Where Do You Get Your News?

[shane]

Print : I read the WSJ, economist, and any other financial publication I can get my hands on (Barrons, FT, IBD) that I don't have a subscription to. I have found that Financial and business newspapers are the most respectable source of news on the whole. I am switching from reading print editions to reading things online.

Television: I have CNBC on almost non-stop; my favorite show is Kudlow and Company and Mad Money.

(Mod's note: Discussion on Mad Money/Cramer, split to a separate thread. - sNerd)

Online: I am a subscriber to HBL, and I read the news online through CNN, Capmag, Cox and Forkum and my homepage is Tech Central Station.

I am also interested in finding a website that provides some sort of streamling of headlines from multiple sources that can be sent to my email, at least the articles that go through the AP. I know individual companies offer services of those, like CNN.

Moreover, Reading the news efficiently requires a methodology. When I read the news I have a sort of index that helps me sort the news in my head. For an example you can look at the beginning of The Lexicon and it shows a concept index. I have reduced that index to fit my needs and to be more general, and I also have an index based on industrial sectors and one based on geography (i stole this from the economist, it is basically US, The Americas, Europe, Africa/Middle East and Asia).

Tell me what you think

Edited January 13, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Strangelove]

Is Mad Money really worth your time? I always thought that show was more sensationalist as opposed to authentic.

TV:

-CNN, because for all its faults, it still better then Fox.

-BBC World. PBS runs this usually around 6pm. A far better source of international news then CNN.

-C Span. Less for the news and more just to keep track of what is going on.

Print:

-The Economist. Self Explanatory

-The Christian Science Monitor. The main benefit of this paper is the lack of a profit motive which allows for a lot more interesting reporting. The religious views are rather margionalized in the paper and I find it another great source, along with BBC, for international news.

Web:

http://www.bbcnews.com

http://www.cnn.com/politics

[Strangelove]

Profit Motive is good.

Fpr reporting quality news, not necessarily. A cable network whose popularity is determiend by viewership numbers does not need to aim that high to attract enough viewers to get high ratings. On the contrary the BBC is suypported by public money and the CSM just gets paid by the church. Neither institution is required to engage in a low brow ratings war so can afford to do indepth, substantial, and international reporting.

Obviously it is not impossible to enter the news arena with a profit motive and still do well, The Economist and the Wall Street Journal prove that.

[shane]

I tend to agree, but I don't think a profit motive subsumes a low brow ratings war.

Personally I would rather pay for indepth research and coverage rather than have the government pay, and incidentally have the chance to control content. I'll have to take a look at CSM's news.

[EC]

Also, don't forget that "public" news organizations are operating on extorted money, and under the watchfull eye of the government that "covers" their costs.

[Thales]

I don't like to respond when I have little positive to offer, but I just can't let this go by without criticism

The BBC is propagandistic. They are horrendous on everything from the environment to the war in Iraq. It's true that they had the reputation of being the best news organization on the planet, but that was in WWII. They aren't the quality network they once were. In fact, I recall Tony Blair having a run in with them over their propaganda a couple of years ago.

CNN is also propagandistic and untrustworthy. They were kowtowing to Hussein, and did nothing about it even when their own reporters were tortured. They appeased the hell out of Clinton, and criticize Bush as if he can do no right.

News organizations like Reuters and AP are also infected with the left wing virus.

Fox News is not very good either. I used to watch Brit Hume’s show, which I thought was pretty good.

I'm sorry I don't have a lot positive to say. I'll just add that I get my news from google news and yahoo.com for the most part, although they are leftist in coverage, usually.

The Drudge Report is worth visiting, because he'll give you news no one else is. Sometimes he's a bit too taboloidish, but he cuts against the grain and provides quality reporting.

[Strangelove]

Personally I would rather pay for indepth research and coverage rather than have the government pay, and incidentally have the chance to control content.

Yeah, I have been waiting for somebody to start something like that.

Also, don't forget that "public" news organizations are operating on extorted money, and under the watchfull eye of the government that "covers" their costs.

BBC does not take MY taxes.

