{"id":988,"date":"2010-05-17T11:29:33","date_gmt":"2010-05-17T09:29:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ofcourseimright.com\/?p=988"},"modified":"2010-05-17T11:29:33","modified_gmt":"2010-05-17T09:29:33","slug":"good-news-bad-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ofcourseimright.com\/?p=988","title":{"rendered":"Good News? Bad News?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Rupert Murdoch (Courtesy WEF)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A while back<\/a>, I went on a tear about Fox News and just how bad they are at actually delivering news, and how people who listen to them need to hold themselves accountable.\u00a0 Since then, I think someone defriended me on FaceBook<\/a> for the note.\u00a0 I suppose I had one too many friend.\u00a0 Fox is part of a right wing media conglomerate controlled by Rupert Murdoch, where his goal is to control the message, and thereby have a strong say in our government.\u00a0 And he’s very successful through truly deceitful means.\u00a0 Even the name of the conglomerate is deceitful- News Corp.\u00a0 It’s not.\u00a0 It’s lies with a bit of truth sprinkled in to help people suspend disbelief about the lies.\u00a0 He’s not the first to do it, but seemingly he’s the most effective.\u00a0 Let’s take a moment to pay tribute to the master, however, William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate.<\/p>\n

Is there a good honest news source?\u00a0\u00a0 My preferred news sources these days are as follows:<\/p>\n

Google News<\/a><\/p>\n

This is perhaps the most popular news aggregator there is.\u00a0 Google doesn’t actually do any of the reporting but just groups together related stories, and I can compare points of view based on the source of the story.\u00a0 Say, Fox versus The Guardian.<\/p>\n

National Public Radio<\/a><\/p>\n

NPR remains a strong source of news with stories that one can listen to on the radio that are more than just sound bites.\u00a0 They have in depth interviews with key political players as well as scientists.\u00a0 I have always found their business reporting to be somewhat limiting.\u00a0 This leads to a more controversial preference.<\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"
William Randolph Hearst<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Journal is the paper of record for business news, even though they are part of News Corp.\u00a0 It is rare that you read a retraction on a story that matters (I can’t remember one, actually).\u00a0 But they are a relatively recent addition to the conglomerate, and so the impact has been limited to what stories they choose to report, headlines, and their editorial staff.\u00a0 Hosting a shady character like Karl Rove immediately disqualifies what was already a colored view, even prior to the takeover.<\/p>\n

Note that nowhere in my list are any of the major television networks.\u00a0 That’s largely due to several factors:<\/p>\n