Yes, but the BBC doesn’t have to make money from its ventures. It’s publicly funded.

yeah, we all know not to believe everything we read, so best take everything from variouse sources, but I find constantly watch bbc or cnn hurts my brain… I feel myself becomming dummer.

on a side note, never trust any news from china on BBC since it is partnered with a chinese govt news source for most of their asian pacific news. It all just get regurjitated with little investigation, esp if that news relates to Taiwan. just wanted to spread that word around
.

CNN has been little more than a source for ridicule for me for a couple of years now. They’re one step removed from “News of the Weird” most days. Their dependence on entertainment news/gossip proves they’re no longer serious about journalism. Their consistent errors (whether coding, typesetting, writing, etc.) proves they’re not invested in producing a quality product.

Most of this, unfortunately, is tied to economics. The bottom line is, they’ll attract more click-throughs with fluff that the every day, insular and ignorant websurfer can digest rather than thoughtful, demanding news stories that require visitors to engage themselves for more than 30 seconds per page.

I recommend Breitbart.com for scanning headlines, almost like a wireservice. The BBC and the English-language version of Der Spiegel (Germany) are great for hard international news.

If I were an optimist, I’d point out that every frivolous news story is one less story about something blowing up somewhere in the world. But more likely it’s just that these kinds of things are what our country believes are important. Which doesn’t say a whole lot about us. Now, if CNN were to cover stories that were important to me, the headlines would probably read “Megatokyo Vol. 5 Delayed Four Whole Weeks!”

Eh, Ananth at least you don’t have to work at where I work.

We’re force one channel on our break, and one channel only.

CNN Headline news.

Sometimes, I want to gouge my eyes out.

I’ve seen a similar comparison before. It was CNN’s page before and after their ‘I-Report’ news service, (”Now you can say, I-Report for CNN!” was the slogan). Users submit news stories and get paid if their article is featured. More fluff has been posted on CNN due to fan submissions.

Ok, you might call me crazy here, but do you know where I pick up most of my news these days? My Nintendo Wii. Not only does the news function let me choose what subject I want to read, but I can easily go to any country to find out what’s what.

Plus I get a twisted joy in spinning the globe really fast.

disappointment implies expectations.

You want to try a great comparison? pick one topic and look at the features on CNN, FOX, BBC, IRNA (islamic), and Xinhua (chinese). sometimes its amazing how much the stories vary… it kinda leaves you thinking about what really happened.

finally more and more people are realizing how bad cnn is when it comes to the news.

BBC and the Wii are soo much better.
did you read the mathematics article?

I was interested to note that my local paper ran David Halberstam’s death on the front page, but shunted Boris Yeltsin’s death to page seven. Kind of a strange display of how much local news trumps world news.

I can’t wait.. after I get my journalism Ph.D from Columbia, I want to work for the BBC as a world correspondent. Go life-plans!
And of course I will single-handedly turn the course of the media around. Redeem CNN and such. But I will leave FOX news as is, ’cause really, we all need a good laugh once in a while.

You honestly can’t expect much from almost any news source in the United States, because people who watch it don’t want to hear about real issues anymore, I guess.

I get my news from Pacifica radio, which plays its news through the BBC World Service. Go figure.

Ah, the Beeb, my native broadcasting service! *waves Union Flag*

Here in the UK, the BBC is respected as the most rigorous, unbiased, balanced news service available, providing quality journalism and correspondence to its world audience, with a contact in every county (except Zimbabwe, where it’s banned). Because it’s publicly funded, it doesn’t have to answer to anyone and so it goes where other news groups won’t and even bites the hand that feeds it from time to time.

That doesn’t mean it’s bare of nonsense, though. This story about a man caught doing naughty things with livestock was on the front page under ‘most popular’ a few days ago, despite being a year old (beware: zoophilia):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm
So long has it been making re-appearences that, last friday, it actually got a mention on the satirical comedy, The Now Show. Mitch Benn sang a song about it. :)

I just checked the front page again… Apparently, scientists have discovered Kryptonite in a cave in Serbia. It isn’t green or dangerous, but it does glow orangey-pink under UV light. Disco rocks. How nifty is that?

I actually agree with you. Most of the time, I skip CNN.com and go right to the BBC news. Also, 9 times out of 10 I find more “news” on the BBC news than i do in any local newspaper or on CNN.com. I think it’s getting pathetic that America is going this way.

In April 1997, there was a “gas out” conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices.
Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.

On May 15th 2007, all myspace members are to not go to a gas station in protest of
high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.

There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the myspace network, and the
average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up.

