# I can't Watch The News Anymore



## quiller (Dec 25, 2010)

I can no longer watch the news on the major networks .I don't care what the Kardashians,Miley Cyrus,Justin Bieber...ad nauseum are doing,nor do I care what color Jennifer whatevers hair is this week.I find the only news that is still news is the BBC.Are there any other sources of quality news broadcasts out there?


----------



## Adventure Wolf (Feb 26, 2014)

I know the feeling. I read my news now to stay away from that stuff.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fox News Network serves as my trusted purveyor of the daily news! The major networks seem to have lost their focus on real news reporting and opt instead to simply entertain their viewers.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I find that by sticking to NPR, Breitbart, and Al Jazeera English, I get all the news I want and none of the BS celebrity/whatever mongering/scum sucking "journalism" that other networks use as a means to get you to watch or click.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Yahoo! hyperlink entry:

"*Al Jazeera America* offers unbiased, fact-based, in-depth stories of *U.S*. and international news, including sports, business, lifestyle and investigative journalism."

I don't know why, but I'm unsure if I would trust this description entirely.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Yahoo! hyperlink entry:
> 
> "*Al Jazeera America* offers unbiased, fact-based, in-depth stories of *U.S*. and international news, including sports, business, lifestyle and investigative journalism."
> 
> I don't know why, but I'm unsure if I would trust this description entirely.


Perhaps, but I'd wager it's more fair and balanced than Al Gore's Current TV he sold to them!!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> Fox News Network serves as my trusted purveyor of the daily news! The major networks seem to have lost their focus on real news reporting and opt instead to simply entertain their viewers.


Interesting. I read a survey that concluded that watchers of Fox News were less well-informed about "real news" than viewers of any other news media outlet ... except MSNBC. Seems like getting one's news from the fringe (either right or left) may not be a recipe for accurate knowledge of current events. Personally, I find both Fox and MSNBC to be heavy on opinion and light on actual information.

I like to balance things out, myself, with WSJ, NPR, and USA Today. (The thing I like best about USA Today is that they've never taken the position that if something isn't horrible, it isn't news. Helps keep me from freaking out.) I've never gotten into the habit of the major networks' newscasts, and you all are telling me I'm not missing much.

I like to listen to the podcast of the Wall Street Journal This Morning. It's free, and gives a great ~35-minute take on the news, with a business orientation. Best of all, it's commercial-free (or nearly so). NPR and USA Today I get via their free Android apps, so they're refreshed continually through the day. Very useful, and NPR has a lot of video feeds of important events.


----------



## quiller (Dec 25, 2010)

I also have a WSJ app on my cell phone.I find that it is a good way to keep current on business related news.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> Interesting. I read a survey that concluded that watchers of Fox News were less well-informed about "real news" than viewers of any other news media outlet ... except MSNBC. Seems like getting one's news from the fringe (either right or left) may not be a recipe for accurate knowledge of current events. Personally, I find both Fox and MSNBC to be heavy on opinion and light on actual information.


The 6pm weekday show on Fox News is very good. The first half-hour is straight news, and the second half-hour is opinion on various topics. The opinion heads are usually 2-to-1 conservative vs liberal. The liberals are usually very good. Instead of making emotional arguments, they usually make fact-based arguments. All the opinion heads (R & D) are level-headed and thoughtful. It's a very good half-hour discussion of the events of the day. If you've never seen it, I would encourage you to give it a chance over a week.

On Saturday morning, I enjoy watching the investing block from 10am to noon. There are four half-hour shows. The last show at 11:30 is very entertaining and features Wayne Rogers, who runs his own investing group. Who knew Trapper John was an investing guru?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

quiller said:


> I can no longer watch the news on the major networks .I don't care what the Kardashians,Miley Cyrus,Justin Bieber...ad nauseum are doing,nor do I care what color Jennifer whatevers hair is this week.I find the only news that is still news is the BBC.Are there any other sources of quality news broadcasts out there?