The BBC is propagandistic. They are horrendous on everything from the environment to the war in Iraq. It's true that they had the reputation of being the best news organization on the planet, but that was in WWII. They aren't the quality network they once were. In fact, I recall Tony Blair having a run in with them over their propaganda a couple of years ago.

Horrendous is an excessive adjective. Their Middle East reporting is partly flawed due to British history in the region. I find that on a day to day basis, the BBC does a good job of covering many many stories that often do not get in the American media at all. I am also capable of holding my own opinions when they broadcast something I know to be wrong.

CNN is also propagandistic and untrustworthy. They were kowtowing to Hussein, and did nothing about it even when their own reporters were tortured. They appeased the hell out of Clinton, and criticize Bush as if he can do no right.

CNN is a better source for domestic news coverage over Fox. That is not saying much since Fox is an insult to the human brain, but it is slightly better.

[scottkursk]

Mad Money---Definitely worth your time if you are interested in investing. Cramer is not a philosopher, he is a stock picker. He is extremely knowledgeable in every area of the market and his picks, which I follow closely, are almost always winners, but you gotta do your homework. The thing that makes him worth watching is he doesn't fake knowledge and he is an independent thinker.

His outrageous style is what makes him a tv worthy personality. There are probably 100 other people that can do his job but he is on tv because of his outrageous style. I find it entertaining and worth and hour of my time everyday.

I have to very strongly disagree with you on this one. Cramer is a windbag that is a symbol of everything wrong with my industry. He is not an investor, he's a trader. Those are two very different things indeed. He also has a history of pumping up stocks that he is actively trying to sell. So he's talking up stocks that he's previously bought. It happened in the early 2000's down market and he's doing it again. He doesn't advocate discipline or research. He uses flashing lights and cute sounds like a sideshow barker getting people to buy a ticket to see the bearded lady. Giving him more credit than that is not very wise. He is good for brokerages and brokers because he gets people that would have otherwise bought good investments jump in and try to trade their way to wealth. You think after he destroyed his marriage, hedge fund business, and a public company he'd have learned to focus on something better. He has a right to be a windbag and appeal to the lowest common denominator but I think most people are better off elsewhere.

Yes, he is an independant thinker. But then there are a lot of independant thinkers out there. John Hoenig with Capitalist Pig and Jim Rodgers with Jim Rodgers are pretty good. Mind you, Hoenig and Rodgers have two vastly different views on investing. Fool.com and the Motley Fool radio program usually have genuinely good advice. But I digress.

(Mod's note: Discussion on Mad Money/Cramer, split to a separate thread. - sNerd)

The Economist is good. I've read it since the late 80s. It's center-left ith some really good international macroeconomics reporting. Focus is mostly on governmetal policy and politics as much as economics.

The Financial Times: The Pink Lady - it's the British pink newspaper that is really easy on the eyes but has a very high level of reporting quality. It's also center left like the Economist but has better international business news.

The Wall Street Journal. Their business reporting isn't bad but when you really read it in depth you'll find the reporting is pretty well to the left ala CNN. The editorials are very much Lawrence Kudlow conservatives though. Can't say I really like it since they started looking like USA Today.

Christian Science Monitor: They've got an obvious issue being related to the Christian Science movement. Having read it since high school, they have probably the most balanced journalism I've seen. It really never fails to surprise me how balanced and opinion free alot of their reporting is.

NPR. No, really. They have an exceeding bias and use stolen money to produce their shows but I think it's as balanced as Fox. I view it as know-your-enemy. Though I usually listen to it on the radio on the way into work when Paul Harvey isn't on. Some of the business shows on the weekends are really great shows like Motley Fool and Brain Brew. Brain Brew is one of the best resources to ignite your thinking when you're either in a small business or any job that requires you to think creatively. I personally download them from Audible rather than listen to them on the weekends.

Edited January 13, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Thales]

Horrendous is an excessive adjective. Their Middle East reporting is partly flawed due to British history in the region. I find that on a day to day basis, the BBC does a good job of covering many many stories that often do not get in the American media at all. I am also capable of holding my own opinions when they broadcast something I know to be wrong.