If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take
$2,200,000,000.00 (that’s BILLION) out of the oil companys pockets for just one day.

If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) repost this bulletin repost it with
‘Don’t pump gas on May 15th

Coming from the perspective of a journalism student, I feel that:
A) All the 24 hour news stations and their web sites pretty much suck. There’s simply not enough news to fill that much time, so they run feature stories on the DVD release of “The Facts of Life” (no joke) and put angry pundits on the air to yell at people.

B) BBC does a much better job of covering world news. The fact that they don’t have to worry about profit means they don’t have to add frivolous and crazy stuff to their page to hook viewers. They’re not perfect by any means, but they do a much better job than most.

C) In terms of journalistic writing, the New York Times is best in the country, hands down. They take their stuff seriously and they simply keep great reporters and writers on staff. I try to check their site for my national news every day.

Those are my thoughts anyway…

Oh, and of course, the Daily Show and the Colbert Report – great shows to watch in order to keep media nonsense in perspective. =D

*High Five’s Ananth*

NPR is nice too, although some say they are liberally biased. But they seem to have much more real content than a lot of other news sources (BBC excluded).

I agree that CNN’s coverage is mostly junk and blah, but while BBC and The New York Times are certainly more serious and higher quality news sources, I would hardly call them unbiased. Call me weird, I favor The Washington Times. BBC is also a good source, but I like to compare their reports with (at the least) a differently biased source. Maybe I’m being mean to the Brits, but British news carries a very distinct slant. (Of course, so does Reuters, just a slightly different one).

Oh heck, it would be nice if the private news sector amused itself with gossip and frivolity, then we can get all of our news from state sources, right?

I get most of my news from Digg.com(I like it social) and NPR. I despise most television-based news, such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. CNN is definitely the best of the three, but it still glorifies way too many terrible news stories.

Just thought I’d mention CBC. If you’re looking for news based in North America, but more closely following the BBC ethic, you’ll find it at http://www.cbc.ca. Canadian slant, of course, but there’s a fair amount of US news. After all, you are our only land-based neighbours….

I stopped reading CNN about a year ago. Before that I regularly checked it, to get an American perspective on the news I read on BBC and Danish news sites. But these days, CNN don’t have a perspective on anything reported by other news sites… just on gossip and celebrities.

How about Google News? Are you using it? I sometime try to check their feeds, but are often overwhelmed by the quantity of updates, and the sometimes strange news sources they point to.

Ha, the Beeb! I guess its accuracy is part of the reason that we have such an affection for it in the UK: that and the fact that, even though it’s always been funded by state resources, it’s constantly getting told off for running stories with an anti-government stance.
As an English student (in both senses), having the Beeb makes a HUGE difference to me. I can keep up with current affairs in a sensible manner, which really helps with Contemporary Lit stuff, and I can do it from a site that I can guarantee will always use a high standard of English.

It always surprises me that CNN isn’t like that. Is it really as inconsequential as your webshot shows, Ananth? I don’t mean that to sound like a rude comment about American newscasting, but what you show there does seem somewhat… slight, I suppose the right word would be.

The only good thing that came out of CNN so far is the daily show. :P

BBC is good for me!

didn’t really read any of the responses but… I usually check drudge report (drudgereport.com).. Its a compilation of all news site headlines… that’s usually my first before bbc then cnn….

Just wanted to say seeing this rant made me a bit relieved.

Awhile back I used to browse CNN’s website (before they redid its whole design) and made it my main source for news. Then one day I noticed they added that Most Viewed thing at the top. While they had more news worthy items on their front page still at the time, all people were clicking was entertainment stuff. Seeing Tom Cruise in at least 3 places on that top ten everyday made me a bit upset with who else was looking at their site. It was inevitable they’d turn to this then following what the majority were looking at.

BBC is becoming my main alternative now as well.

Another good source of actual news is Deutche Welle (dw-world.de). They earned huge kudos from me last week when they were the olny major news site (that I’m aware of) who didn’t post pictures of the Virginia Tech gunman. They reported on it very thoroughly, but refrained from airing the useless, but eyeball grabbing pics. Every morning I go to BBC, Deutche Welle, NPR and if there’s still time, CNN. There usually isn’t time.

I have gotten to the point where I avoid CNN and Fox News for that matter, simply because the constant feed of news is mind numbing. Even in light of the VT shooting (God bless them), I tried to avoid CNN or Fox News simply because they analyze, re-analyze, interpret, get new stuff, re-re-analyze, etc. to the point that it gets ridiculous in their coverage. I am glad I am getting a list of news sources from you guys so that I can use feeds that aren’t geared toward the non-essential (read: entertainment) news.

