Newspaper?
Internet?
People Magazine,
Perez Hilton.com

I for one hate reading news off the internet, I would much rather read the Wall Street Journal Or The New York Times, while enjoying a danish and a nice cup of coffee. If I had more moeny I would order a subscription to the New York Times. I hate the "Boregonian." I wouldn't touch that paper with a ten foot stick.(Unless I was out of toilet paper

It's great for lining the bottom of bird cages! Bout the only thing it's good for!

Gary Gnu, who else?

For topic of the day, AM talk, Colbert, Stewart, Olberman, CNN, Glance at news paper we buy for father in law, who just can't deal with a computer. I like to have a sense of where the news cycle is. Don't know why, just do.

General news I stay current with: Internet, e-mail lists, forums. (I still really like e-mail lists, as they pile up allowing me to consume them, or just search them, depending. RSS is great as is blog / discussion search, but nothing beats having a nice e-mail list archive running with topics of interest.)

Everything else: Word of mouth, discussion, happy circumstance.

I get my news largely from NPR and the internet (Google News). I also listen to KPOJ locally and get the (sometimes worthless) headlines from ABC news. On KPOJ, Air America's Rachel Maddow Show is quite informative - it's more of a "news round-up" show than a talk show, and Maddow is fairly even-handed even if she of course is left handed.

NPR/PBS is by far the best source of non-printed news in my opinion. If I thought of it, I'd tape "The News Hour" from PBS and watch it later because I'm rarely home at 7PM to watch TV.

No cable TV for me, so no CNN, Comedy Central, etc. But Steward and Colbert are good sources, too.

I haven't watched the "Big Three" newscasts for years now, since I consider them largely trivia and not all that informative. I do happen to be reading "Reality Show" by Howard Kurtz, about the competition among the Big Three news anchors in the last few years. It's quite interesting.

Andrew

I absolutely look forward to Maddow on the way home every day.

News Hour (channel 27.01)
Al-Jazeera English (Galaxy 25 tp. 16) (haven't listened to that in a *long* time)
The BBC
NPR (91.5)

.......sometimes channel 8 for weather reports and local stuff.........

Used to listen to Golden Hours in the truck but can't any more, now that it is MIA.......on the other hand, there *is* Evergreen RRS when I am in Seattle or Pendleton (via Spokane)... ;o)

"I for one hate reading news off the internet, I would much rather read the Wall Street Journal Or The New York Times, while enjoying a danish and a nice cup of coffee. If I had more moeny I would order a subscription to the New York Times."

Yup. Same here. I pretty much always *have* to have it in paper form, it seems.......

A super patriot like me? FOX News, where else?

Drudge Report
Statesmanjournal.com
Keizertimes.com
Willamete Week
Portland Mercury
CNN

What I find sad to admit is that there isn't anything out there that I consider a trusted news source; everything has its own built in bias and spin. To use any news source, one has to be mindful of what the bias might be. Some of the places that I sample news include:

1) Google News as a "portal." The advantage to this is that for a given story, one can find a "trail" of newspapers and other outlets who have reported it. This helps to give some perspective on the validity of a story.

2) My attention often gets called to specific news stories or happenings because a talk show host (Phil Hendrie, Rick Emerson, George Noory, Neal Boortz, Dr. Dean Edell, Dr. Bill Wattenberg, etc.) mentions the story on the air. I don't take the talk personality's account as gospel until I can verify the story with some other source.

3) My attention sometimes gets called to specific stories by Internet discussion boards. Again, I have to verify the story before believing it.

4) I occasionally listen to _Dateline_Washington_ on KUIK. I consider this to be a partisan news outlet because of the stories they choose to report and because of who they choose to interview. Factually, the stories seem accurate, though.

5) The TV news that I consider worth taking seriously is on 60 Minutes and 20/20. I don't consider the nightly network newscasts worth watching, which is sad.

6) I often end up hearing a lot of those 5 minute news updates at the top of the hour on talk formatted stations (mainly ABC News, CBS News, FOX News Radio, USA Radio Network, and IRN). If one of the stories sounds interesting, I try to see if I can find a newspaper website with a more detailed version.

7) I am finding interesting bits and pieces on shortwave radio. It is interesting to hear a foreign perspective on world news, although I do take care to keep in mind that what I am hearing could be propaganda.

I really miss getting a foreign news perspective from CBC Newsworld, which is no longer carried on DirectTV(and perhaps no longer offered internationally, I dunno).

I used to watch Headline News for current events, but now it's basically useless.

So, sometimes Google News, whatever NPR happens to mention while I'm in the shower, the occasional (sometimes days-old) Emerson Show comments, intermittent Daily Show/Colbert, and often no news at all.

I get all my news at pdxradio.com. It's a really great source for unbiased news and world events!

I have never seen (or heard) CBC Newsworld. But, CBC Radio one can still be heard for free at nights on 690 and 1010 kHz and 24 hours a day on 6160 kHz shortwave.