I know the feeling Quiller. I think the newspapers are doing the same as well. Why should I care what they're doing? I don't give a rat's behind!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> The 6pm weekday show on Fox News is very good. The first half-hour is straight news, and the second half-hour is opinion on various topics. The opinion heads are usually 2-to-1 conservative vs liberal. The liberals are usually very good. Instead of making emotional arguments, they usually make fact-based arguments. All the opinion heads (R & D) are level-headed and thoughtful. It's a very good half-hour discussion of the events of the day. If you've never seen it, I would encourage you to give it a chance over a week.


It must be pretty good, SHP, as your posts are invariably thoughtful and I trust your judgment here. Nonetheless, my mindset has been pretty completely befouled by the noisy right-wing blowhards that Fox News trots out all day long, and I've found enough useful alternatives that I don't need to try another. Glad you found a good source, though.

I'll add this: I'll continue to listen to everything that John Stossel says. He doesn't care whether he's pissing off GOP or Dems, right or left, libertarians or big-gov types. All he cares about is whether policies achieve what they claim, and generally they don't. (He's certainly not infallible, though.)


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

I watch just about any local news cast at the 10 pm hour merely for the headlines and weather. There isnt any analysis on those shows but who expects it anyway? CNN for headlines as well. I read both the Chicago Sun Times and Tribune every day which turns into mostly flipping pages on the train into and home from work. For any meaningful substance, I catch our PBS' broadcast of the BBC and the Charlie Rose Hour. The former is decent and Rose is excellent depending on the topic. He generally has smart guests. 

The whole professional wrestling of Fox and MSNBC is something I skip. If I want heels and babyfaces, I watch WWE. Current TV (the breathless liberal drivel channel) is appalling. I cant take Thom Hartmann blaming everything on Regan. In short, cable news on either side of the heel/babyface dichotomy is laughable.

P.S. My car has Sirius XM satellite radio and there are some very good, if obscure, channels with good commentary and analysis from both a liberal and conservative standpoint.


----------



## FalconLorenzo (Aug 14, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> Fox News Network serves as my trusted purveyor of the daily news! The major networks seem to have lost their focus on real news reporting and opt instead to simply entertain their viewers.


As a registered republican I feel comfortable saying that Fox News is the definition of trying to simply entertain the viewers! They know republicans watch their channel and their channel alone and they pander to the right. I don't wish to be pandered to and I have strong enough beliefs where I don't need to have them reinforced to me constantly. NPR might be a tad left-leaning but not to the embarrassing extent that MSNBC is or that Fox is to the right, and the pieces they run are interesting and thought provoking. Fox News values whoever is louder and more republican, but I do not!

edit to add, I think its asinine that 24 hour cable news is trying so desperately to "break news." Twitter and the internet have made it so that there is no way you can break news on tv. Why even bother? I see a headline or a tweet on twitter and I know what happened, but I don't necessarily know what is HAPPENING. I love NPR because they don't spew out garbage "Breaking news bulletins" 24/7. They give in depth analysis and detail on yesterday's, the week's, and the month's stories. I heard that the new Fusion station is aiming for the same strategy, as is the facelift of HLN. Personally, I think that's a winning strategy!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'd feel bad if I didn't also mention the excellent (free) podcasts from The Economist. Obviously their pieces focus on economic issues, but they have very balanced discussions of geopolitics also. Really first rate.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Yahoo! hyperlink entry:
> 
> "*Al Jazeera America* offers unbiased, fact-based, in-depth stories of *U.S*. and international news, including sports, business, lifestyle and investigative journalism."
> 
> I don't know why, but I'm unsure if I would trust this description entirely.


I regularly read news publications out of 8 different countries, while Al Jazeera has it's biases, it's certainly more reliable than all the sensationalized Cr*p coming out of the U.S. (and the U.K. to a slightly lesser degree).


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> I'd feel bad if I didn't also mention the excellent (free) podcasts from The Economist. Obviously their pieces focus on economic issues, but they have very balanced discussions of geopolitics also. Really first rate.


As a Republican and subscriber and avid reader of The Economist, I will say that while I thoroughly enjoy the publication (in print and online) they are decidedly not balanced. While I don't listen to their podcasts, the opinions in their print media could only be considered balanced if comparing only to Salon or Mother Jones.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Tilton said:


> As a Republican and subscriber and avid reader of The Economist, I will say that while I thoroughly enjoy the publication (in print and online) they are decidedly not balanced. While I don't listen to their podcasts, the opinions in their print media could only be considered balanced if comparing only to Salon or Mother Jones.


