What is the one source you would trust for news?

Pick any television, newspaper, radio, internet blog, web site, any possible way for information to be communicated to you. Which one source would you pick?

I think I’d take the debated BBC World Service. After that, probably CNN. Bickering over the editorials or a slight political bias over some shows doesn’t prevent one from enjoying the usual outstanding reporting that these two services offer.

All Things Considered. It’s a good balance of news and information, without all of the hype I would find on tv news.

BBC news service is a close second only because I still don’t understand how cricket is scored. :confused:

www.reuters.com seems about as trustworthy as anything available.

Emergency Broadcast System

Without having other news outlets to compare the biases of the selected news outlet, one has no way of making inteligent decisions as to world events and just becomes a ‘robot’ for that outlet. With the EBS, I won’t be exposed to that possibility and will get the info I need when it may effect me.

I think cricket is one of those inside jokes. A made up game. Like ‘Mornington Crescent’, they make up the rules as they go and the rest play along.

I would have to go with BBC News. Though i am awfully biast.

How dare you! As a one-time qualifier for the Peabody Mornington Crescent Challenge Trophy (Southern Division), I take great umbrage at the suggestion that it’s a made-up game comparable to cricket.
For the OP - definitely the BBC.

Well, it was America’s Finest News Source, The Onion, but due to the “unprecedented, unwarranted, and ultimately unwise reporter strike,” I shall get my news elsewhere until they get that thing settled.

So now it’s The Daily Show.

(Laughs aside, NPR)

Oh BTW GorillaMan, congratulations on your win over Australia. I knew we were goners as soon as your opening thudder plonked the Australian side’s Booleying strategy with that wombleball down the outside in the second loff. finest I’ve seen since Muttleyshire trounced the visiting Groozers in 1963.

Yes, it’s a shame the Staffordshire-Keighley ruling expired, isn’t it?

I was conveniently ignoring the Peabody SD (E.21?) rule set as i wasn’t aware anybody had heard of them. Most people just make up the rules as they go along now. Primarily due to the silly ‘no streets with more than three exits’ rule I imagine. It’s somewhat saved by the fun ‘wild letter’ clause, thus ensuring no two games are ever the same, I’ll grant you.

Uh oh. I’ve started something. :smiley:

Umm… Back to the OP, I don’t have a news outlet I trust 100%. Some are better than others. As a mildly to moderately conservative person, I have a slight suspicion of places like the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the New York Times, America’s NPR, etc. With that said, the emphasis is on “slight”. If there is a bias to the left, I don’t think it is in any way a mandated one, and I respect the quality of those outlets. They do some good stuff. I enjoy more conservative news media such as Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, but that is prone to sensationalism, although it has lifted its game in that regard in the last decade.

The closest I can get to an answer to the OP would be “the internet”. I can scan many news sites one after the other within minutes. I get a basic opinion of what has happened (flowing through the usual mental bullshit filters), and then I can go through a second time for a deeper reading of the articles. The Sydney Morning Herald is my first port of call.

Yep. I basically assume that everyone’s full of shit, and hope that by sifting through everyone’s bull, I can approximate what’s actually going on.

Trust? I suppose that as far as accuracy is concerned I’d accept reportage from any of them. If I had to select a single source of daily news I’d have to go with NPR’s morning and evening broadcasts.

The Washington Post

If you’re going to bring up the Peabody SD, why don’t you just ram a bloody wicket through me 'eart? The Cambridge Eleven back in '77 cleared that up with the ‘duck and trussle’ with the match referee. Don’t even mention Muttleyshire. Plus, the ‘wild letter’ clause is nothing without the Black Frampton Ordinance. But that ‘bold willie’ is something to behold, mate.

Three exits, indeed. I wouldn’t pay money to see anything less than than 4.

(You guys were just making this shit up, right?) :slight_smile:

I didn’t understand a single thing in your last post.

I’m sure the fault lies with me, heh.

BBC, all the way.

The Economist

Honestly? Right here - the SDMB, baby. It’s where I get a lot of my news, anyway, and taken as a whole, it’s pretty balanced. I see a variety of viewpoints on a huge number of topics, and I especially appreciate the opinions of “the other side.” I learn a huge amount here, and follow the cites when I want to get a more in-depth look. People here are pretty quick to call out quacks or tenuous claims while being some of the most knowledgeable on the planet. And they do it all with style and humor.

Best money I’ve ever spent.


I am a fan of a number of media sources already mentioned (esp. BBC World Service, which I listen to quite often and The Economist), but if I had to pick just one, I’d stick with NPR.