Which news network do you believe is most trustworthy/reliable?

[utahminirevolver]

Mostly www.worldnetdaily.com. They have quite a few editorials I can agree with, unlike the leftist-biased 'mainstream media', and whatever way the editorials lean, you can be sure that's the way they slant all of their 'news'.

I also get exposed to all sorts of other sources; newspapers lying around the luchroom at work, newsbreaks on the country-western radio while driving, my NRA magazine which comes once a month, word of mouth from family and friends, bits of TV now and then, Reverend Jerry Falwell's e-mail news updates, etc. For a Euro-socialist point of view, I sometimes check out www.aftenposten.no/english. If WND is down, then www.newsmax.com is also good.

 

[Flyboy]

Reason: http://reason.com

Believe it or not, Al-Jazeera used to have some of the best science and technology reporting (especially medical and biotech), but I haven't seen that from them in a while (and stopped looking). Christian Science Monitor is good all around.

If you read carefully, some of the more extremist networks can be valuable, specifically because they're on the fringe. I wouldn't go to Amnesty International for editorial content, but if you read their news articles and distill out only the facts, and leave everything opinion behind, you'll find they have a pretty good grasp on fact. They have to, really--as close to libel as they operate, they can't afford to cross that line. Just read with a good BS meter. Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com/nuze) is often the same way.

I usually read FOX and CNN daily, and FOX is becoming more and more like CNN every day--most of their stories are just AP releases.

Face it: investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream media. And yes, The Daily Show, as satire, outclasses most of the mainstrem media.

 

[db_tanker]

I voted for fox due to the wording being of a "network" news agency...

As far as being right down the middle and not trying to influence anything, Christian Science Monitor is the way to go, IMO.


D

 

[longeyes]

The person who wants to be informed today has to be an information guerrilla. You need to use stealth, subterfuge, slyness, and constant movement. Look for "subversive" sources that may offer a different angle of vision.

There are, for example, a lot of great websites out there that will prove an antidote to the acryonym corporate institutions whose job is keep the masses sedated.

 

[Kim]

How can you say Christian Science Monitor is down the middle. Good gried they are always anti-gun hysterical. Plus they had that one reporter taken as a hostage in Iraq and I saw her on C-span it was obvious whose side she was on. Stockhom syndrome or idiot take your pick. Plus I really do not want to have anything to do with that nutty Christian Science stuff. Even is they claim to be loosely related today. Anyone who believe is a religion put forth by a science fiction writer is a little off. I read their so called "bible" or at least I tried and it made absolultely no sense at all. It was incoherent babble.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Anyone who believe is a religion put forth by a science fiction writer is a little off. I read their so called "bible" or at least I tried and it made absolultely no sense at all.

Christian Science and Scientology - Completely different and unrelated.

The "bible" of Christian Science is called "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," and was written by Mary Baker Eddy.

The "bible" of Scientology would be certain tomes of the science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[real_name]

None of the above.
TV news is rot, Fox/CNN etc are all as bad as each other at hyperbole and scaremongering. If someone as much as farts in NY it's a 24 hr 'Breaking News' media circus.

The web is somewhat better, if only because it covers a broader spectrum (Huff Post to Drudge).

But as anyone who has actually ever witnessed any significant event will know, reporting and witnessing are very different things. For example I was witness to a huge riot in London a few years back, The media on both sides (BBC/Sky) portrayed events far differently to actual proceedings.

As such I always try to read between the lines.

 

[Kim]

Yea the book by Mary Baker Eddy. That is the one. They had a booth set up at a National Family Practice event and they were giving out her book for free.. It is babble that makes NO sense. I will get it out and read a little today and see if the sentences are more coherent a few years later. But I doubt it.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Let us know if it turns out to be Christian or scientific.

 

[tenbase]

The CS Monitor "About" page really says it all:

http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monitor.html

cs monitor has very little to do with the christian science religion, which in turn has nothing at all to do with scientology.

 

[Thin Black Line]

LOL, Fox in the lead....it figures. What do they devote to World news
that really affects us? Something like "80 seconds around the world" and
it's all irrelevant garbage? While FOX was ignoring AQ Khan selling nuke
information, BBC was reporting it.

I can also tell you for a fact that BBC and other brit news were doing a far
better job reporting what was actually happening in Iraq than Fox did while I
was there.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

BBC -- yep, enjoyed them, when I was in Europe. Also liked watching CNN, in Europe. They talked about things like all the developments in the ex Soviet states, and actually expected that their viewers didn't give a flying handshake about who got a new recording contract or what some movie bozo did after ingesting whatever Hollywood drug of choice.

The problem we face is:

"News" networks make their money from advertising.

It seems more Americans will watch "entertainment" news and hype than "real news".

More people watching means their advertising slots are worth more.​

I don't think I'd quite call that a "failing" of capitalism, but it is a dangerous trap.

 

[Jack Straw from Wichita]

C-SPAN is the only televised news that I consider trustworthy.

In print, the _Christian Science Monitor_.

-Jack

 

[Thin Black Line]

Case in point yesterday: BBC America reported during their 6 pm broadcast
that FOB F had been under attack and gave a live report during multiple
secondary explosions that were being felt in Baghdad.

Flipped over to Fox News --playing a previously taped interview with Condi
followed by another taped story about some 9-11 monument in AZ.

Flipped over to CNN --the usual Lou Dobbs "broken borders" piece where
we all get to get mad and no one does anything about it.

 

[#shooter]

LOL. Faux news is in the lead. hahahahahaha! That is funny. No Daily Show, Bloomberg, or Al Jazeera? Heck Al Jazeera and Fox are two sides of the same coin. I am disappointed “none” wasn’t a choice.

They all spin it one way or another so I voted for the BBC because they do the least amount of celebrity gossip. When all the networks started reporting about reality shows, that was it for me. They all stink.