What bias do you detect? Serious question.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I avoid TV so I can't comment on current broadcast news. 

I had occasion a few years ago to compare BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera broadcasts. Al Jazeera was clearly the best of the three. BBC gave lots of facts, but no commentary or analysis. CNN gave general information and superficial discussion. Al Jazeera provided facts and commentary that explained the stories and made it clear why they were newsworthy.

My current news sources are AL Jazeera English, which I read on line, occasional print issues of the NYT, and Pacifica and NPR radio broadcasts. I formerly read Swiss Info's web edition, but they cut funding to the point that it eliminated much of the news content.

I find FOX, in particular, and the Economist, far too biased toward the right to make it worth trying to parse articles for whatever useful information may be there. 

Alternet is painfully tabloid-like and mindless, notwithstanding their left orientation. 

Gurdon


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/justice/louisiana-nagin-convicted/

From the information reported , do you know how to identify Nagin's party affiliation?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

quiller said:


> I can no longer watch the news on the major networks .I don't care what the Kardashians,Miley Cyrus,Justin Bieber...ad nauseum are doing,nor do I care what color Jennifer whatevers hair is this week.I find the only news that is still news is the BBC.Are there any other sources of quality news broadcasts out there?


The BBC news service has declined enormously in recent years. The phrase 'it is expected' can be heard repeatedly - I do not require speculation, I require facts. Similarly the 'pre-chewed' nature of the news items enrage me - I do not need to be told how to feel about a tragedy, less emotive clap-trap and more information.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> What bias do you detect? Serious question.


They are very far to the left on gun control*, are pro-entitlement, they love Paul Krugman, routinely express the view that the best way to stimulate the economy is for the government to get bigger, etc. I will admit that they don't really fit very well into our political spectrum because they are at once in favor of big nanny states and free trade.

But, do note, I'm only referring to their editors. Top notch journalism, though.

*The Economist's editor stated the position as something like this: "Your freedom to own a gun automatically infringes on my freedom to not get shot by you." There are a lot of good arguments to be made in favor of gun control but that is bordering on ridiculous.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> It must be pretty good, SHP, as your posts are invariably thoughtful and I trust your judgment here. Nonetheless, my mindset has been pretty completely befouled by the noisy right-wing blowhards that Fox News trots out all day long, and I've found enough useful alternatives that I don't need to try another. Glad you found a good source, though.
> 
> I'll add this: I'll continue to listen to everything that John Stossel says. He doesn't care whether he's pissing off GOP or Dems, right or left, libertarians or big-gov types. All he cares about is whether policies achieve what they claim, and generally they don't. (He's certainly not infallible, though.)


Thank you sir.

WRT Stossel, he is a free thinker and as such is destined to be hated by all. A pity or maybe not, as I suspect he really doesn't give a darn about what anyone thinks of him.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Having watched the BBC for short periods of time while visiting the UK, I find their reporting on the USA as being riddled with errors. Most of these errors are small and not really important to the main focus of the story...like getting the name of the state capital city wrong, or calling a senator a congressman, or calling a governor a senator, etc. I guess in the UK no one would really notice, but the mistakes were glaring to me since I knew better.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Thank you sir.
> 
> WRT Stossel, he is a free thinker and as such is destined to be hated by all. A pity or maybe not, as I suspect he really doesn't give a darn about what anyone thinks of him.


There is much to admire about John Stossel; he seems far more interested in the truth than the other charlatans masquerading as "analysts" and "experts." He's also a believer in personal and political liberty, and limited government (especially federal) - things that _were _classical American political values (I wish they still were!).


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

That's why some people are more interested in what's going on around the world rather than what's happening with celebrities.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Tiger said:


> There is much to admire about John Stossel; he seems far more interested in the truth than the other charlatans masquerading as "analysts" and "experts." He's also a believer in personal and political liberty, and limited government (especially federal) - things that _were _classical American political values (I wish they still were!).


