• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do you read the news?

How Do You Read the News?

  • I just read headlines

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I only research about issues I care about and use sources I agree with to make myself feel better

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
Actually you are right. Rt is not Far Eastern. More the space between eu and China

I have no clue then?? Are you talking about East Asian Countries? Isn't that all state propaganda or has it changed recently?
 
I like CNN and NPR. I use the CNN app a lot. I like MSNBC to some degree, but understand it is mostly liberal/democratic editorializing except on election nights.

The CNN app is good. I would suggest trying out Breaking News as well. Even better :)
 
I usually just read the Drudge Report. FoxNews is the worst in getting to the truth. All day everyday is an endless lineup of jewish, Israeli, or pro-Israel type supporters. Huckabee is the most disgustingly Israeli biased prick I've ever heard on TV. Fair and Balanced? No way.

In fact the entire media is that way. All reports are presented from a neutral to pro-Israel spectrum only. Mostly pro-Israel. No report on the controlled media however will ever air anything sympathetic to the Palestinian position and no report will EVER suggest that America is backing the wrong side.
 
I have no clue then?? Are you talking about East Asian Countries? Isn't that all state propaganda or has it changed recently?

Rt is Russia Today. I like getting their take because it it so different and says so much about Russian government politics.
 
Probably among the few here who stay away from news almost as much as possible. I find that even local news fixates on the negative, headline grabbing events that, despite being local, almost never happen to the random person. It's depressing and convinces many that they are constantly at risk.

If i hear of some development i consider quite amusing, truly significant, or fascinating, i might try to learn more about it at that point. Not watch the news and let *them* dictate what i spend time on and how it's slanted. Yeah, other problem is anything with profit to be made or commercial interruptions will not prioritize accuracy or have any perspective worth a damn.

Say i hear of the "war" between israel/hamas. Yes, hamas resumed firing rockets. Ok, so is this a big deal even? The news sure makes it seem so. Well, perspective tells me it's never-ending but i am curious at whether the military response is warranted, because most in this country sides with israel, due to religious bias and it being an "ally." Also i wonder with today's military tech, is this even a threat to israel, or will killing civilians in response make the situation worse?

So i try to look into nonprofit and independent reports. I found that, after 3 days of this "battle," not a single israeli was killed. The rockets are shot down. That's a small detail the news always leaves out, cause it doesn't grab ratings. It's a complete misnomer to call any tv news journalism.
 
I usually just read the Drudge Report. FoxNews is the worst in getting to the truth. All day everyday is an endless lineup of jewish, Israeli, or pro-Israel type supporters. Huckabee is the most disgustingly Israeli biased prick I've ever heard on TV. Fair and Balanced? No way.

In fact the entire media is that way. All reports are presented from a neutral to pro-Israel spectrum only. Mostly pro-Israel. No report on the controlled media however will ever air anything sympathetic to the Palestinian position and no report will EVER suggest that America is backing the wrong side.

You do realize that that is your opinion right? On the international stage, America is allied with and always has allied with Israel, not Palestine.
 
Rt is Russia Today. I like getting their take because it it so different and says so much about Russian government politics.

I know that, it's also state owned which is why RT is exactly the way it is. I don't like to believe anything they say and take most of what they say with a grain of salt.
 
Having dyslexia, I usually just start at the end and read it backwards...






Just kidding. I really just avoid PMSNBC.
 
1. Probably among the few here who stay away from news almost as much as possible. I find that even local news fixates on the negative, headline grabbing events that, despite being local, almost never happen to the random person. It's depressing and convinces many that they are constantly at risk.

2. If i hear of some development i consider quite amusing, truly significant, or fascinating, i might try to learn more about it at that point. Not watch the news and let *them* dictate what i spend time on and how it's slanted. Yeah, other problem is anything with profit to be made or commercial interruptions will not prioritize accuracy or have any perspective worth a damn.

3. Say i hear of the "war" between israel/hamas. Yes, hamas resumed firing rockets. Ok, so is this a big deal even? The news sure makes it seem so. Well, perspective tells me it's never-ending but i am curious at whether the military response is warranted, because most in this country sides with israel, due to religious bias and it being an "ally." Also i wonder with today's military tech, is this even a threat to israel, or will killing civilians in response make the situation worse?

