Exactly! I check BBC first, then I read CNN and Fox News to get the feel across the spectrum. Honestly believe the worst thing that ever happened to news was the introduction of the 24-hour news cycle. 30 minutes with Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw at 6:30pm over dinner was all that was needed IMO - not enough time for the echo-chamber to form.
For free media, look at Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters' headlines are definitely slanted, but the articles are relevant and more or less even-handed. Bloomberg's skimpy non-business coverage sticks to the facts. For paid media, WSJ is boring but accurate.
WSJ lost me when they went to color print. Their writers started to suck. Grade 11 writing back then now down to grade 6. I like Bloomberg, but scope of coverage is limited.
On headlines: I hate how they make them clickbaitish.
Despite the supposed super-fast propagation of news via social media and the internet, you can still get faster, clearer, less-edited, information via radio ... if you're willing to screw around with it.
Getting a raw, not-intended-for-broadcast, feed is quite enlightening. And it's not even expensive to do.
Yeah, my dad one time complained that a certain president had never released his long-form birth certificate, to which I replied he actually had, and then my father said that his news station said that hadn't happened, to which I replied "well, that's part of the problem"! Oy
Read these "rules" AND introduce
yourself before your first post
Being true to what the artists intended
(opinion / entertainment piece)
Comments on Profile Post by purr1n