Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Internet Gains Ground As Trusted News Source 214

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the they-must-not-read-this-site dept.
Khammurabi writes "Yahoo is reporting that the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more. From the article, 'The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.' Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Gains Ground As Trusted News Source

Comments Filter:
  • by foundme (897346) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:32PM (#15257517) Homepage
    I think the fact that we read about this survey on the internet says it all.

    Personally, internet is my most important source of news, but also the least trusted. It's like watching "Days of our Lives", you simply don't want to miss a single episode, but it's the same emptiness after each one of them. This is also the reason why we just keep on posting comments even if it's a dupe.
    • Source vs. Sources (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CarpetShark (865376)
      The thing about the internet is that it opens up the media, and gives us the ability to hear directly from industry insiders. In contrast, the mainstream media has stagnated, settling for a relatively small ring of sources, interpreted, filtered and censored by an even smaller ring of reporters and media channels.

      The question for me though is, how many of the people who read "internet news" are actively tracking down information from sources they respect (though not necessarily trust) vs. those who simply
      • The question for me though is, how many of the people who read "internet news" are actively tracking down information

        Very few.

        You know what some of the best news sources are? AP & Reuters. Most of the time, when you see a AP/Reuters sourced story, the news outlets took the original text and cut it down.

        When something interests me and/or my BS meter starts pegging, I go to Google News to find multiple articles. The majority are normally word for word the same (Reuters/AP), but since some people pride the

  • by xmas2003 (739875) * on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:33PM (#15257522) Homepage
    I didn't see Slashdot, DIGG, Fark, etc. listed - why not?!? ;-)
    • yeah, I hear that this Dvorak guy is really on the money, too. *ducks*
    • I didn't see Slashdot, DIGG, Fark, etc. listed - why not?!?

      I didn't either see mention of the grass-roots media growing in Egypt, outside government control. Small newspapers and even a few small TV stations are flourishing. Giving at least some insight into what has been going on which the government has been slow to report. People in Egypt trust satellite and internet over the government spoon-feed. At least the government isn't cracking down on them, like say, the fair and honest chinese government


  • Heard about this on the BBC this morning. One of the sites I get a lot of my info from, however even the BBC is under certain strain these days after fallout from accusations of the Blair government (The Bush-Blair memo, Hutton Inquiry, suicide of David Kelly) and is being restructured, so you never really know what your going to be left with. Cut-backs have certainly been visible in coverage.

    I also visit Al Jazeera from time to time. Maybe there's some propaganda at work on the site, or maybe that's

    • I agree with some of the other points in your post, however:

      An interesting and very, very sad tidbit. The country is in a war it never should have entered, China is financing USA debt, which will give it tremendous leverage, while the president continues to boost 'defense' spending at the expense of social programs, Iran is spearheading a move away from the Dollar for petroleum trading, and a lot more. It's only taken 5 years for some people to come around to the facts that this is not a forthcoming or
      • BIGTIME... He didn't blame a news media company for starting the war - he blamed them for hiding the true information that would've exposed this as a bullshit war, therefore helping the government pull the wool over our eyes and screw us over. Again, a particular George Carlin quote comes to mind, pal. If you're gonna have such a knee-jerk reaction, at least make it a useful one involving you dragging a hacksaw blade across the major arteries in your body.
      • You just blamed a news outlet for ...

        No, he blamed them for the fact that it's taken "...5 years for some people to come around to the facts..." They didn't start the war. They were the cover so it could be started with less opposition.

        News organizations don't stay in business when they blatently lie and misrepresent the core facts of an issue.

        The existence of FoxNews makes this statement demonstrably false.
      • there are dissenting views in other outlets. ... All media slants facts with opinion, so you're doing the right thing by cross checking news organizations to see that they are providing the facts... Which is what news is about... News organizations don't stay in business when they blatently lie and misrepresent the core facts of an issue.

        Not so fast. The major networks operate more as a collective institution than as a cut-throat competitive, diverse environment.

        First, major news outlets are all huge
      • Oh christ. He did nto say Fox news caused the war. He blamed Fox news for helping to make a number of bad things possible.

        And the fact is that Fox news is misleading and missinforming their viewers, and that the level of this mininformation has been measured and documented. It is asounding the number of Fox viewers who believed that US forces had actually FOUND WMDs in Iraq, or even more amazingly believed that Iraq had actually USED WMDs against us.

