this went under my radar for so long, Im wondering what else I might be missing. Are there any other worthwhile news outlets available in the US? If you know of any others please share them. I can certainly think of plenty worthwhile print publications so please dont mention those, what I am interested in is TV or Radio.

Frontline, Nightline can be exceptionally informative and even poignant. Thomas L. Freidman.... Rose. The Daily Show's running commentary on the utter failure of big media helps a person laugh at a tragedy that probably ought to make one cry.

We get some awesome stuff here from PBS America...

This thread made me think of this cartoon for some reason:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050505/darkow.gif

Well, that's one reason why government run stations can be good.

NPR and PBS are both leftist radio and tv. If you like that kind of stuff I guess they are great. But you got to take them with a grain of salt too. Seems to me there are no true unbiased radio/tv/newsprint out there.

NPR and PBS are both leftist radio and tv. If you like that kind of stuff I guess they are great. But you got to take them with a grain of salt too. Seems to me there are no true unbiased radio/tv/newsprint out there.

I havent watched PBS yet. From my understanding NPR was once very liberal, but it is no longer so. It hasnt been leftist since I started listening to it (about 6 months ago). They tend to present both sides quite fairly. Even if it did have a left bias, it is small enough so as not to be distracting. Frankly, what other choice is there? This thread was an invitation to tell me about other choices yet you could come up with none (but still decided to criticise the choices that do exist). So, its either this or you watch news about runaway brides and reality tv scandals. Ill take a slight left bias over the latest American Idol news any day.

I havent watched PBS yet. From my understanding NPR was once very liberal, but it is no longer so. It hasnt been leftist since I started listening to it (about 6 months ago). They tend to present both sides quite fairly. Even if it did have a left bias, it is small enough so as not to be distracting. Frankly, what other choice is there? This thread was an invitation to tell me about other choices yet you could come up with none (but still decided to criticise the choices that do exist). So, its either this or you watch news about runaway brides and reality tv scandals. Ill take a slight left bias over the latest American Idol news any day.
I think they've gone from liberal to irrelevant. Kinda following in the footsteps of the Democratic party. I listen to NPR as a last resort.

Today, I was treated to a twenty minute story about the mayor's race in LA. Not Lower Alabama, which I would have had some interest in, but Los Angeles. Last week, we spent a good portion of a half hour listening to some stringer from Marquette U talk about how hard it was to replace the mascot/nickname "Warriors". That was followed up by a commentary where some idiot just vomited hyphenated words like higglety-pigglety, willy-nilly, and on and on. I kept waiting for a point, but the commentary ended with a word like nincompoop. Pretty fitting.

Nah, NPR has become a refuge for people that like irrelevant feature stories. That's why I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. Good news, good opinion, good financials.

Nice thing about NPR is they actually differentiate and let you know the difference between their News programs (Morning Edition, All Things Considered) and their Opinion/Interest programs.

If "A Prairie Home Companion" were on Fox News, they would be telling you it was actual news.

NPR and PBS are both leftist radio and tv. If you like that kind of stuff I guess they are great. But you got to take them with a grain of salt too. Seems to me there are no true unbiased radio/tv/newsprint out there.

The problem is, there might be but no one would be able to agree on it because if it doesn't fit a given persons views all the time, it must be biased.

Nice thing about NPR is they actually differentiate and let you know the difference between their News programs (Morning Edition, All Things Considered) and their Opinion/Interest programs.

If "A Prairie Home Companion" were on Fox News, they would be telling you it was actual news.


Yes, but it is a very boring station. I'm sure the "people" who enjoy "Public Broadcasting" are as freaking gay as anything that station plays.

As far as iam concerened there is no un baised new service out there, they all have the agenda. Some other alternative services are: the drudge report, the agonist, common dreams. And of coase you have all the main streem ones, fox,cnn, ft times, ext. what ever you want to read. The more you read or listen to, the better you will be able to tell who is B.S.ing you or not. But i must admit ther is a lot of "news" that is pretty lame out there.

Now this is quite sad. A call for suggestions on worthwhile non-print media in the US nets only a handful of news magazines on cnn, a program on PBS with an unknown name, and unconstructive criticism of the only worthwhile radio programs mentioned (those on NPR). Does no one else have anything constructive to add (if you want to post criticism on NPR, do so only if you plan to provide a better alternative. otherwise Im still going to choose NPR instead of listening to fluff about American Idol and runaway brides)

The O'Reilly Factor is quite informative, as is the Fox Report. The rest on the station is mainly crap, but those two stand out.

If you want some serious news talk, you should listen to Michael Savage. Of course, it's biased as hell (he doesn't try to hide it though), but it actually covers serious matters of debate.

NPR and PBS are both leftist radio and tv. If you like that kind of stuff I guess they are great. But you got to take them with a grain of salt too. Seems to me there are no true unbiased radio/tv/newsprint out there.

