Sarettah,
I do the same thing. JR and I were just discussing uruklink.net earlier this morning.
For me though, it is very easy to watch any one news source [CNN for example] and get a pretty damned good idea of what is going on in the world. To me, there is news and there is news commentary. For the most part, there is very strong agreement on WHAT happened. WHY something happened though is a completely different question. It is pretty easy to strip out the commentary and you are easily left with what happened.
I think some people that hear a WHY that they agree with think that is news and that a WHY that they disagree with is propaganda.
There really isn't that much news in a day on any one topic. "So and so said this". "The leader from country x said this". "The leader from country Y said that".
Assume we really care about the commentary though. Most US news sources provide a fair range of interviews with people who both agree and disagree with the current administration. Last night, I was reading with the news on in the background and there were any number of interviews with Democrats against the war, human shields, interview clips from Saddam Hussein and so on.
One easily gets a fair enough view of the world, a balanced view, in order to make an assessment of what is happening.
I have a strong preference for the written word as a news source to television. I find that there is an extra level of depth on average. One can work more easily with historical references, etc. However it seems to me that video sources (news TV) are pretty much all the same as far as actual content.
|