Source for conservative current events - besides Stossel - his tone makes me crazy in a bad way

[momee]

We subscribe to God's World News but it isn't exactly "current" events, more like events in the past two months or so.

 

I'm looking for a weekly video update that will not center on fluffy "look at this dog do tricks" type segments but on real news with meat on the bones.

[stripe]

I'm looking for a weekly video update that will not center on fluffy "look at this dog do tricks" type segments but on real news with meat on the bones.

Personally, I don't think this is a strong point of American news coverage. At all.

 

I recommend the PBS Newhour because they don't have commercial breaks and the stories are longer. It's not a conservative themed source. They don't really present an angle, but they do have informed commentators from different backgrounds related to the topic who bring different points to the discussion. I am not sure this is what you are looking for, but I think you should give it a try! Their website has video and transcripts so you don't have to be limited to watching the night's news.

[SoCalLynn]

Wouldn't you prefer to look at a variety of material to get a better picture?

 

TV news is fairly terrible.  I would suggest Wall St Journal/ WashPo plus NPR/ NYT.

 

She asked specifically for conservative views. Why would you think that she doesn't know her own mind and think she should look at other material? I think this is presumptuous.

[SoCalLynn]

Personally, I don't think this is a strong point of American news coverage. At all.

 

I recommend the PBS Newhour because they don't have commercial breaks and the stories are longer. It's not a conservative themed source. They don't really present an angle, but they do have informed commentators from different backgrounds related to the topic who bring different points to the discussion. I am not sure this is what you are looking for, but I think you should give it a try! Their website has video and transcripts so you don't have to be limited to watching the night's news.

 

Same here. If you came here and asked for liberal sources, how would you feel if someone chimed in and tried to convince you your request was foolish and you should only look at conservative resources? The poster didn't ask for your opinion, she asked for conservative resources. If you don't have any you shouldn't have responded.

[SoCalLynn]

Townhall.com has videos on current events.

 

adding: Also, this might have something you can use: http://www.ijreview.com/

[SoCalLynn]

really?

 

Yes.

[Alte Veste Academy]

In fairness, the OP asked for the impossible. It is a mutually exclusive proposition to ask for conservative news and "real news with meat on the bones." The meat is both sides of an issue. Without the meat, it's just a bone.

[SoCalLynn]

Perhaps you should apply to be a moderator since you clearly feel you have the right to tell others here when and how they should post.

 

She asked specifically for conservative resources. Why would you presume she wants the liberal ones you offered, when she clearly knows her own mind? Did you not read the question, or are you assuming you know best for someone else?

[SoCalLynn]

In fairness, the OP asked for the impossible. It is a mutually exclusive proposition to ask for conservative news and "real news with meat on the bones." The meat is both sides of an issue. Without the meat, it's just a bone.

 

Baloney.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Baloney.

That's not real meat either! :lol:

[Alte Veste Academy]

Same here. If you came here and asked for liberal sources, how would you feel if someone chimed in and tried to convince you your request was foolish and you should only look at conservative resources? The poster didn't ask for your opinion, she asked for conservative resources. If you don't have any you shouldn't have responded.

For the record, recognizing that you are not addressing me (and I wouldn't classify myself as liberal or conservative, as I have strong opinions on individual issues), I would feel exactly the same. To purposefully look at one side of the issues is limiting in the worst possible way. To me, it is worse than not studying current events at all, because you will have incomplete understanding while believing yourself informed.

 

Frankly, even for those who are married to a particular POV, arguments are strengthened by gaining knowledge of the other side, as more information and better understanding allow formulation of counter arguments.

[stripe]

Same here. If you came here and asked for liberal sources, how would you feel if someone chimed in and tried to convince you your request was foolish and you should only look at conservative resources? The poster didn't ask for your opinion, she asked for conservative resources. If you don't have any you shouldn't have responded.

?

 

Goodness.

 

I never tried to convince her that her request was foolish. I was simply alerting her to a source she may not have considered, or have dismissed. I respected her interests in conservative sources by pointing out that conservative opinions are given airtime on their programming, and the news is covered in detail.