I've never noticed any leftist bias on the PBS programs that are shown here (but we don't get every show so you may be talking about stuff I haven't seen), but from what I have seen for every leftist argument they oppose it with an argument from the right and vice versa. They go into detail of both sides and don't seem to favour one or the other.

Yes, but it is a very boring station. I'm sure the "people" who enjoy "Public Broadcasting" are as freaking gay as anything that station plays.

yea dogg straight up. all i listen to be limp bizkit cuz my man fred durst is a mad PIMP

smoke weed everyday peace out

The O'Reilly Factor is quite informative, as is the Fox Report. The rest on the station is mainly crap, but those two stand out.

If you want some serious news talk, you should listen to Michael Savage. Of course, it's biased as hell (he doesn't try to hide it though), but it actually covers serious matters of debate.

Those arent news programs.

Al Franken's radio show is alright. That's the only part of Air America I really listen to. It's nothing special really. I wish he made the emphasis of his show about comedy more than he does... Or maybe he does, I dunno. All I know is there's hardly anything funny on the show. I can count up all the funny bits and lines in either one hand or in a single digit number.

I like to read World Net Daily (www.worldnetdaily.com). Yes, they have a conservative/libertarian slant, but they will jump Republicans just as quick as they will Democrats if what they are doing is wrong.

But, there is no such thing as completely objective, unbiased news. I don't think there ever really was. It wasn't as heavily skewed in the past as it is now, but there's always been *some* kind of bias.

NPR's not too bad if you take the caveat that most of the "guests/interviewees" have an agenda and are there to push it. The News Hour with Tom Lehr is pretty decent at being neutral, and do a reasonable job on making sure at least 2 views on an issue are presented in a ballanced manner by their guests (see caveat above) and that most of the major vews are mentioned.

A big thing people forget is, on most issues there are several different views, and covering them all is no easy task. Taking a variety of media sources will give you a better idea of what is going on than any single source, a 'liberal' source might show the variety of opinions on legitimacy of ecotage within the enviromental community which a 'conservative' source wouldn't bother with while a 'conservative' source might show you the diversity of opinions on not-permiting abortion which a 'liberal' source wouldn't bother with, and a neutral source would scarce be able to find the time to deal with either.

Im not concerned with bias. I am intelligent enough to know what is opinion and what is fact. Everyone here seems to be focusing on bias or lack thereof as somehow having to do with the quality of the source (it doesnt). What I am concerned with is getting less popcorn and more meat. Regardless of what bias it has, I would rather listen to a story about Iraq, Social security, a local election, a new law, etc. than to listen to the latest reality tv garbage or runaway brides or Michael Jackson trial developments. I dont really care about bias, I am intelligent enough to form my own opinions, I just want to know, Where's the beef?

wolrd net daily? -..... - ....

Canadian TV station CBC's new coverage is faily "balanced" - however theres more bias then just right or left - but has far as that goes the CBC is not bad - especailly with international stories

Im not concerned with bias. I am intelligent enough to know what is opinion and what is fact. Everyone here seems to be focusing on bias or lack thereof as somehow having to do with the quality of the source (it doesnt). What I am concerned with is getting less popcorn and more meat. Regardless of what bias it has, I would rather listen to a story about Iraq, Social security, a local election, a new law, etc. than to listen to the latest reality tv garbage or runaway brides or Michael Jackson trial developments. I dont really care about bias, I am intelligent enough to form my own opinions, I just want to know, Where's the beef?
You found it, and you're not going to find it anywhere else. NPR doesn't have to 'compete,' so they don't have to run sensational up to the second stories about car chases or whatnot. They are run on donations and grants, not ratings. Coperate news channels have to be sensational-even more so now that there are soooo many of them. 'Information' is fed to us these days with a fire hose and it has happened before we where ever really able to get a hold on the increase of information from the turn of the last century. "Seeing is believing" has become dangerous, in fact, since you can see with a picture or a piece of footage, but in all those cases they aren't neccisarilly the truth.

I've gone on off the track...

What I'm sayin' is that because it is not competing for advertising dollars it doesn't have to cater to the yellow journalism tactics or bow down to corperations that pay the bills (though the latter is only partially true, as corps make up most of the grants.)

NPR and PBS are both leftist radio and tv. If you like that kind of stuff I guess they are great. But you got to take them with a grain of salt too. Seems to me there are no true unbiased radio/tv/newsprint out there.

One word:

C-SPAN.

Pretty much nothing at all to do with left or right wing, as most of it is just showing what's happening right now in the House, or it just gives a bare-bones report of facts with no opinion.

One word:

C-SPAN.

Pretty much nothing at all to do with left or right wing, as most of it is just showing what's happening right now in the House, or it just gives a bare-bones report of facts with no opinion.

But it isnt news. You will never find out about happenings around the world from C-SPAN.

Discovery Times, BBC America programs on other networks (the BBC America channel seems to be about gardening). In addition to what's been mentioned earlier.