I'm working today ama the building I'm working on has the tv on faux news and they have been doing nothing but talking shit and making jokes about Hillary for the past 4 hours and no sign of stopping. Now I really, and I mean really, hate that cunt and will shit talk her any time but this is getting old. Fuckin msm...
I get my news from a variety of places, however I don't really listen to it, I use my brain to actually process the information and come to my own conclusions.
Shit bro you better step it up and start using sticks of various sizes. Throw em all over the ground n shit. Instant future knowledge. Win.
Usually just do a rundown of the headlines on google news. I'll read an article on occasion to get the who, what, when, where, and how if I find the event particularly interesting; and those are usually on science, technology, or cannabis. Otherwise, it's usually humans doing the same shit they always have, and then bickering over it.
BBC - as BBC do not have advertisers, they are more objective than most. Al-Jazera can be useful too. TG4 - if I need to see local/domestic news, I'll watch the news in gaeilge.
After seeing where many of you get your news I'm more understanding of how you can have your crazy opinions. Although there much to be criticized about network news at least it gives a broad sampling of our society's current events. Fox don't lie, they present information that their niche viewers find interesting, same with the progressive networks. Fox omits some stories that make conservatives look bad and MSNBC does the same for libs. At least by watching both I get a sampling of what's up in the world today that could affect me. If I relied on tweets and blogs to stay informed I'd probably be as ignorant as those who do. Just hearing odd stories that don't matter gives me information, like I know the names of the Supremes, the governor of California and Florida, and where the VP lives. I just take everything I hear with a dose of skepticism and always consider the source. I admit I completely fell for the WMD/Iraq scam. I do remember thinking at the time that there's no way Bush would go to war on a guess and if he was wrong it would be the end of America as we knew it. I was wrong on the first and right on the last. I'm not sure if that's related to the topic but if I hadn't watched news programs.....who knows what I'd have believed, probably that 911 was an inside job.
They did have "WMD's" though. Just rudimentary chemical shit. This was declassified years ago. In that regard Bush wasn't wrong. It just wasn't what they were implying. It seems like you think information on the internet is incredibly fringe. I not sure if I'm included in your realization of why people think what they do here, especially when you see things like "info wars" listed amongst it but I want to clarify that most my information still comes from media groups, whether it be NYTimes, Washington Post, Huff, Telegraph, BBC, Al Jazeera, Vice, RT, etc. The point is to grab common threads much like you would do between the same story on MSNBC and Fox. When I say I get information from tweets, for one I never use a blogs period, but tweets show globally what is happening albeit taken with salt. It's the first thing you see pop up globally whether it be revolutions in Ukraine, South America, Africa, Asia, Syria or Gaza.
Network news is one of the worst places to get your news. They are owned by conglomerates who compete for the highest ratings and who're just looking to profit. They're mostly opinion and occasionally reporting on facts. They never report outside the narrow American paradigm as that would scare off advertisers. It does not give a broad sampling of society's current events, just stories that will garner the most ratings. Important things constantly get left out or under reported. They are critical, but not too critical of government. There is a reason that the Press is the only industry specifically protected under the constitution and that is because it is meant to act like the 4th branch of government, that is to report on the other three. I know you said you take everything with a dose of skepticism, but I'm very skeptical of everything on network news. It's just a 24 hour a day competition to get the highest ratings.
Right, but Bush was wrong in the sense Iraq didn't have what he thought they had. Nothing they had was worth going to war over, and after we did we should have left right after we defeated their military. Fuck rebuilding their society from the ground up, if they picked another sucky ass dictator we could have killed him too instead of sticking around for so many years trying to do the right thing.
I said I use it to cross reference and to get a general idea of what is going on by finding common objective truths. If Washington Post and Russia Today run the same story you can find truths, bias and context in both. Sometimes finding that hidden context and omitted information gives you a better idea of what is going on collectively. It's easy to take a look at the news objectively and know we're fighting many fighting proxy wars with a second Cold War being very alive.
Yes, they are far from perfect. When you think about it though aren't the online news outlets similar, trying to get readers and selling advertising? I hate checking Huffington out because it takes too long to load all the advertising. (I'm complaining about waiting 30 seconds before I can read it. Life must be good) If you go to a place that doesn't advertise then beware because they must have a more sinister reason for being.