I cannot disagree. In fact, I was going to write that Stossel would have been at home at the 1st Congressional Congress. He has the same pluck as some of the Founding Fathers.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> The 6pm weekday show on Fox News is very good. The first half-hour is straight news, and the second half-hour is opinion on various topics. The opinion heads are usually 2-to-1 conservative vs liberal. The liberals are usually very good. Instead of making emotional arguments, they usually make fact-based arguments. All the opinion heads (R & D) are level-headed and thoughtful. It's a very good half-hour discussion of the events of the day. If you've never seen it, I would encourage you to give it a chance over a week.


Special Report with Bret Baier

I agree.

He also allows interviewees to complete their thoughts unlike you know who!!


----------



## jfrater (Mar 23, 2005)

I second aljazeera.com and also read rt.com (for the "other side" view of the Ukraine situation). I also recommend zerohedge.com for economic news.


----------



## Annette (Mar 12, 2014)

I believe BBC and NPR are the winners here.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Sometimes it's a good idea to take your mind away from watching the news and watch something that's more fun and exciting.


----------



## Adventure Wolf (Feb 26, 2014)

Annette said:


> I believe BBC and NPR are the winners here.


These are my choices as well.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The BBC news service has declined enormously in recent years. The phrase 'it is expected' can be heard repeatedly - I do not require speculation, I require facts. Similarly the 'pre-chewed' nature of the news items enrage me - I do not need to be told how to feel about a tragedy, less emotive clap-trap and more information.


I quite agree. The current Radio 2 hourly "news" presentation is a classic of that, and always ends up with some whimsical or trivial item. Even Radio 4 isn't as good as it once was.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

It's positively infuriating.

Even recently a "news agency" "reported" a "large contigency" of US planes were deployed to Poland.

Turns out it was 12 planes. 

Twelve!!

Looky here, "news agency" you just tell me how many planes then let me decide if that's "large" "many" or "few."\

Dig it??


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

jfrater said:


> I second aljazeera.com and also read rt.com (for the "other side" view of the Ukraine situation). I also recommend zerohedge.com for economic news.


Zerohedge is an excellent source. RT is far too much of a state-controlled media outlet to be worth anything, though.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I just went out to lunch at a place with a bar TV, then to the Laundromat, also with TV. Two separate "news' channels, both devoted totally to the missing airliner. Total time watched: two and a half hours. Total knowledge gained: airliner missing.


Reminded me of another time. Dinner at local grill, TV news on, Australian actor Heath Ledger had been found dead. Total time watched: hour and fifteen minutes. Total knowledge gained: Heath Ledger was Australian, an actor, dead, and someone who was somehow tenuously connected to one of the Olson twins may or may not have had some information about it. Later breaking follow up: he didn't.

One of our local stations "won" an award a few years ago for most crime/disaster/accident news per episode. If they can't find anything gory in Charlotte, they go out 50-75 miles and call it "News of the Area", nothing there they go further for "News of the Carolinas", things okay here they'll pick up a Maine wreck, a Colorado fire, or a Texas murder for "News of the Nation".


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

phyrpowr said:


> I just went out to lunch at a place with a bar TV, then to the Laundromat, also with TV. Two separate "news' channels, both devoted totally to the missing airliner. Total time watched: two and a half hours. Total knowledge gained: airliner missing.
> 
> Reminded me of another time. Dinner at local grill, TV news on, Australian actor Heath Ledger had been found dead. Total time watched: hour and fifteen minutes. Total knowledge gained: Heath Ledger was Australian, an actor, dead, and someone who was somehow tenuously connected to one of the Olson twins may or may not have had some information about it. Later breaking follow up: he didn't.
> 
> One of our local stations "won" an award a few years ago for most crime/disaster/accident news per episode. If they can't find anything gory in Charlotte, they go out 50-75 miles and call it "News of the Area", nothing there they go further for "News of the Carolinas", things okay here they'll pick up a Maine wreck, a Colorado fire, or a Texas murder for "News of the Nation".


What you have discovered is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Tilton said:


> What you have discovered is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle.