4. So i try to look into nonprofit and independent reports. I found that, after 3 days of this "battle," not a single israeli was killed. The rockets are shot down. That's a small detail the news always leaves out, cause it doesn't grab ratings. It's a complete misnomer to call any tv news journalism.

1. Thanks for being honest!

2. This is kind of how I do it as well, though there are topics I like to keep track of like media stories, tech stories, what's happening with my favorite corporate brands, and political topics that I care about. I also try to research each currently trending topic back to the point when it wasn't a trending topic. That's usually the silver lining with no bias.

3. For the past week Hannity had on his show top people from Israel on his show and he tried to bait them with Obama is a bad guy and that he doesn't seem like he's supporting Israel as much as he should be. They all replied with the same talking points from their government that US is a strong ally and the Iron Dome is the best thing ever.

4. I tend to stay away from independent sources because I don't trust them!
 
MSN.com
InformationClearingHouse.info
Buzzflash.com
APBreakingNews
RIANovosti
AlJazeera
Kitco.com
ThirdWorldTraveler.com
Google search-pertinent words on any current event and review the disclosed links

This isn't everything, but is an excellent synopsis, Most stories need to be followed up with a Google search.
 
Watch RT, CNBC, France24, BBC, AlJazeera, ZDF, ARD
Listen NPR, DLF, WDR5
Read NYT, WP, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy Magazine
Do Fora and check things out, when they contradict patterns

I call BS, that are you have no life outside of that.
 
I call BS, that are you have no life outside of that.

You mean that would be too much input for you? You wouldn't want to read every article or watch every station daily, you know.
 
You mean that would be too much input for you? You wouldn't want to read every article or watch every station daily, you know.

I'm saying I'm a slow reader, and there isn't enough time in the day for me to do that much reading, or watching... though I do like The Economist, just wish it wasn't so expensive.
 
I'm saying I'm a slow reader, and there isn't enough time in the day for me to do that much reading, or watching... though I do like The Economist, just wish it wasn't so expensive.

It is expensive. My favorite read, though
 
4. I tend to stay away from independent sources because I don't trust them!

Well by this, i mean Amnesty International and other humanitarian groups, and collectives like the EU and UN have all condemned israel's response. American politicians, talking heads, religious figures and such have too much a vested interest in defending israel no matter what, and that's who gets shown on the news giving their 2 cents. If they start interviewing poor Palestinians whose school was hit by rockets, guess what, prejudiced viewers may turn the channel. Some columnist in Canada might have quite a different take on it. Ideally, independent sources will also seek out actual data and report it without taking a side.

It doesn't have to be some big international incident either. If i want an unbiased yet knowledgeable opinion on whether the new detroit arena project should be approved, i wouldn't go ask mike illitch (the guy who stands to profit) like the local news does. Sure, illitch should have a chance to present his case, but the problem with commercial driven news is there is no sensible debate - usually 1 or 2 get interviewed briefly - no independent studies, and a very short time to present a complicated subject. The viewer is left with cursory and biased info from well-known figures (who can drive ratings), which later often gets regurgitated as if it's all indisputable fact. I'd rather hear from academic researchers or citing previous research on sports arena projects & economic impact on the city.

Especially if we get all our news from one outlet like Hannity or Bill Maher, we're basically letting someone else think for us. Although god knows what they really think. Watch Hannity someday 'come out' as liberal. He's just selling ad spots after all.
 
1. Well by this, i mean Amnesty International and other humanitarian groups, and collectives like the EU and UN have all condemned israel's response. American politicians, talking heads, religious figures and such have too much a vested interest in defending israel no matter what, and that's who gets shown on the news giving their 2 cents. If they start interviewing poor Palestinians whose school was hit by rockets, guess what, prejudiced viewers may turn the channel. Some columnist in Canada might have quite a different take on it. Ideally, independent sources will also seek out actual data and report it without taking a side.

2. It doesn't have to be some big international incident either. If i want an unbiased yet knowledgeable opinion on whether the new detroit arena project should be approved, i wouldn't go ask mike illitch (the guy who stands to profit) like the local news does. Sure, illitch should have a chance to present his case, but the problem with commercial driven news is there is no sensible debate - usually 1 or 2 get interviewed briefly - no independent studies, and a very short time to present a complicated subject. The viewer is left with cursory and biased info from well-known figures (who can drive ratings), which later often gets regurgitated as if it's all indisputable fact. I'd rather hear from academic researchers or citing previous research on sports arena projects & economic impact on the city.

