CNN or Fox ?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
I'd rather get it from FOX but our university cable doesn't carry it... only CNN... yuch

Then you donot belong in a university at all. FOX NEW is than Anti-Islam anti- human right and anti-civil right orginateion. Untril MR O"Relliey say he is sorry for all the nasy thing he said about Islam FOX NEW isnot unbiase NEW
at all.

[Sava]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i watch both, and i watch the BBC.

i like fox news because they prsent a view so skewed, it's funny.

hahah yup

[alva]

Why not have the same poll for non-americans?

My vote would be BBC (world)

[Spiffor]

Because I don't know the names of major channels in every country And I guess most people listen to their national media (ok, maybe not on 'Poly)

[Urban Ranger]

We have our local stations, and cable also carries CNN and BBC World.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Christ on a crutch, have you actually been watching both networks?!

CNN: "We cautiously, soberly, and mostly unquestioningly support the President and this war"

FOX: "We openly, rabidly, hysterically and of course unquestioningly support the President and this war"

Two extremes. Riiiiiiight.

edit: To answer the question, I'll be relying on BBC World for information, but occasionally tuning in to CNN and FOX out of a kind of sociological curiosity.

The problem with BBC is that their U.S. coverage is horrible. It's biased, and in a stupid way that shows that it is nearly impossible for a journalist raised in the UK to have the slightest understanding of the U.S. Add to that the typical differences in style (BBC broadcasts typically add a headline like bit of opinion that is tagged on to the front end of most stories and is almost certainly going to be belied by the very few facts presented in the story proper. I guess the point is to make it sound more controversial, but it make me feel as though I'm watching tabloid television.), like the journalist arguing with the person they are interviewing both about the facts and their opinions. This is rarely productive in the least, and in many cases they may have just as well stopped rolling the cameras. The proper solution to a guest who you think is making fast and loose with the facts is to have another guest who contradicts him, not to have the supposed moderator rolling in the mud trying to get their personal opinion into the mix. I don't care about their personal opinion, I want to see experts, not television personalities. Anyway, the BBC pales in comparison to the Newshour, though I do watch it to see how the Brits are being spun.

[Az]

CNN europe, BBC World, SKY news.

[Sava]

NPR has become my favorite source of news. It seems to be one of the few that puts very little, if any spin on their news. And because they are an objective source, they seems very liberal when compared to other news' sources. Fox is a rag... tune in if you want to hear what Rupert Murdoch thinks. CNN has potential, but they are just a combo of bias. Their entire broadcasts basically follow the format of CNN - Crossfire where morons from both sides spin the news. I stopped watching MSNBC when I learned they canned Donahue for his political views. I wasn't a big Donahue fan, but that sounds a lot like McCarthyism and blacklisting to me.

[Guynemer]

Ahhh, CNN or FoxNews. One of the great philosophical questions of our time.

Equivalent to, "do you prefer a swift kick to the crotch, or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?"

[Dauphin]

Sky News.


I avoid BBC, they are too biased. Although not politically biased, they always try to champion a cause.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Playboy channel

They've got the best news



As for the poll options:

I'd go with CNN, since we don't have fox...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sikander


The problem with BBC is that their U.S. coverage is horrible. It's biased, and in a stupid way that shows that it is nearly impossible for a journalist raised in the UK to have the slightest understanding of the U.S. Add to that the typical differences in style (BBC broadcasts typically add a headline like bit of opinion that is tagged on to the front end of most stories and is almost certainly going to be belied by the very few facts presented in the story proper. I guess the point is to make it sound more controversial, but it make me feel as though I'm watching tabloid television.), like the journalist arguing with the person they are interviewing both about the facts and their opinions. This is rarely productive in the least, and in many cases they may have just as well stopped rolling the cameras. The proper solution to a guest who you think is making fast and loose with the facts is to have another guest who contradicts him, not to have the supposed moderator rolling in the mud trying to get their personal opinion into the mix. I don't care about their personal opinion, I want to see experts, not television personalities. Anyway, the BBC pales in comparison to the Newshour, though I do watch it to see how the Brits are being spun.