CBC Newsworld was purchased by a group led by Al Gore I believe which changed the station to CurrentTV. Yeah back in the day Newsworld was a great source for news very unbiased and alot of stories that fell way under the radar.

Alfredo I agree with you on both 20/20 and 60 minutes although I do find certain reporters on both shows to be total hacks specifically John Stossel.

Not to threadjack but why aren't we at the very least hearing a little bit more of the John Edwards story. Yeah I know National Enquirer isn't the best of reputations in the news media but if they didn't at least have somewhat of a credible reputation why were they one of the chosen ones during the post 9/11 Anthrax incidents?

"But, CBC Radio one can still be heard for free at nights on 690..."

I listen to that one sometimes if I am working the graveyard shift and/or I am on my way home!

"Not to threadjack but why aren't we at the very least hearing a little bit more of the John Edwards story."

National Inquirer may not be the best source of news, but remember the old saying "where's there's smoke, there's fire".

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

This is interesting when you think about Edwards being a major speaker at the Democratic Convention in Denver and a possible Vice Presidential selection. His may have just ratcheted himself down the list a couple of notches.

I get all my news from pdxradio!

Oh man! You are in trouble big.

Deane, I don't know why that's not getting more play. Maybe waiting for it to develop into something more solid? Timing is bad right now, as in the thing could have WAY more impact at a later time?

Could it be Edwards is a great attorney, so people want to make DAMN sure?

Major bummer though. Like him. Don't like this though. Never good. If it's true, it's a major disappointment.

NPR baby! I don't trust any news source owned by corporations.

"NPR baby! I don't trust any news source owned by corporations."

But you will trust a bunch of liberal extremists. To each his own.

Really, we shouldn't trust any of them. They all have their bias.

IMHO, the most important criteria, regardless of bias or funding, is clarity. Can the facts be differentiated from opinion?

If so, then it's likely a good news source.

Still, anyone can do things like card stack, and be clear about it, meaning we need to consume a diverse set of sources, if we are to be well informed and thus capable of coming to solid conclusions.

In that vein, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consuming news from an "extremist" organization, given that's not the exclusive source.

Hell, pick anybody with any measure of passion and conviction for the issues, and you will easily find others, whose convictions vary, calling them extremist.

That's only a bad thing if you think it is.

I think it's becoming alarming that some news sources are openly slanting the news, trying to affect the outcome of the political process.

The most blatant of these is the New York Times. They no longer even pretend to be straight. Previous to that, the champion was Dan Rather, but that blew up in his face, just as the New York Times is going to get their's with failing revenue. This is the way it should work in America, when people don't like what you're doing anymore, you fail.

Some want to call CNN biased toward the Democrats, but this doesn't bother me because what they disseminate is mostly news. Blood sells, kissing babies doesn't. I've sort of wandered away from Fox News as it's mostly not news. More the lost person of the day, or shouting matches over Obama and McCain. Enough is enough.

I couldn't make myself pay any attention to public radio and TV. Anyone who employs Bill Moyers is too far off the radar screen for me.

I agree with those who feel the best route is to broad base your sources and average them.

Oregonian- I live here, it's the local paper.
Google news- Which is an assortment. So you get a spectrum.
Willamette Week- I live here, it's the other paper.
Portland Tribune- Oh, wait, no.
CNN- I consider it fairly unbiased. And they give you quantity.
Olberman- Because it slants my way and is entertaining as hell, plus informative.
Channel 8 news at 10: On ch. 3- Because I live here, and they have the best anchors and reporters.

I get my news from:

Pacifica Radio
KPOJ
The Progressive
The Nation
The American Prospect
In These Times
The Portland Alliance
Mother Jones
Oregon Peaceworker
Covert Action
The Keith Olbermann Network (also called MSNBC)
Media Matters
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting

> NPR baby! I don't trust any news source owned by corporations.

Corporations do sponsor NPR and its affiliates, even if the affiliate stations hold non-commercial licenses.

To be honest, I don't think that there is any way to eliminate all possible sources of bias in news reporting. NPR and its affiliate stations get some of their funding from corporate underwriting and from grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other organizations. Volunteer-run stations, such as community radio and most Pacifica affiliates, have staff that may be motivated by ideological convictions. Bloggers, who in most cases aren't being paid for their work, also are likely motivated by ideology. In the first case, money, in the form of not wanting to risk losing underwriting, can theoretically come into play when deciding on what will be aired. In the latter two cases, the people doing the reporting will most likely report the stuff that is important to them, seen through their own ideological lenses.

One other source of news that I forgot to list is the ABC World News This Week program, which is on KEX every Sunday at 6:00 PM. I catch this more regularly than 20/20 or 60 Minutes. On today's program, one of the last stories was the 40th anniversary of the cubicle! A less jovial story that aired today had to do with the rising prices of various types of goods that American consumers are going to experience through the end of this year. The report said that many retailers are going to incrementally raise prices to avoid spooking consumers, alternately focusing on different types of products. By the end of 2008, consumers should expect that the price of food, clothing, etc. will have gone up by 10-12%.

Funny DD.