 

Strangely enough, conservative news sources suggest viewers watch segments on the PBS Newshour, 

such as at http://conservativenews247.com/video/view/22991/Sens-Paul-and-Booker-Appear-on-PBS-NewsHour--July-29-2014

and the PBS NewsHour has been judged "centrist" by those conducting studies of media bias

The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.abstract or at http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

 

I only posted once (and this reply makes the second) to suggest a mainstream news source with meaty news that includes prominent conservative opinions. You have posted six times about how bad others' posts are.

 

[SoCalLynn]

Ok, l never said she (or I) don't look at the other side. I am not an idiot, I know there are two sides. As far as the OP, she asked for conservative sources. She doesn't say she doesn't watch other sources, but it seems everyone assumed she doesn't and jumped right in to share their favorite liberal sources. She ASKED for conservative, it seems simple to realize that 1. she probably already knows the other sides sources. and/or 2. she doesn't want liberal resources. Yet you all felt free to share information that wasn't asked for. It just seems pointless and stirs the pot, which I assume you are happy about since it worked with me anyway. I should know better.

 

As far as conservative opinions and news programs not being good enough or whatever your opinion is of them, I've learned more about how the world works and what's going on in the rest of the world since I became a conservative Christian than all the years I was a liberal democrat and relied on network new channels and newspapers for their (un?)biased reporting.

 

To the original poster, I apologize for the argument on your thread. I got riled up and I'm sorry.

[kiana]

Ok, l never said she (or I) don't look at the other side. I am not an idiot, I know there are two sides. As far as the OP, she asked for conservative sources. She doesn't say she doesn't watch other sources, but it seems everyone assumed she doesn't and jumped right in to share their favorite liberal sources. She ASKED for conservative, it seems simple to realize that 1. she probably already knows the other sides sources. and/or 2. she doesn't want liberal resources. Yet you all felt free to share information that wasn't asked for. It just seems pointless and stirs the pot, which I assume you are happy about since it worked with me anyway. I should know better.

The problem with asking for conservative is that it means different things to different people. Many people consider WSJ and WashPo pretty conservative.

 

Townhall.com is pretty conservative as well.

[stripe]

:lol: I only posted because no one else had and I felt sorry for the lady, since her thread had no takers. I had zero agenda. I just thought PBS is the only American station that runs long pieces on the news.

 

Little did I know what would be unleashed or what I'd be accused of.

 

:lol:

 

Sme people see conspiracies everywhere. Snort.

[kiwik]

Define conservative. Do you want old fashioned news coverage type or do you want conservative bias or reporters or subject matter.

 

I still prefer BBC

[Farrar]

How about The Economist? That's conservative economically slanted, but they cover both sides, more like the way many American newspapers are liberal slanted but cover both sides.

 

Oh, wait, she said video... Hm.

[stripe]

How about The Economist? 

 

Define conservative. Do you want old fashioned news coverage type or do you want conservative bias or reporters or subject matter.

 

I still prefer BBC

Non-American news sources aren't going to be affiliated with some elements of what Americans consider conservative, e.g. Christian or Tea Party elements. For example, Marine le Pen thinks America and "Islamists" are both trying to subjugate France, so I am not sure her brand of conservatism is all that compatible with American style, despite the effort to suggest they are.

 

This April 2014 article in the Economist is kind of interesting:

This might lead one to think that we're talking about very similar movements: traditionalists with conservative values who distrust governments and banks. But the differences between the groups are perhaps more interesting. The value-politics Republicans are much more religious than the average American: 68% pray regularly, compared to a US average of 37%, and significantly more said spirituality was an important part of their life. The eurosceptic voters, however, are less likely than the average European to pray (9% to 14%) or value spirituality (20% to 28%). Value-politics Republicans were much more likely than average Americans to trust the police and the military, while eurosceptics were less likely than average to trust the police, and had normal European attitudes towards the military. On these issues, we seem to be dealing with super-Americans and ultra-Europeans.

[AimeeM]

Lately it seems that even the most innocent request on this forum turns into a fight :(

[momee]

For the record, and not for the sake of an argument, I am aware of what I am asking for when I ask for a conservative news source.

 

Backstory?  My live in in-laws are very left leaning.  I hear their evening local news source far too often while I'm in the kitchen cooking dinner give a spin I don't THINK is fair.  I'd like to learn more and be sure.

 

I'm asking for a conservative source so I can decipher for MYSELF what the bias truly is.  I'm also interested in teaching my children about media bias this year and am looking for actual examples.