        Here are the full report [65.109.167.118] and the questionaire [65.109.167.118] of a survey
    • Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%)

      An interesting and very, very sad tidbit.

      Actually, I find this very encouraging for the USA. As the article states, the numbers from each of the major regions polled were: 59 percent of Egyptians said Al Jazeera, 52 percent of Brazilians said Rede Globo, 32 percent of Britons said the BBC, 22 percent of Germans said ARD and 11 percent of Americans said Fox News

      I'm p

  • Yeah yeah (Score:4, Funny)

    by Unski (821437) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:35PM (#15257549) Journal
    I bet they just got it off some website.
  • Trusted news (Score:2, Interesting)

    by evildogeye (106313)
    Well, since the majority of the news on the Internet comes from the same companies that publish newspapers and run the TV stations (cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, etc), for all intents and purposes the Internet is almost exactly equally trustworthy as them. As for Fox News, their spin is hard to deal with and makes them almost untrustworthy. Not that the other networks are a whole lot better, although Tucker Carlson is running a great show with a pretty objective and fair perspective on everyth
    • Re:Trusted news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) * on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:40PM (#15257596) Homepage Journal
      Well, since the majority of the news on the Internet comes from the same companies that publish newspapers and run the TV stations (cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, etc), for all intents and purposes the Internet is almost exactly equally trustworthy as them.

      Do you read outside your own country? If not, why?

      The beauty of the internet is getting past political and physical boundaries. I can read english language sites beyond the scope of political parties or central governments who would prefer to spin things one way.

      • Re:Trusted news (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ryan Amos (16972) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @05:30PM (#15258014)
        Because most English language papers are not on the same level as Americans in their political leanings. Even the most liberal Americans are right-wingers over in Europe. People like what they read to agree with what they already "feel" as some sort of validation that their feelings and opinions are correct. This is not a conspiracy, it's human nature. We like to be right, even if that means redefining what it means to *be* right.
        • Re:Trusted news (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ackthpt (218170) *
          Because most English language papers are not on the same level as Americans in their political leanings. Even the most liberal Americans are right-wingers over in Europe. People like what they read to agree with what they already "feel" as some sort of validation that their feelings and opinions are correct. This is not a conspiracy, it's human nature. We like to be right, even if that means redefining what it means to *be* right.

          A bit like the US administration being highly critical of Al-Jezeera, during

    • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @05:10PM (#15257861) Homepage Journal
      What Fox News viewers believe [worldpublicopinion.org]

      Did you say "almost untrustworthy"?
    • by arrrrg (902404)
      sites like Google News, which let you see an aggregate of all the mainstream sources at once. This pretty much ensures that you get to see all stories from all angles, which is quite different than if you stuck to a single print (or online) news source. There's also the added social factor, in that you can read blogs, sites, etc. that will point you directly to articles on a given topic or with a given viewpoint that might interest you, regardless of what source they came from. Ideally /. would be in thi
    • I trust my main political news sources, thomas.loc.gov [loc.gov] and my equivalent state and local sites, an order of magnitude more than any of those sources you mentioned.

      The Internet is also a better source of what I call controlled bias, where the bias is strong and clear enough that you can easily take it into account by reading something clearly biased the other way. For example, reading both rnc.org [rnc.org] and dnc.org [dnc.org] will provide a better picture than a news anchor who is trying (but invariably failing) to be neu

  • by El Cubano (631386) <roberto&connexer,com> on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:36PM (#15257556) Homepage

    The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.

    It is much easier to find news sources on the Internet that overlook the things you want overlooked. I.e., if you have the opnion that the war in Iraq is going great and there are no problems, you can find a news source that will give you only information that supports that view. If you think the war in Iraq is a debacle/illegal/disaster/whatever, you can also find a news source to support only that view. It's nothing new. Poeple go where they hear the things they want to hear because it's easier than hearing everything and ignoring what you don't like.

    • It is much easier to find news sources on the Internet that overlook the things you want overlooked. I.e., if you have the opnion that the war in Iraq is going great and there are no problems, you can find a news source that will give you only information that supports that view.

