|
i do not understand why anyone would rely on television news as a primary information source.
i am able to write this only after laughing and laughing about the characterization of msnbc as far left (huh?) and cnn as left.
they are all infotainment--factoids with pictures, no context, no depth. the commentaries are severely limited by their format--trading soundbites for argument--and the general idiocy of the commentators (fox....cnn....yuck...)
as for conservative sources--i think they are in the main ridiculous. heritage? brookings? why? because their position papers have footnotes? their function is interesting, however....they can be and should be subjected to serious criticism,,,i think their position papers are part of the reason why it is so difficult to have debates across political divisions in the states--they provide a pseudo-empirical level for the wrap-around pseudo-news environments available on talk radio, for example. they seem an important part of the process of removing conservative premises from the terrain of argument. i do not see the benefit in this for anyone.
npr has drifted since the reagan administration.
bbc world service puts npr to shame. they are a running demonstration of what radio news could be---but they are far from perfect (for example, i just tune out when they talk about northern ireland)
the net gives you very easy access to news sources from all over the world. if you are posting here, you can get access to a range of print information from a range of political viewpoints that is not that of the narrow little world of american politics.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|