Maybe, but it sure doesn't have to be. There's a local 24 Hr. News station that varies it's stories, and provides real, useful updates on flood/fire/traffic/weather/crime, and board and council decisions in a five or so county area. They're also great for knowledge of cultural events, and even manage to throw in the "adorable pet or kid" segment without beating it to death.


----------



## Adventure Wolf (Feb 26, 2014)

My news comes from a mixture of BBC, PBS and NPR. I subsidize that with internet searches.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

MaxBuck said:


> Interesting. I read a survey that concluded that watchers of Fox News were less well-informed about "real news" than viewers of any other news media outlet ... except MSNBC. Seems like getting one's news from the fringe (either right or left) may not be a recipe for accurate knowledge of current events. Personally, I find both Fox and MSNBC to be heavy on opinion and light on actual information.


Interesting... I read a survey which concluded that people who believe what they read in surveys are not well informed.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hitch said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/justice/louisiana-nagin-convicted/
> 
> From the information reported , do you know how to identify Nagin's party affiliation?


If he were a Republican, "Republican" would be in the headline I would not be omitted from the article entirely.

Article~


> Ray Nagin came into the mayor's office in New Orleans as an avowed scourge of corruption and led the city through the worst disaster of its modern history.
> He left a federal courthouse a convict Wednesday, after a jury found him guilty of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and other favors from businessmen looking for a break from his administration. Of the 21 counts against him, he was convicted of 20.
> "He got a lot of media attention as being a reformer, a non-politician, first run for office -- a businessman who was going to come in and get it right," said Pat Fanning, a veteran New Orleans lawyer and no fan of the former two-term mayor.
> After Hurricane Katrina ravaged the city in 2005, the onetime cable television executive would reassure people queasy about sending taxpayer money to a state with an epic history of corruption by telling them, "Google me. You're not going to find any of that in my record," Fanning said, quoting Nagin. "Well, Google him now."
> ...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

jfrater said:


> I second aljazeera.com and also read rt.com (for the "other side" view of the Ukraine situation). I also recommend zerohedge.com for economic news.


RT crosses the line for me. It's Russian propaganda + crackpot stuff. Not unlike Fox, only on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Al Jazeera also has its biases, but there's enough real substance to make it worth one's while.

I get my news from BBC, NPR, and a few French news outlets. I was just in West Africa and France and watched a lot of France24, which impressed me. Besides, I have a crush on several of their presenters. Truly beautiful women.

By the way, CNN International is vastly superior to the CNN one sees in the US. It's sobering to realize that CNN feels it necessary to dumb their programming down for the domestic US market.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> RT crosses the line for me. It's Russian propaganda + crackpot stuff. Not unlike Fox, only on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Al Jazeera also has its biases, but there's enough real substance to make it worth one's while.
> 
> I get my news from BBC, NPR, and a few French news outlets. I was just in West Africa and France and watched a lot of France24, which impressed me. Besides, I have a crush on several of their presenters. Truly beautiful women.
> 
> By the way, CNN International is vastly superior to the CNN one sees in the US. It's sobering to realize that CNN feels it necessary to dumb their programming down for the domestic US market.


Do you read newspapers?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Do you read newspapers?


Not regularly. I might sometimes peek at the NYT or WaPo websites, but BBC's site is my default. Also, I rely increasingly on Twitter and Facebook as news aggregators. Twitter because I follow a number of niche sources dealing with niche issues of professional interest (regional West African stuff + defense and national security matters + some French stuff). Facebook because a lot of my FB friends are habitual posters of stuff, much of it worth reading.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

32rollandrock said:


> Do you read newspapers?


What's a newspaper?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The BBC news service has declined enormously in recent years. The phrase 'it is expected' can be heard repeatedly - I do not require speculation, I require facts. Similarly the 'pre-chewed' nature of the news items enrage me - I do not need to be told how to feel about a tragedy, less emotive clap-trap and more information.


Indeed, the only TV News I watch now is Channel 4.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I posted a link elsewhere to a Fox News interview with the son of a 9/11 survivor, which I found grotesque. The appalling bullying manner of the interviewer and his blatant dishonesty in subsequently misrepresenting the interviewee's views was shocking. Yet people, apparently, regard this channel as "news" and even seem to admire this dishonest ignorant bully. Whatever one's political viewpoint, this is appalling behaviour in a supposed "news" programme.




