[Rancid]

I don't do Fox, but I do use PBS/NPR, NYT and WAPO, and some specialty sites like SciAm, legal websites with Dorf on Law being my favorite, Foreign Affairs. Wish I had a subscription to Atlantic.

I would also like a subscription to NYRB and NYTRB, but mostly NYRB (New York Review of Books)

https://www.nybooks.com/

Oh yea, I forgot I do NPR as well. Occasionally PBS if it's on youtube.

I also do a lot of random think tanks that help provide context over on going news. Geopolitical strategy think tanks that is. Also history courses from universities posted to youtube (The Tim Synder course on Ukrainian history was super insightful.. look it up). When you look at all of these different sources, even the one's that are biased (like what you find on youtube often), but also look at them not to confirm what you want to be true, or to get angry, but to just see what they are saying. You learn a lot from these perspectives. Even the really really really stupid ones.

One thing I learned from watching Tuckcer Carlson.

If all you watch is fox news or other conservative media, and you take everything being told to you as good faith truth. Tucker is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY good at scaring the shit out of you. He does a great job of framing shit like we're all gonna die. He also does a great job of asking open and leading questions, but not answer them, such that you draw a conclusion that is not true and a complete lie. This is how they get away with not getting hit with defamation law suits and shit. He's really really really good at that. I can see why people (read: the uneducated that Trump loves) fall for that bullshit. It's important to watch that shit a least a little, to understand the mechanics.

This is what Fox New commentators hope for, that their viewers don't bother to go anywhere else or think for themselves for that matter.

[Unthinking Majority]

That's why I think Reuters are true professional journalists. Just say what happened with as little commentary as possible.

But how are they supposed to get clicks without appealing to our emotions?

[Patrickov]

But how are they supposed to get clicks without appealing to our emotions?

When most of your media employ sensationalism, not applying it is itself a reliable click-bait as it appeals to those who don't like emotional bushings.

[Istanbuller]

What... the....

Anyway, I do a combination of Other, DW, BBC, CNN, MSNBC and even a little bit of Fox.

I also do a lot of business new sites, because often their coverage is less tainted by political bias. Most business news sites are focused on trying to get real information for the purpose of investment. If you cloud up that information with political bullshit, your business news becomes worthless to reader/watchers that are trying to figure out how to play the markets.

Other also covers random smaller news sites whose political biases I don't know, but I just look at them with healthy skepticism.

WRT Fox, it's a shit ton of commentary/opinion dressed up as news. MAGA morons can't tell the difference though.

All of these news channels are for big government, big spending, bans, anti-free speech. This is very much the definition of authoritarianism. Fox News is the only right wing news channels among them. It shows small government conservative and libertarian tendencies.

[Rancid]

All of these news channels are for big government, big spending, bans, anti-free speech. This is very much the definition of authoritarianism. Fox News is the only right wing news channels among them. It shows small government conservative and libertarian tendencies.

Cool story bro.


ANNNNNYWAYY.

With any news source, the key is to look at with an analytical lens, don't just always take it for what it say's.

[Neo]

@Rancid

I like to watch the news channel that says only what I think is right and I what I want to hear. I don't want to hear facts and logical conclusions, Rancid! That's journalism and things based on objectivity! I don't want journalism, facts, and logical conclusions so I can be in tune with reality and be well-informed! I just want to hear the news tell me I am right and what I want to hear, even if that means I am out of touch with reality and ill-informed. I only trust those news sources that tell me what I want to hear rather than objective facts and logical conclusions.

[Neo]

I just want to be like everybody else and watch the news channel that tells me what I want to hear instead of the truth. That way I can enjoy my confirmation bias.

[Tainari88]

Oh yea, I forgot I do NPR as well. Occasionally PBS if it's on youtube.

I also do a lot of random think tanks that help provide context over on going news. Geopolitical strategy think tanks that is. Also history courses from universities posted to youtube (The Tim Synder course on Ukrainian history was super insightful.. look it up). When you look at all of these different sources, even the one's that are biased (like what you find on youtube often), but also look at them not to confirm what you want to be true, or to get angry, but to just see what they are saying. You learn a lot from these perspectives. Even the really really really stupid ones.

One thing I learned from watching Tuckcer Carlson.

If all you watch is fox news or other conservative media, and you take everything being told to you as good faith truth. Tucker is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY good at scaring the shit out of you. He does a great job of framing shit like we're all gonna die. He also does a great job of asking open and leading questions, but not answer them, such that you draw a conclusion that is not true and a complete lie. This is how they get away with not getting hit with defamation law suits and shit. He's really really really good at that. I can see why people (read: the uneducated that Trump loves) fall for that bullshit. It's important to watch that shit a least a little, to understand the mechanics.

This is what Fox New commentators hope for, that their viewers don't bother to go anywhere else or think for themselves for that matter.

Tucker Carlson rips off ideas from the Leftists that are valid and twists it to fit some Right wing bullshit narrative. He is some rich trust fund idiot in my opinion. Swanson frozen dinner fortune from the 50s. I love that Rutger Bregman embarrassed the hell out of him by calling him a sellout puppet for his handlers in order to keep his show and make money with his shallow political analysis.

Some Dutch Historian ate his lunch. I am happy.

He can't handle criticism.

[Istanbuller]

Tucker Carlson emberaces free speech. He opposes the left's censorship and anti-free speech traits. But there is a thing wrong with him. He is a big government fan like Donald Trump. This keeps him from being "American conservative". Conservatism is rooted in libertarianism and Reagan politics, not Trump and authoritarianism.

[Tainari88]

He is a millionaire living off of billionaire puppet dirty money man. A piece of shit anchor on Fox.

I don't give a damn about conservatism that does not give a damn about anything but their own enrichment. You got corrupt people in both parties. Period.

[Rancid]

Tucker Carlson emberaces free speech. He opposes the left's censorship and anti-free speech traits. But there is a thing wrong with him. He is a big government fan like Donald Trump. This keeps him from being "American conservative". Conservatism is rooted in libertarianism and Reagan politics, not Trump and authoritarianism.

[Unthinking Majority]

Cool story bro.


ANNNNNYWAYY.

With any news source, the key is to look at with an analytical lens, don't just always take it for what it say's.

BAHAHAHA burn.

[late]

Tucker Carlson embraces free speech.

The only thing Carlson embraces is money. The leaked memos make that clear. It is also clear that he uses propaganda to get that money.

He causes harm to his people and his country to continue his comfortable lifestyle.

[Puffer Fish]

It only allows me to select one option, so I'm not going to vote.
I trust different channels for different types of stories. Some channels can be trusted less with certain topics than others.

Something strange I have noticed, BBC seems to cover a lot of social issues and poverty-related issues going on in America that the American media (both Right and Left) seems to have no interest in covering.

Al Jazeera will provide a different world perspective, especially about international issues when the story is not in favor of America's interests.

[Negotiator]

The options given literally are all mass mainstream news sources.

Run by the rich, controlled by the rich, lying for the rich.

I dont trust any of them, though of course some are less awful than others.