Where and how do you get your news?

[MovingtotheCove]

A mix of 2 local papers in print and/or their on line sites, some on line papers or broadcast sources, a bit of radio -- local with NPR, CBS, etc., some broadcast while in car on XM with CNN, CNBC, or MSNBC. Very little TV--no cable in house. What do I avoid...anything to do with FOX...just find them to be offensive even though I'm a long time political independent.

 

[JonnyM]

Magazines:

Guitar Player, Vintage Guitar Magazine, Rolling Stone (although Rolling Stone doesn't really have much useful Guitar related news) , oh & Autoweek.

DW is looking over my shoulder, and she sells sea shells by the sea shore, er, I mean she says Internet, Radio (a bit), and a smidgen of TV.

My answer was pretty accurate though.

 

[lets-retire]

My comment wasn't meant to point a finger at anybody. It was simply an observation.

 

[HFWR]

My comment wasn't meant to point a finger at anybody. It was simply an observation.

It's somewhat amusing to me that people seek to listen to whomever parrots their pov; kind of like looking in the mirror saying "yeah, you right"...

 

[martyb]

80% FOX News (TV & internet)
20% local news

 

[Texarkandy]

I get all of my news from FOX, MSNBC, & ER.org because they are fair and balanced and non-partisan.

 

[traineeinvestor]

The Financial Times
SCMP ( a local paper)
Bloomberg (not really useful - but I leave it on as background when reading other material)
CNBC (ditto)
TVB (a local TV station)
PFBlogs
2-3 Brokers
Finet (a HK financial industry news aggregator and data site)
FNArena (an Australian research aggregator)
2-3 news letter which I get either daily or less frequently
Conversations with colleagues, clients and other people
My wife also reads the Chinese language HK property magazines/newspapers and gives me a summary

For hobbies, I read interest publications relevant to the hobbies (when I have time)

 

[rescueme]

From DW. She tells me everything I need to know ...

 

[Cattusbabe]

Hard News: Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times, The BBC, The Christian Science Monitor, USA Today. Fluff:The Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Salon......or any other news aggregator

 

[Moscyn]

Hard copy - local newspaper and Financial Times when I get to read it for free. For news on celebrities, I just hang around the magazine shops and flip them for ten minutes or so.
Online - bloomberg, marketwatch, google and yahoo.
TV - local channels, CNBC, BBC
when something big happen that is bordering on a scandal, then of course - gossip gossip.

 

[jebmke]

FOX and MSNBC should be enjoined from using the words "News" and "Journalism". Of the mainstream media, NPR probably has the best depth of coverage on the topics they select. It is the only one on television that I watch regularly. The regular networks aren't too bad but rarely get past the headline stage. For business news I prefer FT and Bloomberg online.

 

[ziggy29]

I am partial to the Christian Science Monitor. (Don't let the name scare you; there's nothing religious about the news coverage.) I find it to be one of the most unbiased, open-minded and nonpartisan news sources around.

 

[ERD50]

I am partial to the Christian Science Monitor. (Don't let the name scare you; there's nothing religious about the news coverage.) I find it to be one of the most unbiased, open-minded and nonpartisan news sources around.

Yes, that's one I will often go to, and I keep expecting a religious spin to things, but it is just the news.

FOX and MSNBC should be enjoined from using the words "News" and "Journalism". Of the mainstream media, NPR probably has the best depth of coverage on the topics they select.

I listen to NPR on the radio quite a bit. But I have to filter out their bias too. IMO, it's a 'sneaky' kind of bias, subtle most of the time. As I recall, NPR was the first source that seemed to regularly substitute the word "undocumented" for "illegal". So can I just not file my taxes, and refer to it as "undocumented" income, rather than illegal tax evasion? Seems to me that a news source should not change the word unless/until the law changes. Just one example. Gotta be careful out there.

-ERD50

 

[Emeritus]

Best magazine in the world , The Economist ,
Best written USA newspaper Christian Science Monitor
Most fun paper The Times of London
Most hilarious site Huffington post
Best serious news of the world BBC
Absolutely necessary reading, the New York Times

 

[Emeritus]

Yes, that's one I will often go to, and I keep expecting a religious spin to things, but it is just the news.