I certainly wouldn't rely on the BBC for US domestic news, but they're far supreior on international news, if only because they treat it as international, rather than as US-News-That-Also-Involves-Foreigners (the Fox/CNN model). And I actually like the way that they interrogate interviewees; BBC correspondents seem (and, if I remember my media professional statistics, actually are) much, much better educated and more knowledgeable that the talking haircuts that populate US television. The fact that they press their experts seems to me far more informative that the US quote-and-move-on school of journalism.

[Dis]

Fox at least had some actual footage from the desert.

CNN seems to be talkings head so far.

Al Jazeira is probably the best . But I think they are using mostly Fox footage.

[Ramo]

I would agree that the Newshour w/ Jim Leher is a far superior news show to BBC World. However, I'd easily take BBC World over Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. anyday.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

I certainly wouldn't rely on the BBC for US domestic news, but they're far supreior on international news, if only because they treat it as international, rather than as US-News-That-Also-Involves-Foreigners (the Fox/CNN model). And I actually like the way that they interrogate interviewees; BBC correspondents seem (and, if I remember my media professional statistics, actually are) much, much better educated and more knowledgeable that the talking haircuts that populate US television. The fact that they press their experts seems to me far more informative that the US quote-and-move-on school of journalism.

I like BBC for the news that we don't get, number one being coverage of Africa. But the bit about their anchors is really annoying. They simply don't have the time to carry out a proper interview, and I don't care for the argument between the anchor and the guest, it's too much like talk radio. Of course the anchor is going to get the last word, but I have yet to see this technique produce anything of value information wise. Of course if you agree politically with the anchor you may be amused, but again this is a feature of talk radio, and not a means of acquiring useful information.

Compare it to the panel discussion system used by the Newshour. You have a moderator, two to four guests with various viewpoints and enough time to make it worthwhile. The moderator maintains control in part because they maintain their impartiality, it is the guests who have to make their case on an even keel with those who have an opposing viewpoint. It plain works better.

Put the BBC anchors against the moderators from the Newshour, and I guarantee that the Newshour people will at least hold their own. They are the cream of the crop as far as serious television news goes, and not a looker in the whole bunch. (Well Margaret Warner is kind of cute, but still not your typical news bimbo.)

[The Mad Monk]

Talk Radio

[HershOstropoler]

Sikander:

"The problem with BBC is that their U.S. coverage is horrible. It's biased, and in a stupid way that shows that it is nearly impossible for a journalist raised in the UK to have the slightest understanding of the U.S."

On US domestic issues? Got any good examples for this?

"...like the journalist arguing with the person they are interviewing both about the facts and their opinions... The proper solution to a guest who you think is making fast and loose with the facts is to have another guest who contradicts him"

Urgh. There is nothing more annoying about US news than the "I'm balanced and even no matter what between **** A and idiot B, and serve my bias by just leaving out C", with the possible exception of the flagwaving.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Sikander:

"The problem with BBC is that their U.S. coverage is horrible. It's biased, and in a stupid way that shows that it is nearly impossible for a journalist raised in the UK to have the slightest understanding of the U.S."

On US domestic issues? Got any good examples for this?

Almost every day. For instance they will do a story on a very small group and make it seem as though this group is really important and signifies a trend in the U.S., when in fact that group really just agrees with the biases of the reporter, and has almost no following. They will do the opposite as well. Take a look at the coverage of the boycott of the Dixie Chicks. To hear them tell it, it is the death of free speech in America. The truth is that a minority of a minority support the boycott, and even if it were more popular it wouldn't destroy free speech. You get a free anti-U.S. editorial in almost every story. I'm open to hearing bad things about the U.S., but only when it is presented in a way that gives it the proper perspective in terms of both scope and the way that it fits into various value systems. BBC reportage is only concerned with covering New York, Washington and Los Angeles, even though these areas vary quite considerably from the vast areas in between where the issues are decided.

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Urgh. There is nothing more annoying about US news than the "I'm balanced and even no matter what between **** A and idiot B, and serve my bias by just leaving out C", with the possible exception of the flagwaving.

