(12-17-2013 07:33 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Sorry, but I just laugh at people that get all up in arms over FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, Etc. They are all pandering to the audience that watches them and they don't even do much "news" anyway. The majority of the time is spent on political talk shows.

I do have to question the study you linked however. It would be interesting to really dig into the methodology utilized. How can someone who watches a "news" channel be less informed than someone who doesn't watch anything.

I get what you're saying here, and for Prime time this is the case. However, when I periodically have the news on during the day Fox is pretty much straight (not addressing right or left here) news coverage from their morning show until around 7 or 8 when the personality driven shows take over. It's mainly white noise unless something piques my interest, like a good car chase or something...