 

I have been on the boards for quite a while and the lack of support women are giving each other here is sad and frankly, astonishing.  

 

I think homeschooling is hard enough without our fighting each other.  I need help, ladies.  Not a fight.

 

Thanks so much for the sources, I will be checking them out.  

[momee]

Farrar, is the Economist a magazine we could read without knowing the backstory?  I am finding since I haven't watched the news in so long it is difficult (with any source) to "catch up".

 

I'd love something that is more teaching in tone, but not preachy, if that makes sense.

[mamaraby]

Does it absolutely have to be video based? I think that might be one of the sticking points. Aside from the obvious (Fox) I don't know that there's much with the weekly summary type reports unless you go a bit niche. Wall Street Journal would be pretty conservative and they do have videos on the AppleTV. Maybe they offer them on something like Roku or their website? Was Townhall mentioned up thread? They advertise themselves as conservative and have videos.

 

PBS Newshour is really rather centrist - sometimes annoyingly so. There have been many articles they post there that they will come from one side and then another one from the other side. They're very even keeled and the broadcast is more in depth with fewer fluffy type stories. You also won't find panels of people yelling at each other there.

 

For text based sources, you could always subscribe in something like an RSS reader which would allow you to get regular updates in one location instead of multiple sites. I do that for the news sources I use and can skim the ones I'm not interested. It saves me some time that way.

 

There was a thread a few months back that kind of polled where folks got their news from. I think it might have been aimed at "liberals," but I can't remember now. I do remember very specifically that there were conservative members who posted. Does anyone else remember the name of the thread?

 

I feel badly that you haven't gotten more responses and the thread was derailed a bit by someone else. I don't watch any of the US news networks and don't have cable so I have no idea what those networks are like. I get most of my news from the BBC and the short bits I hear every now again at the top of the hour on the classical station.

[ElizabethB]

It is mainly text articles, but I like Real Clear. They have both sides of issues so you can compare and contrast. Real Clear Politics, Real Clear World, etc. Wikipedia says they are slightly right, but the articles are usually a mix of left and right. They aggregate from other sources but generally pick good authors and well written articles.

[VeritasMama]

Washington Free Beacon occasionally has videos. It is a conservative publication.

 

Most conservative news is written, I'm not sure why there aren't more video ventures out there.

 

I always called myself a "moderate," I'm an independent politically. I was raised by liberals. I would say that he media in this country is biased to the left, and it is near impossible to live in this country and not be exposed to the liberal view point on current events just in everyday life. It is simply all over the media. What is more difficult is to hear an accurate conservative view point (not just a caricature or stereotype) that is what you actually will have to go in search of. As someone who has different opinions that correspond with both the right and the left, I know how important it is to look at both sides of an issue.

 

BTW, as someone who reads and watches media from all different persuasions, including the crazies on the right and left (it's good to keep an eye on the crackpots) I would say that FOX is not conservative. It is simply not on the left like most other networks, and so it seems conservative by comparison. But an actual analysis shows it is center right, as are the majority of Americans.

 

Good luck with your study of media bias. I would recommend this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0026IUP2C/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1409039085&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70

 

The author is a self described liberal, it's a very interesting read.

[stripe]

Does it absolutely have to be video based? I think that might be one of the sticking points. Aside from the obvious (Fox) I don't know that there's much with the weekly summary type reports unless you go a bit niche. Wall Street Journal would be pretty conservative and they do have videos on the AppleTV. Maybe they offer them on something like Roku or their website?

 

I agree, the video angle is tough, and the reason I suggested PBS Newshour is because they seem to have made a push to promote their social media/web presence with things other than merely the evening news.

 

There are a fair number of sources on Roku (link to news section)

lists the Wall Street Journal as a channel; its description reads

Original Programming, On Demand. Immediate and relevant, WSJ Live brings influencers and decision-makers live news and on-demand video directly from 2000+ reporters across the globe.

and it says it may require additional fees.

 

The Economist magazine is weekly and pretty pricey, but if you have e-rewards points you want to use on it, you can get a 6 mo subscription. Or maybe you can find it in a library, or just read some articles online.