I listen to NPR on the radio quite a bit. But I have to filter out their bias too. IMO, it's a 'sneaky' kind of bias, subtle most of the time. As I recall, NPR was the first source that seemed to regularly substitute the word "undocumented" for "illegal". So can I just not file my taxes, and refer to it as "undocumented" income, rather than illegal tax evasion? Seems to me that a news source should not change the word unless/until the law changes. Just one example. Gotta be careful out there.

-ERD50

Plaintiffs below, and applicants here, are a class of schoolage, " undocumented" alien children, who have been denied a free public education by the operation of 21.031, and their parents. 2 Precise calculation of the number of children in Texas encompassed by this description is impossible. The State estimates that there are 120,000 such children, but the District Court rejected this figure as "untenable" and accepted a more modest estimate of 20,000 children. These undocumented children have not been legally admitted to the United States through established channels of immigration. None, however, is presently the subject of deportation proceedings, and many, the District Court found, are not deportable under federal immigration laws. The District Court concluded that "the great majority of the undocumented children . . . are or will become permanent residents of this country.


United states Supreme court 1980
CERTAIN NAMED AND UNNAMED NON-CITIZEN CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS, Applicants,
v.
State of TEXAS, et al.
No. A-179.
Sept. 4, 1980.



Mr Justice Powell


If that's not old enough or authoritative enough as to the legal term I'll go back further if you like

 

[jebmke]

Yes, that's one I will often go to, and I keep expecting a religious spin to things, but it is just the news.




I listen to NPR on the radio quite a bit. But I have to filter out their bias too. IMO, it's a 'sneaky' kind of bias, subtle most of the time. As I recall, NPR was the first source that seemed to regularly substitute the word "undocumented" for "illegal". So can I just not file my taxes, and refer to it as "undocumented" income, rather than illegal tax evasion? Seems to me that a news source should not change the word unless/until the law changes. Just one example. Gotta be careful out there.

-ERD50

For media like NYT, network news, to a lesser extent NPR (and PBS) you also get selection bias. While their coverage may be "objective" the selection of the topics the cover may not be comprehensive or they might be tilted. I think they do a reasonable job at segregating news from opinion. To get a reasonable view you need to sample many of them.

With what I call the "screamer" cable channels you don't even get decent coverage and they have no clue about separating news from opinion. I'd compare them to professional wrestling channels but I wouldn't want to insult the wrestling folks.

 

[ERD50]

Plaintiffs below, and applicants here, are a class of schoolage, " undocumented" alien children, ...

If that's not old enough or authoritative enough as to the legal term I'll go back further if you like

I don't have a problem with referring to the children as undocumented - they didn't commit a crime. But in many cases, their parents did/are. NPR uses the term for more than just children.

BTW, I'm not making any statement on the law itself, good or bad, or should it be changed or not. But if a law stands and someone violates it, that is illegal.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

For media like NYT, network news, to a lesser extent NPR (and PBS) you also get selection bias. While their coverage may be "objective" the selection of the topics the cover may not be comprehensive or they might be tilted. I think they do a reasonable job at segregating news from opinion. To get a reasonable view you need to sample many of them.

Agreed, that's why I like the google news page, you can choose a few different views on a topic. And it seems to give a pretty wide range of topics.

With what I call the "screamer" cable channels you don't even get decent coverage and they have no clue about separating news from opinion. I'd compare them to professional wrestling channels but I wouldn't want to insult the wrestling folks.

I don't have cable, so I don't know, but that's the impression I get.

-ERD50

 

[Emeritus]

I don't have a problem with referring to the children as undocumented - they didn't commit a crime. But in many cases, their parents did/are. NPR uses the term for more than just children.

BTW, I'm not making any statement on the law itself, good or bad, or should it be changed or not. But if a law stands and someone violates it, that is illegal.

-ERD50

People are criminals when they are convicted, and or are acting unlawfully when they are adjudicated. Until then they are innocent. If they have been formally charged you can call them accused.

To use your example. If you don't file your income tax you are not a criminal until convicted. You may be described as a late filer.

In terms of the homicide charges for which he was acquitted , when was OJ Simpson a criminal?