The problem is I don't trust them at all. I've learned not to trust them or CNN, so I don't watch or listen to them. Better safe than sorry. On top of this, whenever listening to them there was also a very detectable built in bias that I just couldn't stomach. Think Dan Rather and "memo gate". Remember how intransigent he was in face of facts that contradicted him? That's the sort of mindset that I believe permeates leftist media. It's very dishonest.

CNN is a better source for domestic news coverage over Fox. That is not saying much since Fox is an insult to the human brain, but it is slightly better.

Fox has its virtues. I liked the way they covered the war. They weren't antagonistic toward America, which was a nice alternative. They aren't hard over environmentalists, though they still give those ideas too much credence. I don't believe they are dishonest, as CNN is. One of the regulars who gives stock market advice on a round table show is an Objectivist who promotes capitalism regularly (he's from Chicago, sorry I don't recall his name). Hume's show is a cut above.

Fox's weakness is that they shill for Bush, conservatism, and, worse, religion. They are often glitzy and flashy at the expense of substance.

However, I don’t listen to any of the TV news shows any longer. I consider them largely a waste of my time. I can get stories much more quickly and efficiently off the web.

[EC]

In financial reporting: I like FT too. I've also heard good things about IBD, but have not looked at it in any depth. Does anyone read that?

Most of the press has a left-bias, including Economist and WSJ. However, if one is looking for the news rather than the opinions, most of the suggestions above work fine. I get most of my non-financial news through NPR on radio, and from BBC and NYTimes RSS feeds. This is supplemented by reading some blogs: e.g. by Iraqis and Iranians.

If you primarily get your news from NPR, BBC, and the NYTimes then what you are getting is their completely slanted version of news. One can see the slant simply in the stories that they choose to be news before even reading the slanted articles.

(Edited to add quote from a post that was split to a separate thread. - sNerd)

Edited January 13, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Thales]

Most of the press has a left-bias, including Economist and WSJ. However, if one is looking for the news rather than the opinions, most of the suggestions above work fine. I get most of my non-financial news through NPR on radio, and from BBC and NYTimes RSS feeds. This is supplemented by reading some blogs: e.g. by Iraqis and Iranians.

Those organizations present opinion as news. If you're getting your news from NPR, the BBC, and NYTimes, then you aren't getting the news. They cherry pick who/what to report on and how to present it, and it's all done in a slanted manner, so that if you'd only listen to them you'd end up with a distorted picture. For instance, if they had their druthers you'd not even know that logic dictates that environmentalism is a religion, not a science based phenomenon. Sources like Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and Fox News help to keep them in check, although they fight tooth and nail against this sort of thing.

One example is that often you hear that there are a handful of skeptical scientists to global warming. When, in fact, there are petitions out there with the signatures of thousands of top qualified scientists. In effect, it makes it possible that the minority view is on the environmental side. Yet, the news presents as fact that there are only a few skeptics. I also recall when shows like the Lehrer Newshour would have an environmental scientist on one side of an issue, and a captain of an industry on the other! Why not a scientist with the counter position? Wouldn't they be more qualified? That's stacking the deck, to be sure.

Another example is the Dan Rather "memo gate". Who revealed that? A blogger, which was picked up by Drudge and then Limbaugh. This forced the mainstream media to come clean.

I should say that the BBC is over in the UK, so they aren't kept in check, but their lack of rigor and honesty in reporting has always struck me as obvious. I recall, for instance, them reporting on elections in Iraq when Hussein held them as if they were elections in a free country. I also recall them reporting, during the height of the war, on the number of civilian casualties, and casualties to children. This seemed to be their main focus. They also were convinced that we were taking on terrible casualties and losing the war badly, and reported the war in that way early on.

It's not just the BBC, organizations like Reuters refused to use the word "terrorist" when talking about terrorists, so they called them "insurgents". This term has become the buzz word for terrorists. They have no problem characterizing the U.S. with slanted terms, but when it comes to Islamo-fascists, it's the kid gloves treatment. They suddenly have to be "objective" when characterizing the religious fanatics, but somehow charges of an American "occupation" are just fine.

[softwareNerd]

Mod's note: I have split the discussion on Mad Money / Mr. Cramer and investment advice into a separate thread.

Edited January 13, 2006 by softwareNerd