 

I searched for online weekly news videos, and a top result was the Weekly World News, which describes itself as "The World's Only Reliable News."   :huh:  I think we can all agree that that is NOT what the OP is looking for.

[JanetC]

world-affairs.org does a very nice job of covering GLOBAL issues in their weekly news updates, if you want something less America-centered. They are a "meat on both sides of the bone" resource and high school level, but you could pick and choose before sharing with your kids.

[mommymilkies]

:lol: I only posted because no one else had and I felt sorry for the lady, since her thread had no takers. I had zero agenda. I just thought PBS is the only American station that runs long pieces on the news.

 

Little did I know what would be unleashed or what I'd be accused of.

 

:lol:

 

Sme people see conspiracies everywhere. Snort.

Now don't go giving away inside dish on our vast liberal conspiracy. 

[Moxie]

What about talk radio? Rush, Hannity, etc.??

[Sdel]

RealClearPolitics.com

 

Stefanie

[Deee]

I can't give you any sources because I am Australian. I'm also a raving leftie. I'm only posting to sing the praises of the radio. Our national broadcaster has a nightly news hour that includes lots of detail and some commentary (the conservatives think it has a left bias, the left thinks it's too conservative, so it's probably almost balanced). It's on when I'm cooking dinner. Do you have something similar? I am very politically active - listening to the radio and multitasking is the only way I keep up with the news. If I had to watch something, I'd have to choose between take away and ignorance ;)

 

My husband loves listening to the conservative radio stations. Especially the shock jocks. He claims it fleshes out the debate. I think it's just increases his political rantings!

D

[Stellalarella]

I like reading the National Review website.  The articles are long and thought provoking.  

[Laura Corin]

Farrar, is the Economist a magazine we could read without knowing the backstory?  I am finding since I haven't watched the news in so long it is difficult (with any source) to "catch up".

 

I'd love something that is more teaching in tone, but not preachy, if that makes sense.

 

The Economist might be exactly what you need.  Each article is usually quite long, so there is time to go over the basics, go further into the depth of the item, then work on the analysis.

 

L

[Moxie]

Dear lord. I have to get on my knees at the idea that people would use this as "news" let alone news for their kids. It is not news. This is what is wrong with this country. In a nutshell.

Good thing I didn't recommend Glen Beck--you might have passed out cold!!

[momee]

"This is what is wrong with this country. In a nutshell."

 

Surely the responsible party must be the elected officials.  Not a few outspoken radio hosts.

 

Respectfully (I am just asking...) would you be willing to clarify what you mean by that?

 

[PachiSusan]

Dear lord.  I have to get on my knees at the idea that people would use this as "news" let alone news for their kids.  It is not news.  This is what is wrong with this country.  In a nutshell.

 

 I agree. It's editorial. However, many times they wind up being right in the long run. ;)

 

Oh, and also Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, and Bill Maher, all of whom many of my liberal friends say they get "all their news from" because they're funny and edgy. 

 

There is too much wrong with our country to blame the editorialists on either side. 

 

To the OP, I get what you are asking. You want to balance the other information that you hear with the other side so that you can make an informed decision. I applaud you. You are more politically aware and caring than most of the people in our country who only want to hear one side. 

 

I go to so many sources for news that I have a hard time remembering which ones are conservative, libertarian, progressive, or liberal. You have gotten some good advice if you ignore the side fight. :)

[stripe]

You want to balance the other information that you hear with the other side so that you can make an informed decision. 

Eh, I am dubious about whether listening to two polarized opinions leads one to greater understanding or ends up with the listener ending up favoring a moderate view that neither extreme advocated.

[PachiSusan]

Eh, I am dubious about whether listening to two polarized opinions leads one to greater understanding or ends up with the listener ending up favoring a moderate view that neither extreme advocated.

 

Just because one is at the "extreme" to some people, does not mean that they are not correct. :)

 

I think that's one of the big problems of our society. We dismiss the "extreme"on either side, and think the moderate is correct, which sometimes, and in some issues, a compromise is nothing but not making a decision. 

 

I listen to all the voices I can, and make a decision based on my own life experiences, belief systems, and logic. 

 

We are not ever going to all agree. However, we can do a LOT better in discussions and debates without denigrated a point of view. We have LOST this skill.  