When was Richard Nixon a Criminal ?

 

[jebmke]

People are criminals when they are convicted, and or are acting unlawfully when they are adjudicated. Until then they are innocent. If they have been formally charged you can call them accused.

To use your example. If you don't file your income tax you are not a criminal until convicted. You may be described as a late filer.

In terms of the homicide charges for which he was acquitted , when was OJ Simpson a criminal?

When was Richard Nixon a Criminal ?

Seems to me a person is a criminal if they commit a crime, irrespective of whether they are convicted. At least that is what the dictionary says (first definition).

 

[Emeritus]

Seems to me a person is a criminal if they commit a crime, irrespective of whether they are convicted. At least that is what the dictionary says (first definition).

You have "committed" a crime when a court says you have. You personally do not make that call, nor does anyone else.
A pardon also eliminates any guilt so the person never "committed" a crime .

"A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." Ex Parte Garland

 

[jebmke]

Sorry for the large type. This is copied from a law dictionary web site. The first definition doesn't mention anything about conviction.




criminal


criminal Law Definition
n

1. One who has committed a crime.
2. One who has been convicted of a crime.
3. Constituting, implying, or involving a crime or an element of a crime.
4. Pertaining to some aspect of the penal code or its administration.

career criminal

One who repeatedly commits crimes, especially of the same type. See also habitual criminal.
habitual criminal

One who has been convicted of one or more crimes in the past and, as a result, is subject to a more severe sentence under the habitual offender statute of a state for any subsequent crime that they commit. Also called habitual offender. See also career criminal and three-strikes law.

Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 

[Emeritus]

Sorry for the large type. This is copied from a law dictionary web site. The first definition doesn't mention anything about conviction.



criminal


criminal Law Definition
n

1. One who has committed a crime.
2. One who has been convicted of a crime.
3. Constituting, implying, or involving a crime or an element of a crime.
4. Pertaining to some aspect of the penal code or its administration.

career criminal

One who repeatedly commits crimes, especially of the same type. See also habitual criminal.
habitual criminal

One who has been convicted of one or more crimes in the past and, as a result, is subject to a more severe sentence under the habitual offender statute of a state for any subsequent crime that they commit. Also called habitual offender. See also career criminal and three-strikes law.

Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

And I'll say it again and again

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

Neither the executive nor the legislature is competent to call a person a criminal. Only the Judiciary and only after due process
Courts can say a person "committed" a crime without a criminal conviction if that is a relevant issue e.g. an insanity defense etc.
But a declaration that a person committed a crime is a juridical function.

 

[ERD50]

But a declaration that a person committed a crime is a juridical function.

Then it stands that we can't call someone "undocumented" unless/until a court has reviewed the situation and declared that they do not possess sufficient documentation.

But in common usage, we (and the media) talk of suspected illegal activities in general, of illegal trafficking, or car thefts, etc. You might see a news article about someone reporting their car stolen. We don't refrain from calling it a "stolen vehicle" until we find, convict and sentence someone. If they don't catch the crook, it was never stolen? They might get wordy and say a 'report of a stolen vehicle'. But since media reports the news, I think it is just shorthand to say " stolen car" or "illegal immigrants" in general.

If you are going to point out a specific individual, I do think you need to say "alleged" or "suspected" illegal immigrant or "alleged car thief" or whatever. But not when talking about stolen cars in general - I can say "it is illegal to steal cars", "it is illegal to enter the country w/o proper procedures" and I can say anyone who does so is doing it illegally - I don't need to wait for it to hit a court. That's what we are talking about.

-ERD50

 

[jebmke]

And I'll say it again and again

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

Neither the executive nor the legislature is competent to call a person a criminal. Only the Judiciary and only after due process
Courts can say a person "committed" a crime without a criminal conviction if that is a relevant issue e.g. an insanity defense etc. If someone commits a crime and gets away with it (is not prosecuted) they are no less of a criminal than the poor slob who got caught and convicted of the same crime.
But a declaration that a person committed a crime is a juridical function.

I think we are talking cross purposes. I don't really care who can say what. The fact is, if someone commits a crime, they are a criminal. If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound whether someone is there to hear it or not.