Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone found a news source or website that cuts through all the BS celebrity and tabloid type stories and reports news that is actually important to know?
I used to go to USA Today, but they have gotten as bad as the rest. For example, the top headline today is about the stupid Kardashians, and other things I don't give a flip about. We have a pressure cooker going on in Iraq, border issues, economic issues, and 95% of the stories on the major news websites now are sensationalized fluff. If I wanted that crap, I'd buy a copy of the Enquirer.
Any suggestions?
Christian Science Monitor. I know, it's strange that you would find such good reporting on a site associated with a religious group that most of us consider pretty, um, "off the beaten path", but it is what it is.
Sometimes Google News does a decent job of screening stories as well, since you can tell it that you don't want to see sports or entertainment. Some of the Kardashian crap still shows up though.
I like going to the Drudge Report online. The Wall Street Journal is great too. If you want to subscribe to a news magazine, try The Week. It really goes into a lot of detail...moreso than Time and some of the other ones.
I used to go to USA Today, but they have gotten as bad as the rest.
You considered USA Today real news? They've gotten as bad as the rest? They've always been as bad as the rest. Back in in the 90's it was often referred to as the "McPaper" ... accurate then and still is.
And I find that disconcerting. Why do you think that is?
Back in the day when America had Eric Sevareid, Ed Murrow, Walter Cronkite et al., & some local tv news outlets it was considered a "public service" for the community, like the church services on Sunday mornings & the local public affairs shows that would follow those (or be on just before sign-off at night). This was considered part of the qualifications to qualify for a broadcast license from the FCC.
Right around the time that cable tv was making a foothold in America there was a spirit of "deregulation" & that letting the market decide what was in the public good made the local tv newscasts now looked at as profit centers for those local stations rather than public services for the community. Gradually the older journalists who had spent time at the local police stations & city hall gathering contacts & experience were replaced by telegenic anchors & reporters, a disconcerting number of them former beauty contestants. Consultants said that people didn't like hearing bad news & so "good news" storytelling techniques became common after the initial headlines were dealt with. Why? Because all the commercial money for the local news went to the local station & didn't have to be shared with network.
Fast forward 20-30 years & most of these market driven techniques are unquestioned now in the broadcast news biz in America (the international outlets mentioned earlier have been less affected by this since most are non-commercial, but they increasingly feel they need to compete so...) The most blatant outcome of this evolution, & I fear the direction of TV news for the future, is Fox News. Peopled largely by blondes with big boobs (a local trend that they adopted wholeheartedly) they added 2 ingenious elements: partisanship & conflict.
Now you can choose to watch information you know you will agree/disagree with before even tuning in & you will have clearly delineated heroes & villains. One of the basic elements of good story-telling or drama is conflict & they made sure to incorporate this as a standard element of every show, how they differentiated themselves from CNN's Crossfire is with clearly defined villains & heros. CNN is started to adapt some of these techniques, MSNBC makes no pretense about being biased (unlike Fox).
Idk, I think the future (next generations) of TV news will probably resemble TMZ, Youtube & Twitter rolled into a user choice delivery menu & people will only watch what selected segments they already agree with & entertainment/celebrity pieces they choose & mass watching of public information becomes an "elitist" activity like Shakespeare or ballet or opera or reading literature. The news audience skews old & is dying off, the Fox News audience is very old so I suspect they will reinvent themselves somehow in the future.
What is truly frustrating is that there are zero options on TV for real international news. As others noted, the likes of MSNBC and FOX News are nothing more than political news networks, even if a major event is happening somewhere in the world, they focus on political issues here at home. CNN spends a bit more time on other issues than FOX or MSNBC, but still gets too hung up on a very narrow range of topics. You her absolutely nothing about news from the rest of the world unless it's something incredibly major. BBC will have a lot of coverage of lots of basic "big" news from all around the globe- topics I had never heard spoken about once on any of our own cable news channels. Why can't we have our own news network that focuses on international news like the BBC does? Why in this big, diverse country of ours- the richest in the world- can't we find even ONE channel on TV that gives around the clock world news coverage?
Lately i just listen to the highlights of my local news weather and sports, world news kinda sucks and basically is a soap opera of whos killing who in the world today or an endless diatribe on American politics ,both of which i can do nothing about and by default really couldnt care less.
What is truly frustrating is that there are zero options on TV for real international news.
Before my wife started having a fit about me turning on the tv while getting ready for work in the mornings, I used to watch Al Jazeera America, and I thought they were pretty good.
there was this issue a few months back, which would have essentially censored EVERYTHING the media covered. If it was deemed to be politically slanted, they would be fined or have their licenses revoked.
If this had been selectively enforced, I wonder which news outlets and alternative media channels would have been shut down and which ones would have been allowed to continue on...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