      I have never liked this line of reasoning; it simplifies an entire segment of society that people spend their entire lives trying to study/understand. If you are close-minded and believe that one information source is enough, or

    • Being able to ignore "news" isn't always a bad thing. I don't feel the need to waste my time and sit through the 578th Natalee Holloway, Scott Peterson, Duke lacrosse team, or Michael Jackson story. I can learn all I need/want to know about those in 1 60 second setting. They will spend 30 minutes a day for months on those things, yet things like Space Ship 1 first flight gets a 3 minute blurb on the day of the flight (and live video - you know, just in case it crashes).....then back to the non-stop trial
      • I don't think his point was about ignoring news stories you don't care about.

        More along the lines of "in news stories people do care about, a lot of us like to ignore facts contrary to our point of view".

        What he's describing is just a form of cognative dissonance resolving itself. It's easier to just go somewhere you won't get facts you dislike, than to actively filter them out.

        People who watch Keith Olbermann probably aren't watching Bill O'Reilly & vice versa. It's easier on the brain to deal with a v
  • shifting target (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ch-chuck (9622)
    I think as soon as something becomes 'trusted' the advertising jackels and political propagandist quickly move in and use it to their own ends. Then, as it becomes more and more obvious that it is so, they move on to something else. Lather, rinse, repeat.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:38PM (#15257579)
    Asked to name the news source they most trusted, without any prompting, 59 percent of Egyptians said Al Jazeera, 52 percent of Brazilians said Rede Globo, 32 percent of Britons said the BBC, 22 percent of Germans said ARD and 11 percent of Americans said Fox News, each leading their respective nations.

    Ok, let me go out on a limb and predict where the slashdot crowd will direct their wrath on. Behold, Fox News.

    I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top.

    I doubt you'll hear a peep about Al Jazeera or the BBC on this thread.

    • by Guuge (719028) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @05:47PM (#15258125)
      How many liberals would jump to the defense of a major news network before even a word of criticism is uttered? Almost none. Yet you have to defend one and attack all liberals at the same time, even though the article has nothing to do with liberalism and has not mentioned any flaws of Fox News.

      You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
      • The Fox News-ites are a bit touchy.

        Some of them tend to feel persecuted because of all the criticism their station recieves.

        Mostly that feeling helps reinforce their existing beliefs. People that are persecuted together, stick together. Or something like that.
    • I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top.

      I hate to rock your world, but not everybody who denigrates Fox is a "liberal". A lot of people just think Fox is strongly and consistently biased. Which it is.

      (And to crudely paraphrase Anthony Burgess: to many Americans, "liberal" is all overtones and no fundamental note.)
    • I do not speak Portuguese, so I cannot comment on Redo Globo. All the others (except Fox) are quality news organisations. Aljazeera (for Internet coverage, see english.aljazeera.net, not aljazeera.com which is some kind of strange attempt to discredit them) has shown great courage in trying to present the news objectively and fully. The cost has gone beyond general pressure and censorship from repressive governments who want to hide the truth. Several Aljazeera journalists have paid with their lives. I
    • "I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top."

      Why is the ire and hatred over the top? It's a perfectly natural response to being constantly denigrated by that network. Furthermore, I'm a moderate -- yet according to Fox News, I'm a 'libtard' or something, because I disagree with their talking points. Fox News is helping to cause a fundamental shift in the political polarity scale, where moderate is the new liberal, and 'conservative' mean
    • I doubt you'll hear a peep about Al Jazeera or the BBC on this thread.

      Perhaps because Al-Jazeera is the only non state-run media organisation in the Middle East. And the BBC is arguably the most independent and un-biased news source in the world. Neither is without bias, cultural and selective, but Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, so much so that even other Fox programs acknowledge this. [slashdot.org]
  • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:41PM (#15257605) Journal
    100% - 11% = 89%

    This means that 89% of the American public, according to this summary, do not think that fox is the most trusted name in news.

    • by H0p313ss (811249) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @05:01PM (#15257793)
      Runners up to Fox in the U.S. :
      • Elvis
      • Aliens
      • David Letterman
      .
      .
      .
    • by Garse Janacek (554329) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @05:32PM (#15258027)
      Thank you.

      It's frustrating when such blatant statistical nonsense gets into an article summary, and then there's a whole mini-flamewar about it ("See, Americans are stupid!"/"What's so bad about fox news?!") without any acknowledgment that the original claim is a sham.

