What two news sources best balance each other?

Say you only used two print news sources for your politics/economics sources. Which two would you choose?

I am partial to the New Tork Times, but I would like to reference a more conservative perspective as well.

I get mine from the Onion and Daily Currant

Area Man Outraged His Private Information Being Collected By Someone Other Than Advertisers

HBO Film Reveals Liberace Was Good Friends With Gay Men

For US-specific stuff, it's hard to find two that are clearly biased without telling you to try to get a good perspective by reading two different nutjob rants. Even Fox and MSNBC are both too nutty for me.

CNN's website is pretty "balanced," they'll run articles from CATO institute members and even a Bush Jr. staffer I can't remember the name of who would consistently write articles that are shockingly backwards IMO, so they don't shy away from conservative stuff.

Gotta say, CNN (known as the Communist News Network here in their home state)'s website is pretty "balanced." I was surprised to see they're covering the latest Clinton sex scandal.

I end up reading a bit from the NYT and WSJ

National Proletariat Radio is actually very non-Proletariat. The guests on the Diane Rehm Show today - on the topic of climate change - were from the Heritage Foundation and the Environmental Defense Fund.

The two most opposed I can find. NBC/Fox works, throw out any disagreements, that little bit you have left is pure unadulterated news. The more sources you add the more pure the info.

None. You can't believe any of them.

Why limit to two? NPR, NYT, WSJ, WP, UK Times & Guardian, Al Jezzera, CNN. Whatever. I have a pile of topics set up on my feed and I read whatever matches the filter.

I like to read the same news from a couple domestic and then foreign sources. It's interesting how the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars look from outside our myopic little world where everything must be a two sided black/white argument.

I use GRM Off Topic, and NPR.

facebook...

i've got an uncle that posts all the ultra liberal talking points, and a couple of friends that post all the ultra conservative talking points..

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Why limit to two? NPR, NYT, WSJ, WP, UK Times & Guardian, Al Jezzera, CNN. Whatever. I have a pile of topics set up on my feed and I read whatever matches the filter. I like to read the same news from a couple domestic and then foreign sources. It's interesting how the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars look from outside our myopic little world where everything must be a two sided black/white argument.

It was a completely arbitrary limitation. Realistically I read BBC and NYT and listen to NPR. This thread was created primarily to decide which two sources were worth paying for.

Not print media, but I go to Drudge and CNN to balance each other out. It may not be perfect, but it's close enough for my purposes.

SRNnews.com. I like their political cartoons. Ultra conservative.

There is no news anymore. Remember back in the day when a reporter would get a scoop, research it, investigate it, pitch it, and then tell the story? Think Kronkite, Rather, and Lehrer. Now we have bimbos who can read.

Now all of your news comes from AP, Reuters, or other commercial sources. The faces you see on the news channel, or the words you read in a news paper are just regurgitated, spoon-fed stuff that suits someone's agenda.

NPR. Done.

I have a, um, friend? Acquaintance??? Who is always spamming me with links to articles from some website called theblaze.com. From what I've gathered, it seems to be one of the most biased news sites I've seen. Although, keep in mind that bias is completely off the deep end.

I do believe there's likely a nugget of truth in everything they publish, but damn sometimes I feel like a prospector searching for it.

vwcorvette wrote: I use GRM Off Topic, and NPR.

This. If I didn't hear it on GRM or my local news website as I was scanning the weather, or perhaps from Facetube- I don't know about it.

curtis73 wrote: There is no news anymore. Remember back in the day when a reporter would get a scoop, research it, investigate it, pitch it, and then tell the story? Think Kronkite, Rather, and Lehrer. Now we have bimbos who can read. Now all of your news comes from AP, Reuters, or other commercial sources. The faces you see on the news channel, or the words you read in a news paper are just regurgitated, spoon-fed stuff that suits someone's agenda. NPR. Done.

I stopped listening to my favorite (college) jazz station at work because I couldn't stand the Obama-gushing-drivel from the NPR "News" updates. If he's your guy and you love hearing about how awesome he is, that's totally cool, but to insinuate they're somehow less biased (unless I misread your post) is silly.

JoeyM wrote: National Proletariat Radio is actually very non-Proletariat. The guests on the Diane Rehm Show today - on the topic of climate change - were from the Heritage Foundation and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Diane is -very- good about featuring people from both sides of any issue. I can't believe that during the Bush years when they wanted to defund NPR, they put her up as being one of the more Liberal shows

As for Reading it myself: BBC and Der Spiegal

Might as well read archived newspapers, they will be more balanced that anything in print today.

NPR is laughable around here. I kinda read Foxnews (too sensationalistic, sometimes) random Brit newspapers (Same Problem)... I avoid MSNBCBSABC as they've given up and bow down to His Oneness in DC.

The Daily Show and Colbert. (and listening to NPR on the commute).

While John Stewart is clearly left leaning in his personal politics, he seems to be more anti-BS than anything and pokes fun at Dems and Repubs pretty often.

petegossett wrote: I have a, um, friend? Acquaintance??? Who is always spamming me with links to articles from some website called theblaze.com. From what I've gathered, it seems to be one of the most biased news sites I've seen. Although, keep in mind that bias is completely off the deep end. I do believe there's likely a nugget of truth in everything they publish, but damn sometimes I feel like a prospector searching for it.

that's Glenn Beck's site... he has a cable channel, too.. it's, ummm, entertaining?

Reason magazine is probably one of the most fair outlets I've come across. Libertarian, meaning they are generally liberal on social issues but conservative on big government and spending. Many topics other outlets are firmly entrenched in Reason isn't afraid to bring other viewpoints to the table.

As for talk radio, which is generally a biased disaster, I've been pretty pleased with Michael Smerconish. Though a Republican strategist, he typically plays devil's advocate in most discussions and happily gives air time to callers with any viewpoint. It's not the "the other side sucks" that typifies talk radio but more what I always felt talk radio should be: open debate.

I don't watch much TV news. I dabble in Bill O'Reilly because he asks the questions I would ask, and John Stossel because he shares my view that the government is filled with morons who create stupid laws mostly for their own benefit. Sometimes it's nice to hear someone else preaching what you believe.