 

I think a big detriment of social media is that it has emboldened us all to think that our voice MUST BE INSERTED into every discussion, and that what we say has infinite value and merit, when in reality, there are times when we all should just keep our mouths shut and move on...me included. 

 

^^^^ Generic - not aimed at you or anyone else in this thread. 

[PachiSusan]

Eh, I am dubious about whether listening to two polarized opinions leads one to greater understanding or ends up with the listener ending up favoring a moderate view that neither extreme advocated.

 

I dunno. I rarely come to a decision based on two polarized opinions. I don't think I said that in my post - I was saying that I use a variety of sources. Did I not explain that well? 

[stripe]

Just because one is at the "extreme" to some people, does not mean that they are not correct. :)

 

I think that's one of the big problems of our society. We dismiss the "extreme"on either side, and think the moderate is correct, which sometimes, and in some issues, a compromise is nothing but not making a decision. 

I don't dismiss all extremes. But it is a huge mistake to think that we should listen to two extremes and call that being informed. Giving equal weights to all positions is dangerous. The idea that there are two sides to every issue is baloney. Every time we discuss race relations, we shouldn't put the Klan on the stage and give them equal time. Every time we discuss global affairs, we shouldn't have a representative from the Flat Earth Society on stage, and call that being "fair."

 

I agree with you, there is some notion nowadays that fairness means all views have equal weight, OR that there are "two sides to every story." I am just saying,I don't feel it's beneficial to my understanding of current affairs to listen to a complete moron or someone with a deranged point of view. Its possible usefulness would be in understanding that people who buy into that are a political force, or some meta-issue about politics/world affairs, but *not* my understanding of that issue. Therefore to listen to extremist rantings instead of actual informative news, doesn't make sense to me, in my life.

 

We actually seem to agree with each other on this point.

[Tanaqui]

Oh, and also Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, and Bill Maher, all of whom many of my liberal friends say they get "all their news from" because they're funny and edgy.

 

 

Well, that and they tend to have a larger actual news content than some news shows. NOT naming names here.

 

 

I would say that FOX is not conservative. It is simply not on the left like most other networks, and so it seems conservative by comparison. But an actual analysis shows it is center right, as are the majority of Americans.

 

What Americans consider to be center right and what everybody else considers to be center right are not the same thing at all. FOX likes to say that they're "not really right wing" and that they only look that way because of overwhelming liberal bias, however, the evidence for that position is not at all conclusive. It might interest you to know that liberal news organizations routinely state that mainstream media has a strong conservative bias, with about as much evidence. 

 

The real bias in most of the media is on the side of whoever is writing the paychecks, I'm sure.

[PachiSusan]

 

Ok,cool. Just doing my checking instead of assuming that I understand the point you were making. :)

 

I don't give equal weight to all opinions and sides, but I do think it's important to hear what other people are thinking, more from a psychology of the person kind of thing in my case. I am fascinated by human foibles as my degree is in psychology and sociology.

 

 

I don't dismiss all extremes. But it is a huge mistake to think that we should listen to two extremes and call that being informed. Giving equal weights to all positions is dangerous. The idea that there are two sides to every issue is baloney. Every time we discuss race relations, we shouldn't put the Klan on the stage and give them equal time. Every time we discuss global affairs, we shouldn't have a representative from the Flat Earth Society on stage, and call that being "fair."

 

I agree with you, there is some notion nowadays that fairness means all views have equal weight, OR that there are "two sides to every story." I am just saying,I don't feel it's beneficial to my understanding of current affairs to listen to a complete moron or someone with a deranged point of view. Its possible usefulness would be in understanding that people who buy into that are a political force, or some meta-issue about politics/world affairs, but *not* my understanding of that issue. Therefore to listen to extremist rantings instead of actual informative news, doesn't make sense to me, in my life.

 

We actually seem to agree with each other on this point.

[PachiSusan]

Well, that and they tend to have a larger actual news content than some news shows. NOT naming names here.

 

</snip> 

 

The real bias in most of the media is on the side of whoever is writing the paychecks, I'm sure.

 

 

I will have to agree to disagree with you on this one. They all started out as satirical comedy editorialists and remain so to this day.  They don't contain any more news content (without bias) than any other "editorialist" on either side of the coin, and yes, I've watched them ALL. 

 

To your last point, I totally agree. Follow the money. :)