Every so often we have an interesting discussion on our super-secret internal mailing list. And sometimes, just sometimes, we give you all a chance to hear what it is we were thinking.

Today’s discussion involved sources of news. Various Angry Men gave their opinions on what they felt were superior news sources. We decided to share those with you, our loyal readers.

Angry New Mexican
My US-based news sources of choice are two of America’s best newspapers: The New York Times and the Washington Post. When I’m looking for a slightly less American flare, I turn to The Times also known as The Times of London. When I really want to get out of the NATO orbit, I either turn to the Irish Times, which has a very European focus or the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong’s #1 English language daily. The SCMP, as you might imagine, excels in Chinese and Asian news.

Angry Midwesterner
Like ANM, I also use American newspapers for most of my news. Unlike ANM, I use papers which are fit for reading, not ones which, like the NYT and Washington Post, are fit only for wiping my ass. As such my main news source is that long time bastion of accuracy (Dewey Defeats Truman!), the Chicago Tribune, which I balance out with the other pillar of midwestern journalistic integrity, the Chicago Sun-Times. I’m also an avid reader of a the paper produced by the classiest city on the Big Muddy, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch which does a great job of covering international and national news overlooked by many other papers. I get my dose of mainstream news from the surprisingly unbiased Houston Chronicle. To top all of this off, I usually add a dash of foreign sources found using Our New Google Overlords with occasional deep readings of the Irish Times and the Mail and Guardian, South Africa’s leading paper.

Angry Overeducated Catholic
The NYT is a real mixed bag. The in-depth articles are frequently pretty good, but the whole paper carries a bias worthy of the editorial page. So actual news stories are best read somewhere else, but features and investigative reporting can be fine. The same goes for the Post, except that the bias is a lot less blatant and more moderate. CNN and Fox News are both decent for getting quick updates about stories nobody can ignore, you just can’t expect either to cover everything (selection bias) or cover anything all that well (editing standards for online new sources are still pretty bad).

The Wall Street Journal is surprisingly comprehensive and unbiased given its very clear pro-business editorial stance, and the Investor’s Business Daily has excellent in-depth articles (but a very clear stance as well). Considering its heritage, the Christian Science Monitor is actually very, very good, with most articles going into substantial depth.

Away from mainstream media outlets, I generally find that Instapundit remains the best overview of the “mind of the web” on geopolitical, mainstream technological, and domestic issues. Of course, its sources are only as good as their authors, but that’s what a brain is for: to do filtering of content and weigh biases. There ain’t no such thing as objective reporting, and you have to accept that and move on. I prefer primary sources where possible, and Instapundit is pretty good at either linking to them or linking to blogs who link to them.

Angry Political Optimist
I have the Wall Street Journal delivered every morning. Occasionally they mess up and deliver the Chicago Tribune. To satisfy my craving for news, I read it but it usually leaves me feeling dissatisfied and hungry. My neighbor, a bastion of liberalism and dedicated Democrat, who I actually get along with quite well, has the NYT delivered. When he goes on vacation, he asks me to pick them up and suggests I read them. I have a nice stack of NYTs — in plastic bags — rolled up — unread. I just can’t stomach reading the headlines, although the social columns are interesting and the features are unique. The WSJ is a bit heavy for most people and is decidedly based towards business interests but even it has guest commentary from the likes of Pelosi and Reid. The WSJ bias is pro-business and to the extent that McCain, Obama, or any Congress-critter is pro-taxation, pro-corporate tax increases, and anti-Bush tax cuts, they end up being slammed pretty hard. Gary Kasparov has a piece on anti-Putin about every 4 months. After reading the Journal for years you know the by-lines just by reading the first few sentences. What’s best about the Journal are the headlines which are usually a play on words or some sort of pun.

When I want an international flavor, I usually wait for the Economist. And for a really in-depth view at the military and defense industrial situation, you can’t beat Aviation Week and Space Technology, although neither are dailys. They do give you an in-depth analysis on things the dailys just skim and allow you to fill in quite a few gaps.

Otherwise I don’t really read anything else, as I have this wonderful clipping service —err.. Angry Man mail list, that provides a myriad of interesting and diverse topics.

Angry Biologist
Personally I prefer to get my news from Fox News, they have a long standing tradition for unbiased reporting, they’re the only fair and balanced news service, and their policy of just reporting the facts without any editorializing provides the sort of honesty I can really get behind. When it comes to written news, I tend to prefer Little Green Footballs and World Net Daily. In a sea of liberal bias (especially prevalent on the internet) it is nice to see some news sites like these take unbiased journalism seriously. It’s hard to get the facts straight with sites like CNN, the NYT and the WaPost. They’re just shoveling the same liberal drivel onto their pages day after day. It takes real courage to stand up, as World Net Daily often does, and question mainstream myths, like global warming, evolution, and other liberal fantasies. I mean, really, when it comes down to it, do you want to be getting your news from someone who thinks your father was a monkey? I know I don’t!

Advertisements