      I don't think it's surprising, or even depressing, that Fox is the most trusted single news source, at least not when it only got 11%. Fox tries to present itself as the only really honest news source, and people who actually watch it are more liable to buy that. The more "balanced" :-P folks realize that you can't just trust one source for all your news, and are thus less likely to overwhelmingly go for one particular news source as the most trusted one. If you asked me that question, there are half a dozen sources that would spring to mind, none of which have a decisive advantage. I would rank Fox as my least trusted source (at least among the big players), but the most is much less defined.

      All of which is just to say... among the Fox demographic, Fox news is likely to be the most trusted name. But among (say) the New York Times' demographic, there are a number of other news sources that would probably be similarly trusted. This isn't surprising, and I'm actually very encouraged that 89% trusts other sources more than Fox -- I'm rather cynical, and would have guessed a much lower number.


    • More interestingly is that Fox News scored higher than any other news source in the US. That means no other news source has even 11% of Americans trusting it. That says a lot about the public's view of the news.

      • That means no other news source has even 11% of Americans trusting it.

        You can't conclude that from this article. It says that no other news source is trusted most by over 11% of those surveyed. There is no measure of distrust presented.
  • Too general (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GillBates0 (664202) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:43PM (#15257626) Homepage Journal
    Saying the "internets" are a trusted news source is like saying that television is a trusted news source or newspapers/books are a trusted news source.

    Neither of these claims are true in a generic sense. All of these are mere information channels containing good as well as bad information sources (definition of "good" and "bad" left as an exercise to the reader). It is up to the individual to discern which particular websites/channels/newspapers are worthy, and which are not.

    Discriminating between fiction and non-fiction is one of the most important skills kids could and should learn.

    • Newspapers are a good news source in the sense that there are numerous good newspapers and widely read newspapers.

      Television is a poor news source since the 24 hour news channels are all utterly so worthless. I suppose the nightly news might still be good, but I wonder how many people still tune into that? It's just not that convenient for me.

      When we say "class of things x is good," we mean that the well known elements are good. The elements that are most likely to effect anything are what they are judged b
    • Discriminating between fiction and non-fiction is one of the most important skills kids could and should learn.

      Yet many adults don't know them either.

      The best way to learn that skill would be learning the "scientific method." Usually a magazine like the "Skeptic Enquirer" is the most newb friendly, and explain things quickly to the layman, giving examples. and reinforcing that learning.

      I believe Aristotle can also be looked up for logic, but I don't know much about him, so I'd rather not make claims.

      Basic

  • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:44PM (#15257637) Homepage Journal
    Whenever I see a big mainstream news headline and read the story, I'll usually hit Google News to see what opposing views there are. Lately I've typed in some headlines and found 200 newspapers using the exact same wire article, verbatim. After wading through that junk, I'll slowly find opposing views -- views that were impossible to find just a few years ago.

    I'm not sure that any news is really news anymore; more and more news is colored by opinion. That is fine with me, but I would like to see more sources given tribute and more news reporters coming up with unique news rather than regurgitating the same stories over and over again. I figure why don't these major news outlets just run an RSS feed of the AP and be done with it?

    For me, I prefer the news that was normally marginalized out of existance. It gives me a dose of unique opinions, and it also helps create interesting debate topics that help in relationship at home and my relationships with friends and customers.

    I think more and more people are starting to think outside the box -- and the Internet is a great place to find every opinion. Are all of them newsworthy? Probably not.

    With companies like BlogBurst.com bringing amateur news and opinions to large mainstream media outlets, we'll see more and more integration of the sidestream media, and maybe we'll see less and less need to rely on sources such as CNN and FoxNN.
    • I think more and more people are starting to think outside the box

      Thats an interesting point you make. The question remains, did the box get smaller, or did people get wider views? As much as I would like to embrace the second option, I do believe that mainstream newschannels are actually shrinking the box (people want to be informed, but are not judgemental on what to be informed about, so news-makers can just as well narrow it down to just the usual wired stories or even less).
    • And we use the AP wire. It comes in off of satellite updated every couple of minutes. The decoding/reception box also acts as a server to our LAN which distributes the news when it is downloaded from the bird. All of the computers that need it have an AP desktop application which reads the stories off of the AP server in the building.

      At the top of every hour when the news guys are in (about 15 hours a day) they will select the best pick of local and national/regional/int'l stories to read over a 3 minute sp
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:47PM (#15257660)
    ...is http://www.nakednews.com/ [nakednews.com].
  • Schools bear some responsibility, by accepting sources on the Internet as valid footnotes in essays students make.