Do reasonable people really rely on this channel for news?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ you're picking out one program as being representative of the entire network. That's a bit of intellectual dishonesty.

Look, I'm not a Fox News apologist by any means. I watch a few programs but most of the opinion stuff is rather repetitive and predictable, hence boring. 

You seem fixated on Bill O'Reilly and in particular this one interview. He's allowed to be a moron from time to time and I'm sure this is no exception. It's not a news program, however. It's an opinion program and bemoan if you will the state of television news, it would be like proclaiming the demise of print media for stories presented in the National Enquirer.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ you're picking out one program as being representative of the entire network. That's a bit of intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Look, I'm not a Fox News apologist by any means. I watch a few programs but most of the opinion stuff is rather repetitive and predictable, hence boring.
> 
> You seem fixated on Bill O'Reilly and in particular this one interview. He's allowed to be a moron from time to time and I'm sure this is no exception. It's not a news program, however. It's an opinion program and bemoan if you will the state of television news, it would be like proclaiming the demise of print media for stories presented in the National Enquirer.


I know that you're not. However, that this person has a programme on that network speaks volumes for the values of that network!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I know that you're not. However, that this person has a programme on that network speaks volumes for the values of that network!


As opposed to any other network? Piers Morgan on CNN, Al Sharpton on MSNBC, the now former anchor of NBC news Brian Williams? What about Dan Rather?

I'm not sure it speaks volumes. He has a loyal following and he brings in ratings. There are plenty of dissenting voices in the media and Fox does have some decent programming, and it's news programs, thought sometimes peppered with commentary and opinion, cover the days news rather well.

By way of opinion, they do have more intelligent offerings such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer and other opinion journals.

Personally, I like to watch News Hour on PBS.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> I know that you're not. However, that this person has a programme on that network speaks volumes for the values of that network!


I avoid Commie Talk and The Grievance Hour on our NPR and although this programming speaks volumes for the values of that network, it does not prevent me from listening to programming of merit.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> As opposed to any other network? Piers Morgan on CNN, Al Sharpton on MSNBC, the now former anchor of NBC news Brian Williams? What about Dan Rather?
> 
> I'm not sure it speaks volumes. He has a loyal following and he brings in ratings. There are plenty of dissenting voices in the media and Fox does have some decent programming, and it's news programs, thought sometimes peppered with commentary and opinion, cover the days news rather well.
> 
> ...


I've said before that I'm not familiar with US News programmes, or even US TV in general, and only became aware of Fox News fairly recently, as I explained in the Fox News thread. However, having looked at a selection of Youtube views of that particular character, it doesn't create a good impression of the production values. If he is a ratings winner, what are their viewers like?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

A segment of the viewers. Like myself. 

Listen, I'm sure you have your fair share of blowhards across the pond and I'm sure the people that tune in to particular networks or read particular newspapers run the gamut of opinions and political outlooks. 

I don't think it necessarily says anything about a networks values. What it does, on the contrary, is to show that all voices should be heard. One can disagree with a particular opinion, but it should not be shut out of the political discourse.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

tocqueville said:


> RT crosses the line for me. It's Russian propaganda + crackpot stuff. Not unlike Fox, only on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Al Jazeera also has its biases, but there's enough real substance to make it worth one's while.


Max Keiser on RT is a genuine alternative. He is not afraid to call a crook a crook. BBC never does that with the banksters. His Mrs. has BBC presenter Emily Maitlis well analysed.

Max is a very watchable and entertaining newsman - for a septic. And he has the BBC sussed as state propaganda.

I think he does a fair amount of recreational drugs though.

https://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/228687-episode-714-max-keiser/


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Max Keiser on RT is a genuine alternative. He is not afraid to call a crook a crook. BBC never does that with the banksters. His Mrs. has BBC presenter Emily Maitlis well analysed.
> 
> Max is a very watchable and entertaining newsman - for a septic. And he has the BBC sussed as state propaganda.
> 
> ...


I've watched his news show a few times, and I find it quite refreshing. He even interviewed one of my son's friends on a new cyber currency the "Maxcoin", named after him!


----------

