[pseusawbappem]

Bout time you realize that. lol
Only US TV news outlet I watch and actually get some real news from is CNBC. They only really talk about stuff that matters, the stuff that effects the economy and people's money.


I recently started watching Al Jazeera and I really like it a lot. Better than BBC which isn't the best, but still better then American news outlets.

[MgpojuWy]

CNN is about the same level as FOX now, seriously read this link from their front page (CCN Belief Blog... :/ )

I do find the Daily Show to be one of the better sources of news, but it is not thorough or fair (nor does it claim to be) enough to replace my daily needs.

Although I don't have the least bit of respect for CNN, I still wouldn't rank them as low as FOX, maybe a couple of rungs higher.

CNN has more crap/celeb bullshit, FOX basically acts like the PR/Broadcasting arm of conservative politics.

I wouldn't say the people should use The Daily Show for news either but people are using them more and more as a news source. I would say that they infinitely better for getting news though.

I basically watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report religiously, religiously as in, I try to never miss a show.

For me it's basically a recap after I spend the day ready NYT, New Yorker, The Atlantic, BBC, Al Jazeera.

Daily show and Colbert help me not to miss titbits which would be impossible for someone like me (a non US resident) to find.

Glad to see most people agree on this thread.

Forgot to add that I read The Guardian as well.

[nretdjuend]

MSNBC is the worst cable news network period.

[OwdBKKHO]

Bout time you realize that. lol
Only US TV news outlet I watch and actually get some real news from is CNBC. They only really talk about stuff that matters, the stuff that effects the economy and people's money.


I recently started watching Al Jazeera and I really like it a lot. Better than BBC which isn't the best, but still better then American news outlets.

The BBC is OK, but a bit censored. They had a video up for a few hours before they took it down which actually showed some Syrian rebles (the good guys!) using a prisoner to drive a truck full of bombs towards government buildings. They blindfolded him and told him it was a prisoner exchange though of course. Bombs failed to go off as it happens. But this paints the wrong picture so the BBC took it down.

[Pwy9egVW]

NPR has really excellent, informative, unique takes on national and international news. I just wish their quality of music programming wasn't declining.

[Deseassaugs]

Do any of you guys read the Associated Press? I pretty much just use their RSS feed for top stories , which seems to get the job done.

I do that, but only because AP is whats on my mobile RSS feed. It seems good for getting the broad picture of things and they cover a lot of topics. I have a tendency to visit CNN's site because its easy to type "cnn" into the browser and hit CTRL + ENTER and go. But yes, the quality has declined substantially. It is mostly fluff non-news articles on the front page.

[insoneeri]

Al Jazeera's international news coverage is actually quite excellent and more balanced than most American news outlets.

But print remains the most reliable source of news. Hard to beat the The Atlantic, New Yorker, Harper's, or Times for in-depth coverage and reporting.

Add The Economist to that list. One of the very few places you can get rational small-c conservative views.

[spacecrafty]

The BBC is OK, but a bit censored. They had a video up for a few hours before they took it down which actually showed some Syrian rebles (the good guys!) using a prisoner to drive a truck full of bombs towards government buildings. They blindfolded him and told him it was a prisoner exchange though of course. Bombs failed to go off as it happens. But this paints the wrong picture so the BBC took it down.

I'm pretty sure it would have been removed for some other reason

[Karensmith]

I'm pretty sure it would have been removed for some other reason

Expand on that. It sounds like you are saying that BBC does not have its public image as a priority.

--- Post Update ---

Add The Economist to that list. One of the very few places you can get rational small-c conservative views.

Thanks for that. I have read articles on there, but never actually browsed the site... looks good. I will replace my CNN bookmark with this for now.

[CurtisTH]

Expand on that. It sounds like you are saying that BBC does not have its public image as a priority.[COLOR="#209fff"]

What does what goes on in Syria have to do with the BBC's "public image"?

[Crazykz]

What does what goes on in Syria have to do with the BBC's "public image"?

The BBC is not an infallible. It has motives and goals just like any other institution. I use BBC because the a!lternative is garbage American news. Please don't turn this into another Bungle's Bubble thread.

[cindygirl]

What does what goes on in Syria have to do with the BBC's "public image"?