    However,I found a school making a page for children to show them what a "fake" website on the Internet looks like. Here's the background behind one of the "fakes" [abandonedstuff.com], which is actually a real item I sell, but is clearly a joke as well.
  • Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%).

    Ugh, man, do not spread this tripe as fact.* I recall a documentary that mentioned that people who watch Fox News believe it is the most accurate while simulataneously being the least accurately informed members of the newswatching populace. The poll asked people to name their most trusted newssource. 11% of Americans named Fox News. The article summary is ambiguous on th

  • by Dark Paladin (116525) <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:51PM (#15257701) Homepage
    While it's perhaps unfair to label both Fox and Al Jazeera as "extremists", but let's be honest: the people I've known who tend to rely soley on one or the other of these two news organizations tend to have very particular views (most hard-core Republicans I have known tend to swear by Fox "the only fair news" as they tell me).

    So is it that people give greater trust then to news that reinforce their own views (which is why I'm sure more progressives would swear by Slate and Salon instead)? I'd be curious to see how news organizations do against political/religious/ethnic/age background (though this study at least looked into age).

    And which one is the most "accurate"? It reminds me of a study done back in the 2004 elections who shows that viewers of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" scored higher on current events and political events accuracy than watchers of any other news organizations (including Fox).

    Either way, it's interesting to see the Internet rising, but that's not surprising as the population gets older. I know I rarely watch TV news anymore save for the "Daily Show" (and that's not for information, but for perspective so I can laugh at the world a bit) and Sunday talking heads shows (so my children can ask me why I'm telling the people in the TV to "answer the question, you hack!").
  • A mere eleven percent think Fox News is the best?

    The way everyone's been spinning things, I honestly thought that you'd see much higher numbers than that for Fox - I mean, I was really expecting numbers three or four times as high So much for the "unwashed masses", I guess.

  • by orzetto (545509) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:53PM (#15257724)

    Before everybody correctly points out that the Internet is not a reliable source, I would like to point out that newspapers are not really up to the standards they are purported to be. Every time I read a newspaper article on a subject I know well, I very, very rarely read anything insightful, and very often loads of bullshit. Most of the times, the writer probably had to finish an article and deliver X lines, and put a few "facts" together—possibly naïvely got from the Internet as well.

    I tend to trust sources where readers can write down their views, integrate, and if necessary insult the writer. I trust Slashdot commentaries (the whole page, not single comments), an often-edited Wikipedia article or a high-traffic blog way more than an article in a newspaper, because if there is something to be known you will probably find it. Even if you have to wade through flame wars and moderators on crack, it's likely there.

    There's no such thing as a totally reliable news source, anyway.

  • Seriously I thought no one trusted this now but I spose there's always the bottom 11% to consider.

    Personally I gave up trusting the MSM (mainstream media) a couple of years ago and have developed my own preferences for sites to visit for news and world events. This is also more entertaining because one has to verify everything you read and not take it for granted - you naturally become a more adept critical thinker this way.

    I think governments are pretty worried about this and are trying to find ways to red
  • Uh huh (Score:3, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:55PM (#15257737)
    "Yahoo is reporting that the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more.
    Yeah, right. I'm supposed to take Yahoo.com's word for it?
  • Lets just hope that those that trust the Internet are using multiple sources to get their information. That's one of the best aspects of the Internet - to quickly get information from many sources.

    Hopefully people aren't putting all their trust in Joe Schmoe's blog (or any other single source).
  • Unfortunately, i notice that a lot of internet news tends to be the same 3-sentence paragraphs repeated over and over in different wording. It's not so much about bringing any real content as it is about being the first to report something. Anything.

    It's progressed until they've got 3 and 4 page articles to tell you something that can be summarized into 6 sentences (more ad exposure, maybe?). If seen some t.v. news reports (On Faux News, no less) do the same thing, but the internets are the worst.

    Let's s
    • A lot of that is due to a few news agencies (Reuters and Associated Press) giving feeds to hundreds of newspapers, websites etc. Few organisations (e.g. the BBC) actually have their own reporters on the ground everywhere.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...in the words of Stephen Colbert, "Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side."
  • This is the same group where 1/3 couldn't find Louisiana on a map, half couldn't find Mississippi, 60% couldn't find Iraq, and 30% thought the U.S./Mexico border was the most heavily fortified in the world.

    Whatever online news sources they trust should be put on some sort of blacklist.

  • Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%)

    How many channels that have television news sources are there in the US? I can think of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC and BBC America, please correct me if I'm wrong. Let's leave out CNN Headline News, guessing that most people probably equate both channels as one and the same source. If Fox is highest at 11%, let's assume that the others average 9%, which implies a to
    • How many channels that have television news sources are there in the US?

      Whoops! Sorry for the typo, I changed the text a couple of times, and this one slipped right past me. I meant to say, how many news sources are there in the US?
  • by sentientbrendan (316150) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @06:11PM (#15258290)
    Not many news sources these days make an effort to do any investigative reporting, or to actually educate the public on matters important to them... Television and internet sources are generally the worst. I can go through all of CNN and FOX new's sites without finding an article that isn't essentially fluff. People talk about fox news being bad, and it is. However, they miss the real, much bigger problem, that *all* of the 24 hour news channels are generally filled with uninformative crap and sensationalistic nonsense. FOX news is just the worst (a real shitstorm of misinformation, staged interviews, and sensationalism).

    What really bugs me, is just what kind of uninsightful hacks they have anchoring CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. I want the news to report politics, not to get political. These guys don't seem to get that, and think that to report politics means they have to pick a side, and demonize whatever party they don't like. I want them to report all the pertinent *events that actually happen* and let me make my own judgements. Anchors can render their own judgement on a situation when appropriate, but there's a clear distinction between that and the constant political hackery that goes on. Don't even get me started on the interviews they give...

    Really, newspapers are the best source that I've seen, but not all newspapers. The Seattle Times is a really good paper, and family run so that they aren't totally beholden to corporate interests. They do a lot of investigative reporting, and I rarely see them putting sensationalistic trash (celebrity murders, hyped up disasters that aren't actually that important, etc) on their front page like many other sources. Many people across the country seem to read the New York Times, but I'm a little iffy on them. It seems that their reporters have been caught lying, and doing other unscrupulous things a number of times.

    I haven't been listening to NPR recently, but I remember they used to give really good interviews.
    • Many people across the country seem to read the New York Times, but I'm a little iffy on them. It seems that their reporters have been caught lying, and doing other unscrupulous things a number of times.

      I suspect there are very few major news sources which haven't had problems like that (individual reporters lying in their stories). The main difference is that the NYT is constantly under scrutiny (being essentially the "paper of record" in the USA), especially now that many neo-conservatives seem to feel s
    • NPR still does excellent interviews and, IMHO, is far and away the best all around source for unbiased (yes, I mean that) news easily available in the U.S.

      I'm sure all the Republicans out there will flame me for calling NPR unbiased seeing as how Mr. Limbaugh et al have been screaming about it's alleged liberal slant for years now but if they do, it's because they haven't listened to it lately. Now, you are just as likely to hear commentary by someone from the Kato Institute as you are from any liberal org

  • House Hippos (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kbahey (102895) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @07:02PM (#15258666) Homepage
    A few years ago, there was an ad on TV here (Ontario, Canada) that featured what is says to be Hippopotamus domesticus, the House Hippo. It lives in homes across North America, in people's houses.

    The ad shows a very small hippopotamus (3-4 inches long) in various scenes in a normal house.

    The following claims are made in the ad, in a voice that looks like Attenbourough on BBC nature programs:

    - house hippos are friendly, but will defend their territory if necessary
    - house hippos live in bedroom closets, where they make nests
    - house hippos sleep 16 hours a day
    - house hippos come out at night when they search for food
    - house hippos like to eat chips, raisins, and crumbs

    The ad then says something like : "Do not believe everything you see on TV. Ask questions".

    Read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], or see the UK version of it here [mediasmart.org.uk]

    --
    2bits :: Drupal development, consulting and customization. [2bits.com]
    The Baheyeldin Dynasty. [baheyeldin.com]

  • I admit that I was surprised to see FOX News listed as America's most trusted news source. Among the many journalists I've spoken to, none appear to have any respect for the reporting they see on FOX News. The network clearly leans towards the political right in its coverage of national and world events. Despite the network's motto, FOX News is all to often 'fair' only to conservatives and 'balanced' between the center and the extreme right of the Republican Party. According to the New Yorker [newyorker.com], this was
  • Slashdot reports, Yahoo is reporting that the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more.

    Bah. I won't believe it until I see it on Fox News!

"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder

Working...