As a libertarian, it’s easy for me to see that the various news outlets each have their own political agendas (I keep hoping for the LNN – Libertarian News Network, but, alas, it is not to be). So, like many of you, I check multiple sites and use my own powers of reasoning to try to piece together the truth.

But when one news source proclaims that for more than a decade they’ve known of and witnessed some of the most horrific attrocities that man can commit and, not only refused to report them (as is their duty) but outright lied to their viewers just for the privilege to continue doing so, I find I can no longer stomach their rhetoric.

Some say they were only after access, some say that they were “protecting innocent lives.” The truth often brings suffering, but lies always bring it and in greater quantities.

Haha. I’m impressed that CNN was that bad, but I mean I can’t say I was surprised. BBC is always the way to go, they usually have less bias in their news stories too. Come join the ranks of Americans who realize we have no decent news outlet.

In terms of journalistic writing, the New York Times is best in the country, hands down. They take their stuff seriously and they simply keep great reporters and writers on staff. I try to check their site for my national news every day.

I must disagree here. As Bill Moyers pointed out in his excellent program last night on PBS (in my area it will be repeated at 1:30AM EST Friday morning, please check local listings because I can’t recommend it highly enough) many of our most prominent national news reporters at the NYT and Washington Post are ensconced in a “Beltway Bubble”, where reporting is taken to be simply repeating what is told to them by highly placed sources without any real independent verification. This had terrible consequences with respect to the Iraq War, with anonymous leaks and fabrications from connected insiders about WMD being treated as irrefutable fact and becoming a casus belli. Never mind that a guy who is supposedly a dissident Iraqi colonel is reported as a major on some other news show, or that all these supposed reports are coming via a man who expects to be installed as Iraq’s leader post-invasion. Reporters who were further from the centers of power, at places like Knight-Ridder newspapers (which have wide distribution but not in Washington DC) used good old shoe leather and talking to lower level military and intelligence officials and came to the conclusion that a lot of the WMD claims were bunk. But because their articles didn’t run front page on the NYT or WaPo, they never made it onto the evening news.

If you’re interested in this subject, it has been a problem for a long time. I highly recommend Neil Postman’s book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death“. The subtitle is “Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business”, which I think is exactly what Ananth is getting at. And this was written back in 1985, before the rise of 24-hour news channels!

See, I like the lighter stuff because it gives me something to read that isn’t mostly like “another X amount dead in some part of the world or country” or “some guy who raped teenagers went free”. I read that stuff too, but I hate how dreary the news is and like reading the more entertainment based things too just to give me something else to read. However, there are limits. The ni**er brown couch lady shouldn’t have been on the front page for two days. Or, really, at all.

[rant] See this is an attitude that i dislike: “I hate how dreary the news is”. It ain’t dreary, its life. These days it would be quite easy (and very many people do) to immerse yourself in the gossip and chit chat that the news has become, and to forget that on the same planet as you, so many things that you find distasteful are going on. We need more outrage people. Not more outrages, just more outrage at the current outrages. If you don’t like dreary news, start doing something about the dreary world. [/rant]

Not that there is anything obvious you can do except for making yourself heard, whenever possible.

You should go with NPR… Legally required to balance Conservative with Liberal analysis and according to studies I have seen their polling numbers are the closest to the actual national average. More importantly, when they do frivolous news items they are radio essays that make you just want to sit in the driveway and keep listening instead of going home after the commute is over.

I ranted about the same thing yesterday to my buddy that Rosie O’whoreallycareswhatshesays was on the front page of yahoo’s new topics like it was “news”…

..
I think throughout my life, I’ve learned there are times you shouldn’t ask questions.
This is one of those times.

Its also intresting to note that the two BBC stories of little concern are probably alot more intresting reads than the one on CNN… with the exception of the camel… that’s probably a fun storry as well… I dont dig serious news, which is not a good thing, i know, but these quirky bizarre tales that sound like something out a movie really catch my attention… also the reason i read Bizarre magazine when i can find the UK version XD

I agree. However, it’s not just CNN. Fox News, Drudge (no surprise here really), MSNBC and local TV newscasts. I mainly go to BBC, NPR, Reuters and USA Today.

i used to check cnn but, for the same reason, started looking for something better. the least annoying one i’ve found so far is msnbc as far a mainstream media goes. americablog is my primary at this point.