*sigh* Bungle, please think about it for a second.

Take Kyros' example, if Syrian rebels were the "good guys", then that means that the government of a sovereign nation are the "bad guys". BBC would be taking sides against a government, that is a bold thing to do.

Also, they would be showing a video (essentially promoting) of the preparation for bombing a government building. Based on recent history where bombing government buildings are terrorist acts - how do you think this appears to the masses in the current state of affairs? Why do you think the US media does not release all of the video regarding 9/11 or Al Queda (KYROS, Go away)?

Additionally, there was a blind-folded man that was lied to that was going to commit a "terrorist" act...

Finally, forget bunglevision for a second: think about how this would appear to the people of the world? US citizens near OK City in 1995, near manhattan in 2001, etc. It may not bother you, but how do you think this would affect other people? People that are genuinely scared of bombs and people from the middle East.

You should be able to form these connections on your own, Bungle.

[Forex Trading Software]

The BBC is not an infallible. It has motives and goals just like any other institution. I use BBC because the a!lternative is garbage American news. Please don't turn this into another Bungle's Bubble thread.

Instead of starting your crap again why don't you just answer the question. FFS this place is turning to ****. No wonder no one wants come here.........

[ChyFDjfed]

Instead of starting your crap again why don't you just answer the question. FFS this place is turning to ****. No wonder no one wants come here.........

Oh damn, this is going to be a case where everyone else is wrong again. No wonder no one wants to come here (insert unnecessary quantity of ellipses).

[KJnbceja]

Instead of starting your crap again why don't you just answer the question. FFS this place is turning to ****. No wonder no one wants come here.........

All that was asked was that you think about the situation a bit. No one attacked you. All we want is for you to approach this question logically. If Assad is the bad guy, the BBC wouldn't want to show the rebellion using deplorable tactics. It would cheapen the image of the rebels as the good guys.

[Bejemoelemymn]

*sigh* Bungle, please think about it for a second.

Take Kyros' example, if Syrian rebels were the "good guys", then that means that the government of a sovereign nation are the "bad guys". BBC would be taking sides against a government, that is a bold thing to do.

Maybe where you come from, but here the BBC, and other new organisations, report negative stories about governments (even our own) all the time.

Oh damn, this is going to be a case where everyone else is wrong again. No wonder no one wants to come here (insert unnecessary quantity of ellipses).

It's you who are never "wrong". It's funny how it's your posts that were deleted and you who received an infraction after you crapped in my thread.........

You know what, don't even bother to reply. I have no interest an anything you have to say. There are one or two people on here it's impossible to have a civilised conversation with, and you're one of them.

--- Post Update ---

All that was asked was that you think about the situation a bit. No one attacked you. All we want is for you to approach this question logically. If Assad is the bad guy, the BBC wouldn't want to show the rebellion using deplorable tactics. It would cheapen the image of the rebels as the good guys.

"Bunglevision"????

I don't see why anyone at the BBC would care who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" are. The situation in Syria is nothing to do with us. And I'm pretty sure they've reported negative stories about the "good guys" in other conflict areas before.

[Kristoferson]

*sigh* Bungle, please think about it for a second.

Take Kyros' example, if Syrian rebels were the "good guys", then that means that the government of a sovereign nation are the "bad guys". BBC would be taking sides against a government, that is a bold thing to do.

Considering this was posted by Kyros, and the source appears to be Infowars, I wouldn't be doubling down on this one, Will.

And at this point, I don't think there's any doubt that the Syrian government are the baddies.

[PRengin]

Considering this was posted by Kyros, and the source appears to be Infowars, I wouldn't be doubling down on this one, Will.

Very good point. But, even if we turn the situation hypothetical, surely most people would see how this affects their image, right?

And at this point, I don't think there's any doubt that the Syrian government are the baddies. Fair enough, I can dismiss that point.

[Dastyh]

It's you who are never "wrong". It's funny how it's your posts that were deleted and you who received an infraction after you crapped in my thread.........

Maybe you should consider your own advice when every single person is telling you that you are wrong and you just get more and more annoyed?

[tsovimnpb]

Maybe you should consider your own advice when every single person is telling you that you are wrong and you just get more and more annoyed?

What resolution was bunglevision again?