Favorite war media sources

[AlphaGam1019]

Besides having my tv set to the Fox News Channel (http://www.foxnews.com), I also enjoy these sites:

Cox & Forkum (http://www.coxandforkum.com/)
Media Research (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)
ScrappleFace (http://www.scrappleface.com/)

What's your favorite war/political sites?

[royalpinkastry]

CNN definitely has kept me informed!
I mainly read the scrolls at the bottom!

[sugar and spice]

I get it from everywhere -- I've gotten a lot of updates from CBS lately 'cause I've been watching so much of the NCAA tourney and they have periodic war updates between games. But beyond that, there are a million places -- everything from cnn.com to MTV, fair.org and the reports it links to salon.com to stuff my dad tells me to things I've discussed in class. I think it's important not to limit yourself when it comes to sources, 'cause -- as discussed in the other thread -- the more you read different sources, the more informed you are.

This is an interesting website too; its purpose is to trace the amount of civilian casualties in the war.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Not exactly a source of a lot of information about the war, but informative nevertheless.

[sugar and spice]

Oh, and ditto whoever said BBC in the other thread . . . also a decent source of information.

[OUlioness01]

CNN had been turned on at my house almost constantly, along with MSNCB, although I prefer CNN

[Sistermadly]

http://www.cbc.ca - thank heavens for the CBC. I don't know when CNN turned into FoxNews, but it's barely watchable these days.

ABCNews also - Peter Jennings is reassuring, and displays just enough skepticism to keep me interested.

[Jen]

I like watching FOX News, which sort o surprises me, I didn't think it would be any good. But they have a lot on the screen at once, which I like, since I enjoy watching the tickers and all that.

[josie]

i usually watch MSNBC, except for when the o'reilly factor is on. i absolutely LOVE bill o'reilly.

as far as non-tv sources, i get all the info on my PDA/cellphone from CNN via Sprint PCS.

[moe.ron]

BBC, ITN. Etv for a really good analysis on the impact of the war on Africa. No CNN, though they started to air Al JAzeera, interesting to see dubbing on newscaster. A little annoying at first, but it's like those old Martial Art movies.

[smiley21]

i was watching cbs last night for the basketball game. there was an interruption by dan rather to make a report about a number of people being killed. when he was done he said kinda hesitantly 'now back to basketball'. how awkard was that?
'so and so got killed today over in iraq, .......now back to basketball.'

[RUgreek]

The Daily Show on comedy central. Wouldn't want anyone else covering the war.

But if I need real objective information, I can't rely on the American newscasters, conflict of interest. I'll refer to BBC or another foreign press.

[Kevin]

I've been swithcing between Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

[lionlove]

Lots of sources, few if any are unbiased. Usually CNN or MSNBC if I want to know what's going on. BBC or LeMonde if I want a European perspective. Haaretz (spelling?) gives an Israeli perspective and TV Asia news from India gives a more Asian perspective. Whatever their bias is, I enjoy reading news from other countries.

[agger_rob]

CBS is pretty good at keeping me up to date on what's gone on throughout the day.

CNN, Talking Points Memo, Newsweek, TIME, and InstaPundit analyze the situation pretty well.

I watched some of MTV's coverage yesterday afternoon and was very suprised at how thorough and comprehensive it was.

And thank God for the Daily Show to lighten up the mood a little at the end of the day.

[DeltAlum]

Interesting (and a little worrisome) that nobody but AggerRob mentioned any print media.

Guess we need the instant gratification of moving pictures these days -- even though, if you watch for any length of time, you realize that the "live shots" are basically repeating themselves over and over and using the same video tape "b roll" again and again.

*edit*

Just remembered Lionlove did mention LaMonde -- assuming that's the newspaper version.

And, Arya, I don't think there is really any "dubbing," or dialog replacement going on. With these new technologies, the live and tape material is much less stable than what we've come to expect. Each element must be run through a device called a "frame synchronizer" in order to make it legal for broadcast. If there is signal strength problems, or video breakup, that device momentarily freezes the video and can sometimes make the video and audio appear out of lip sync. Unless, of course, they're actually doing language replacement for translation where you are.

[agger_rob]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Interesting (and a little worrisome) that nobody but AggerRob mentioned any print media.

Just to play devil's advocate, with the war moving so quickly, it's almost impossible for the print media to keep abreast of the developments of new stories. I rely on them for a more in depth analysis of stories over 12 hours old.

[DeltAlum]

Rob,

Agree with that -- after all, I worked in TV newsrooms for many years.

My observation of this coverage, though, is that with the exception of going live every time a bomb goes off on the other side of a city of several million people, and we see flashes in the sky -- the broadcasters aren't much more timely than the daily newspapers.

With the occassional snippets from the "embedded" reporters, most of the news still comes from the daily DOD briefings. In Vietnam, those were called "The Five O'Clock Follies" by the reporters there.

In the end, I hope that we can use the electronic media for the "fast breaking" stuff and newspapers for the important "in depth" stuff you mention.

If you get it all from broadcasting, I think it's pretty superficial.

[Jen]

Online I usually visit My Yahoo since I have the Yahoo Coverage, AP and Reuters news up there, it gives me all the latest headlines.