3. Especially if we get all our news from one outlet like Hannity or Bill Maher, we're basically letting someone else think for us. Although god knows what they really think. Watch Hannity someday 'come out' as liberal. He's just selling ad spots after all.

1. Depending on the source, even those groups can have a bias. Often populist groups do! I tend to stay away from populist talking points. They are not all on talk radio!!! Many humanitarian groups have just as much bias and skew stuff to their side just as much as the news media does. For instance, Amnesty International will not appeal to the Tea Party due to their stance on the Israel thing and other stuff that they do. It's fine to like the work they do, I work for an organization that does something similar to them. I do not limit myself to that or my organization for news. It's always good to get a well-rounded opinion. Even if you think Hannity is just selling ads.

2. I like it when the news does this actually. Usually the supporter of whatever side the host/new station is trying to portray is advertised. Whatever loser the network gets to portray the opposite side, still does have an agenda but it's not as loud. Even the liberals on Fox News (the people paid to argue the liberal side) have an agenda. I'm not talking about high profile liberals like Juan Williams who is on the Fox payroll with a multi-million dollar contract. I'm talking about people who argue with Sheppard Smith or Greta during the afternoons. They are all attached to different organizations or are trying to sell crappy paperback books. If you listen closely you can usually hear what groups they support even if the other side is louder and advertising something the network is pushing for. I hope this makes sense. If not I can try to find some examples.

3. I always urge my conservative colleagues in the Republican Party to read some of the sources I read. Like the Verge or Motherjones. Half of them they never heard of because their head is stuck in the sand. Same thing happens when I ask liberals why exactly they hate Fox News with a passion. I never want people to get stuck in one lane.

I actually started an Anti-libertarian/anti-populist/anti-conspiracy website because of the populist movement surrounding third parties and the like. It highlights all the crazy stuff libertarians do. Because after doing research on these people, I noticed there wasn't really anybody out there challenging them or questioning them. More like people ignored them. Which may be just as well, but I like there to be some counter to every political movement. Call me a cynic I guess.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about people who argue with Sheppard Smith or Greta during the afternoons. They are all attached to different organizations or are trying to sell crappy paperback books. If you listen closely you can usually hear what groups they support even if the other side is louder and advertising something the network is pushing for. I hope this makes sense. If not I can try to find some examples.

I think so...that they are mostly just fodder to give the supported view something to argue. That's what i meant by not true debate. Imagine someone who could make Hannity or Maher look foolish was allowed to go on there. Most any of my professors and hell, even the RAs, could manage it if it's a topic in their field and their view was diametrically opposed or just way more informed than the host's. Oh, and if they weren't there just to sell books of course.

I actually started an Anti-libertarian/anti-populist/anti-conspiracy website because of the populist movement surrounding third parties and the like. It highlights all the crazy stuff libertarians do. Because after doing research on these people, I noticed there wasn't really anybody out there challenging them or questioning them. More like people ignored them. Which may be just as well, but I like there to be some counter to every political movement. Call me a cynic I guess.

Sounds like it could be a hit and yes, 3rd party can be just as crazy and if actually did come to power, would end up as corrupt and with their own slanted news shows. I recall hearing of this Green Party candidate...Nader? Well, some of their platform and his own statements were nuts, and it goes on. I try not to attach myself to any political "movement" or major party for that reason. The cynic i think would say well, there's no true independent, thousands out there share your political/social/economic views no matter what. Perhaps, but i haven't met them, so all good to me. Probably why i don't have many friends on this site lol. End up disagreeing with everyone at some point.

But similar with declaring myself anti ------. I could think conspiracy theorists are psychotic 99% of the time, but then there's that 1% that turns out correct. Always have to keep that in mind too. Libertarians, gun nuts, thumpers, GOP, dems etc - every once in a while they all make a good point or support policy i can get behind. That is, when they're in role. Hopefully no one is such a caricature they're a bible thumper or conspiracy theorist every waking moment.
 
Back
Top Bottom