Seriously?

Mainstream media is owned, ostensibly by a few conglomerates, but my money’s on it going quite a bit higher.

`We’ are either satisfied with what passes for news or too dumb to know different. Or we don’t watch the news because it conflicts with Americans Idle.

It would be great to have decent media, but we have to go to the internet/overseas for it. Shortwave is another way to hear different viewpoints. And it works when the net doesn’t.

I used to SWL but my receiver was stolen a long time ago - also, a lot of that stuff that used to be available on a Zenith TransOceanic is now digital, and so much harder to receive, even if one has a digital receiver.

(for years I had a Radio Shack DX160B, that I bought with money I earned in junior high)

As for news quality, that is why I get most of mine from PBS or BBC.

Until people stop watching crap, we will get crap. News outlet have been folded in the entertainment division of the conglomerates.

I mean, come on, Murrow to freakin’ Curic?

When surveys show a huge group of Americans rely on Jon Stuart for information, there isn’t much to say.

BBC is far from unbiased. It is also more of a state tool. Watch how Obama loss gets covered.

Aquaadverse, the point is - it will take more than tuning out the programs that are inferior, for the very reasons you observe. News is part of the entertainment division, and as long as some revenue comes rolling in, it won’t change, and let’s face it, lots of idiots will watch simply because they think it is something they ‘need’ to do, and Katie is, after all, really cute. It satisfies two things, even though the in depth news coverage is lost in the whole exercise.

Jon Stewart is, in fact, a legit place for many items in the news. Not complete, by any means, but at least some of the people who watch are getting some ideas of what is happening outside their own little world of experience. Again, no excuse for poor coverage, but some is better than none.

BBC is pretty close to the perfect disinterested third party on many things, US news being one of them. The BBC has always been a great place for news, as they tend to remove much of the gloss that US news outlets like to use. (either way, although I personally think CNN is much closer to fair and balanced than FOX - I defy anyone to prove anything different - BBC is much closer to the ideal reporter of happenings)

Obama loss? He’s way up at this point; I’m not sure that the redneck bigots of this country can do anything to change that. I suspect that some of them are going to vote for him too, making the intelligent choice that their pocketbook is more important than their atavistic attitudes about race.

News will change if the eyeballs aren’t there. That’s why Couric got the chair. In the old days when the News division was separate, ratings weren’t the important end all.

The BBC is a disinterested third party only if you agree with what they put out. I watch the BBC and Aljazzhera on a regular basis. (Checkout Livestation for some nice quality streams of both) The only way to judge them as impartial is if you hold the same viewpoint.

A web search using BBC slanted or agenda shows people in many countries disagree, and not a few of them British.

Your last paragraph saying the only reason someone would vote against Obama is because of his color or his lineage shows bigotry and intolerance comes in all forms.

I’m missing how Obama is an intelligent choice fiscally. Corporations don’t pay taxes, the cost gets passed to their customers. Capital gains are going to be a trickle for years. If NAFTA taught us nothing else, it’s that raising the cost of doing business makes them leave, cutback workforce or subcontract offshore.

Aquaadvers, eif nothing else, I appreciate your ability to differ in opinion and stay out of the attacks that come so frequently around here. Thanks.

I understand wht you are saying, and agree that, in theory, the idea of trickle down economics should work - however, it seems that only the wealthiest 5% of the nation has been getting wealthier, while the middle is disappearing. That indisputable fact should be enough to show that economic ideas that are theoretically sound do not work in the real world.

Plus, I am truly tired of the Repubs saying that Democrats are ‘tax-and-spend’ when for the years since Ronald Reagan they have been ‘don’t tax and continue spending like a big dog’.

This has placed us in a great deal of difficulty, and history shows that Bill Clinton was more of a Republican than most of those claiming the title when the concept of fiscal responsiblity is discussed. Imagine that.

I think the Republican party needs to re-examine itself, as they seem to not have any homogeneous views anymore - and the historic claims of being fiscally responsible are totally out the window. ( My personal opinion of most Republicans in Congress is that they don’t rise above the level of rat bastard, barely hiding that the basic tenet of the Republican Party is ‘We’ve got ours, ____ ___ ‘. I’m sure you know the rest of the phrase. George Bush typifies this. He is stupid, hateful, and shows not one of the traits of a ‘compassionate Conservative’. The only thing he is interested in conserving is his and his cronies’ money. In the same vein, I dare anyone who follows the tenets Christ set forth in the Bible to show that being a Republican can be reconciled with those views.)

Again, thanks for the conversation without vitriol. Have a good day.