I rarely watch TV news anymore, and I don't visit the Fox site regularly, but I occasionally Google an article from them that appears to me as useful and legitimate journalism. They may just be reproducing something from AP or Reuters with little or no editing.
I'll admit I can't be a judge their overall usefulness as a primary source as well as you. My general impression of Fox, though, is that other than clearly biased editorials, they report the weather, health, science, and other general news pretty much the same as CNN. Maybe there's some unbiased research that supports your view, but I'm not going to search for it now. But you are welcome to provide some comparative examples to prove your point.
Last edited by groover; February-23rd-2013 at 08:07 AM.
I don't take any of the infotainment channels seriously. Fox News/CNN/MSNBC/whatever.
If you want thoughtful and intelligent reporting and analysis give The Atlantic or The Guardian a try.
If you want those things with a more human interest twist give The Christian Science Monitor a try.
I'm right there with you. I love the Atlantic and plan to give Christian Science Monitor a try (although I can't get through my magazines now. One can only spend so much time in the bathroom..."what the hell are you doing in there??"). Cable news (all of it) is a toxic fucking wasteland. I've grown to despise it. I'm very convinced that cable news, along with Roe V Wade, were the biggest factors in shaping today's political climate and managing to make politics and political discourse even worse.
My father thinks there's merit in that typical bullshit topical discussion format: The host throws out the topic and then gives the "liberal" 20 seconds to respond and then the "conservative" 20 seconds to respond. As if they can somehow arrive at some higher truth this way. In fact, it's vomit-inducing.
Nice part about the CSM, Lenny, is that it's only about 45 pages long each week. So, even if you get behind, it can be really easy to burn through a couple of them in just a few hours. My Sunday mornings are normally reserved for CSM catch up time.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Sqdc's note deserves more (public) credit, since it's the entire reason for the problem in question - "its" is, afaik, the sole exception of its type.
AHA! There is an entire family of parallel exceptions -- non-hyphenated possessives: its, yours, ours, theirs, and whose! "It's" and "Who's" can be legitimate but non-possessive contractions; the others never take an apostrophe.
"dont" makes me think of a little ring-shaped fried cake.
Gee, when did "donut" become the acceptable alternate spelling for "doughnut"? Oh, thank you Mr. Wiki:
The first known printed use of donut was in Peck's Bad Boy and his Pa by George W. Peck, published in 1900, in which a character is quoted as saying, "Pa said he guessed he hadn't got much appetite, and he would just drink a cup of coffee and eat a donut." According to John T. Edge (Donuts, an American passion 2006) the alternative spelling “donut” was invented when the New York–based Display Doughnut Machine Corporation abbreviated the word to make it more pronounceable by the foreigners they hoped would buy their automated doughnut making equipment.
“America’s not a country. It’s just a business. Now pay me my fucking money.”