I’m seeing a consensus of ‘the news is silly’. But consider that all of them work off the money they earn from companies for advertising rights. So, logically, the more watched they are, the more they make. Now, consider the crazes going around on the internet. You tube: A place to post videos of you and your friends doing dumb things. If you leave your homepage on the default site (for internet explorer), the msn page has a link to stupid videos. It seems that today, people can only make themselves feel smarter by watching other people do dumber things than they themselves do. And so the news tries to keep up with today’s fads to keep viewers interested.

Why not send CNN your ‘critiques’? It’d be like having them rewatch their elementary school plays, the ones where they were awkward and embarassed, only this happened yesterday.

I still like the idea I heard somewhere (maybe fark?) that news sources should split their news streams into “stuff for entertainment” and “serious journalism”. Use the former to fund both streams, and don’t expect the latter to make money.

Entertaining stories give us a laugh and a smile and a bit of a needed break from the often unrelenting misery of reported reality. (I need my silly, sappy animal stories to make up for the animal abuse stories that get my blood boiling, else I’d just have ulcers.) It’s only a problem when that supplants the presence of “real” news in our lives–which, unfortunately, it almost entirely has.

Maybe I’m inferring something not implied, but there seems to be an underlying theme that “real news” is something to which we have a right. Heather feels that news outlets should split their resources using one half to pay for the other. tlong applauds the fact that deadly force is used to ensure that NPR splits their reporting between the liberal and conservative agendas (let’s not even go into the farce that is the two-dimensional political spectrum).

News agencies (government sponsored mouth-pieces not withstanding) are businesses. They provide a service for compensation with the single goal of increasing profits. If you wish them to provide the service the way you want, make it profitable for them. Why does our society (pick one, they are basically all the same) hang on the latest glitteraty rumors while daily their basic human rights are taken from them? Why is it that the average American thinks the Constitution is a “living document”? Why is it that the average American thinks they have a right to vote (they don’t, voting is a privilege and a convenience)?

These questions may seem off-topic, but they go to the root of the problem: News agencies need to survive, so they provide crap as news to their customers because that’s what they want. Why do they want it? The answer to that question will probably surprise you.

Here’s a hint – “Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?” [Alan Keyes]

The News is not some well of information to educate the masses. Its the adult comic book, events that unfold but rarely affect the reader. The News is simply there to entertain. So what is a tribute in a Newspaper if not just another good read.

With that logic surely the least important thing that the news could report on are the very things which they hold at the height of their agenda. The most logical things to read are the articles which don’t explain but entertain, because the change then is in the reader, where the article lifts their spirits rather then crush them with the weight of aspects in life that they can’t affect and are unlikely to participate in.

In all fairness, you were looking at the most popular videos on CNN.com and not the tab for the “Best Video.” Of course that doesn’t address CNN linking sensational news on their front page.

To that end, I’d recommend the International version of CNN http://edition.cnn.com/

Okay, American comercial news networks are out for money. They will report whatever thay feel is popular. For example in the year following 9-11 it was all CRAZY pro-america, then let’s go take out Iraq. Not becase of some conspiracy, but because that was the sentiment of the american people. Once that began to change the tone changed. Once in a while you get a Fox News who has such a niche that they can have an unpopular opinon. They go where the money is. It all sucks…if you want balance read some right leaning blogs and left leaning blogs and some international sources.
Just not PBS oddly enough they are the FOX News of the left.
If there was such a thing as fair and balanced it wouldn’t survive… there is no money in it.

It is more than disappointing . . . it is a disgrace and a threat to your security. It is a threat to national security when a whistle blower from Lockheed Martin cannot get the word out anywhere but you tube. It is a disgrace that it took John Stewart to knock out a potential President.

It feels great to be English today!

check out al jazeera for another spin on the ‘news’.
they usually stick to the news basics.

Meh, not a big fan of the BBC.

I can personally accept editorial Bias as a necessary part of news media. What’s unacceptable is when that bias is paid for out of public funding. Everyone here PAYS for the BBC – how would you feel if you had to pay for Fox news, even if you never watched it?

Suffice to say, the BBC sees fit to spend £200,000 on trying to legally prevent the publishing of a damning report on their Middle Eastern journalism. The fact is that’s PUBLIC money being used to cover its own ass. That’s sick and a gross breach of ethical guidelines. If the government did that there would be uproar.

Again, TV stations are free to maintain an editorial bias but not if they’re a public broadcaster and purport to convey the opinion and national agenda of a nation. If you’re interested Read Robin Aitkin’s book “Can we trust the BBC” – written by a BBC journalist of 18 years.

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! uzqvaavmxatnaz

zxfnnnn