Moderates, which news station do you watch?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I don’t. Really. I read the three major papers, a bunch of periodicals, occasionally listen to CNN in the car but usually ends up with me screaming at stupid people, will very rarely scan Fox headlines online to see what crazy crap my parents are going to be upset about when I call them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing on TV. TV news all sucks.

Bingo.

Print media only, for me. WaPo, NYT, and WSJ.

Oh, and I guess John Oliver, does that count?

Same, I only read the newspaper or articles online. Made an exception on Jan 6th and 20th to watch TV coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing on TV. TV news all sucks.

Bingo.

Print media only, for me. WaPo, NYT, and WSJ.

Oh, and I guess John Oliver, does that count?

Same, I only read the newspaper or articles online. Made an exception on Jan 6th and 20th to watch TV coverage.

DP. I do tune into CNN for live coverage of really significant breaking news occasionally. Only exception to my no cable news rule. But it’s generally just to confirm or contradict whatever I’m reading on Twitter.

And OP, a tip. I’ve curated my own list of journalists/analysts to read on Twitter, and have an account that I use only to read with. I never tweet or anything, and I don’t even follow accounts. Just a locked account with private reading lists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fox is too conservative and CNN is too liberal. What choice is there for a moderate?

None.

pulled the plug on cable news when Wolf went live with the " Situation Room" with its game show video graphics in 2003

Its good to read a few non-murdoch owned papers and then compare to WSJ. Somewhere between the lines in there is something approaching honest examination of the political and economic trials of the 6 Bil residents of the planet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly, and we have Reagan deregulation to blame for allowing Fox to get on air in the 1st place. After that, CNN veered in opposite direction.

This is tip of iceberg though looking at where DCUM 40-50 somethings go for their news.

The real problem is in 10-20 years when those 45 year olds start to retire from the leadership positions in all walks of life, who will take up their leadership role:

A whole generation of people who grew up obsessed with their FB and Instagram profiles and for whom dialogue is a " Tweet" ....and they may also be in self driving cars- just so they can tweet some more

Right off that evolutionary cliff ....

[Anonymous]

I don't watch the news. I read The Diplomat, Foreign Affairs, Barron's, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Bloomberg.

[Anonymous]

Don't watch the news. Read newspapers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bloomberg, BBC and PBS. They are the only news channels left. Everything else is opinion.

This is a reasonable post. Agree on all three. Reuters for an online source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't watch the news. Read newspapers.

You’re killing the forests. Oh, online? You’re sucking up all the electricity. Anyhow, which papers? Can’t be the WaPo or the NY Times. WSJ maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly, and we have Reagan deregulation to blame for allowing Fox to get on air in the 1st place. After that, CNN veered in opposite direction.

This is tip of iceberg though looking at where DCUM 40-50 somethings go for their news.

The real problem is in 10-20 years when those 45 year olds start to retire from the leadership positions in all walks of life, who will take up their leadership role:

A whole generation of people who grew up obsessed with their FB and Instagram profiles and for whom dialogue is a " Tweet" ....and they may also be in self driving cars- just so they can tweet some more

Right off that evolutionary cliff ....

Oh, it’s Reagan’s fault. Riiiigghht.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly, and we have Reagan deregulation to blame for allowing Fox to get on air in the 1st place. After that, CNN veered in opposite direction.

This is tip of iceberg though looking at where DCUM 40-50 somethings go for their news.

The real problem is in 10-20 years when those 45 year olds start to retire from the leadership positions in all walks of life, who will take up their leadership role:

A whole generation of people who grew up obsessed with their FB and Instagram profiles and for whom dialogue is a " Tweet" ....and they may also be in self driving cars- just so they can tweet some more

Right off that evolutionary cliff ....

Oh, it’s Reagan’s fault. Riiiigghht.

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan administration led to the corrosive, one-sided political "discourse" so frequently found on conservative media outlets. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Anonymous]

It’s all just opinions that mask as news. DW is okay though. Al Jazeera America was good when it was on. Sadly the American news media landscape has become a shell of its former self, meant for the easily amused and low IQ masses, most likely due to Fox News. Even the once great papers are just pages of opinion, often poorly written and edited.

[Anonymous]

I get my news from multiple sources. I listen to NPR on the drive to/from work and watch the local Fox affiliate for my morning/evening news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Political scientists have known forever that news bias occurs not in a slanted presentation but in the topics they choose to cover. (Excepting opinion content, obviously.)