Check out the Newshour when you are in the states, they do a very good job at keeping the discussion interesting. For one thing, the quality of the guests is very good. Part of the reason for that is that they leave out the crazies from the discussion so that it doesn't break down into an argument on semantics or even very basic facts. Thus for a Green perspective they will have Ralph Nader as the guest rather than an insane local Green. While Nader may not represent the average Green in many ways, he is press savvy enough to do a much better job than the average Green in arguing their case.

[HershOstropoler]

"Take a look at the coverage of the boycott of the Dixie Chicks."

Never heard of that (Dixie Chicks and their boycott). Probably a more piltical example?

"You get a free anti-U.S. editorial in almost every story."

I think this is just a matter of style, do you see them treating others better?

The main US TV news is so fluffy, nice and protective that Kindergarden reeks of brutality in comparison.

"I'm open to hearing bad things about the U.S., but only when it is presented in a way that gives it the proper perspective in terms of both scope and the way that it fits into various value systems."

Well I think that is to demand a bit much. I can't remember a single US media story, even in the NY Times, where the context of european events would be included.

[Bereta_Eder]

I had the pleasure of never been exposed to filth like Fox news.

But everyone who knows it, including pro-americans (what a dirty word now) say it is simple propaganda

[HershOstropoler]

But FOX are intentionally crap. CNN seems to take themselves seriously.

[Bereta_Eder]

Murdoch has Fox right?

[HershOstropoler]

I think so, that's his brainchild.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

"You get a free anti-U.S. editorial in almost every story."

I think this is just a matter of style, do you see them treating others better?

I'm sure it is a matter of style, but who wants to see talk radio on television. Even if you agree with them it is dull and not particularly informative. The amount of information given on a BBC broadcast is about the same as a U.S. major network newscast, which is amazing because they don't run commericals like the U.S. networks do.

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I'm open to hearing bad things about the U.S., but only when it is presented in a way that gives it the proper perspective in terms of both scope and the way that it fits into various value systems."

Well I think that is to demand a bit much. I can't remember a single US media story, even in the NY Times, where the context of european events would be included.

Perhaps it is a bit much to demand, certainly it is a common enough failing. What ends up happening is that I don't watch it because it has so little value to me aside from seeing the sort of spin that the Brits are getting.

[HershOstropoler]

"I'm sure it is a matter of style, but who wants to see talk radio on television. Even if you agree with them it is dull and not particularly informative."

It's far from talk radio. Also it's not necessarily a matter of spin, but just of asking some critical question. There are also differences in the US on that - Tim Russard (? - NBC meet the press) is ways better than Wolf Blitzer (Nomen est Omen, "Blitzer" means dimwit here... ).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I'm sure it is a matter of style, but who wants to see talk radio on television. Even if you agree with them it is dull and not particularly informative."

It's far from talk radio. Also it's not necessarily a matter of spin, but just of asking some critical question. There are also differences in the US on that - Tim Russard (? - NBC meet the press) is ways better than Wolf Blitzer (Nomen est Omen, "Blitzer" means dimwit here... ).

Tim Russert. Yea, I always watch him on Sunday morning. He does a decent job of being a tough interviewer while maintaining a working relationship with the powers that be. It's a tough balancing act. There was a good piece on the Sunday morning news shows on (where else?) the Newshour about a week ago. These shows are only watched by a very small minority of the country (like about 15%), but it is the most educated, politically involved and wealthiest segment of the population, so much so that the advertising rates for these shows are astronomical per viewer.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sikander

Put the BBC anchors against the moderators from the Newshour, and I guarantee that the Newshour people will at least hold their own. They are the cream of the crop as far as serious television news goes, and not a looker in the whole bunch. (Well Margaret Warner is kind of cute, but still not your typical news bimbo.)

Oh, no argument here; if it's Newshour vs. BBC, then you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, I don't have that choice here in Ankara. Given what I do have (BBC, CNN, FOX), BBC's clearly preferable.

[Dauphin]

BBC does have some good news programmes. Jeremy Paxman can be funny when he goes off on one at a minister for being incompetent.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
BBC does have some good news programmes. Jeremy Paxman can be funny when he goes off on one at a minister for being incompetent.

I should note that for all of my ranting about BBC, I am only speaking about what we get here, which is only one program.

[Starchild]

A mix of BBC24, SkyNews, and Google.News. I'm waiting for the Al-Jazeera English website to come online.