Where do you get your news from?

[Mr Endon]

Which is your primary source for news?

Mine is the internet. I get my Portuguese news from the 'Expresso' website and European news from 'presseurop'. I also read in paper, but avoid to because it's expensive and not very environmental friendly. I'm not a radio person at all, but I'm thinking of starting to listen to 'BBC Radio 4', a very knowledgeable person recommended it to me.

Where do you get your news? And try to pitch it to me, I'm on the lookout for good reliable mediums :)

[AmericanEagle]

I usually get my news from the free commuter newspapers available at subway stations.

[wessexgirl]

Which is your primary source for news?

Mine is the internet. I get my Portuguese news from the 'Expresso' website and European news from 'presseurop'. I also read in paper, but avoid to because it's expensive and not very environmental friendly. I'm not a radio person at all, but I'm thinking of starting to listen to 'BBC Radio 4', a very knowledgeable person recommended it to me.

Where do you get your news? And try to pitch it to me, I'm on the lookout for good reliable mediums :)

Try R4. I listen to it a lot, and tend to get a lot of my news from there. I wouldn't advise listening to the Today programme if you like a gentle start to the morning though, John Humphries gets me mad, so I stopped listening to it. I do listen to PM at 5 o'clock though. Eddie Mair is so much more agreeable. I don't read the papers either. I don't have time to read a broadsheet. I don't know how people manage to read a daily one if they work full-time.

[billl]

websites. After that, tv programs (on tv I mean, but some of the tv options are on the net too, so I occasionally go that route).

Man, I miss getting the newspaper (in print form). Sunday morning, coffee, bagels, the Washington Post, jeez I used to be exhausted after that. But a good kind of exhausted.

[Emil Miller]

I tend to get my news from various sources i.e. the internet, radio, magazines and newspapers. I avoid the tabloids as the actual news content is often less than non news items and sport, which have little interest for me. The only daily newspaper that I read is the Telegraph and each evening I read the Evening Standard because it is the sole evening newspaper available in London. Saturdays I usually read Le Figaro to keep up on the news in France. I also occasionally buy the magazines L'express or Le Point for the same reason. However, many years of getting ( being fed?) news has taught me to be very circumspect about what I read or hear.

[Mr Endon]

Thanks for the suggestions, guys, keep 'em coming!


Try R4. I listen to it a lot, and tend to get a lot of my news from there. I wouldn't advise listening to the Today programme if you like a gentle start to the morning though, John Humphries gets me mad, so I stopped listening to it. I do listen to PM at 5 o'clock though. Eddie Mair is so much more agreeable.

Thanks, will try to tune in today at 5 then!


I don't read the papers either. I don't have time to read a broadsheet. I don't know how people manage to read a daily one if they work full-time.

I know, right? And on top of that, I'm a slow reader. If I'm into one particular daily or magazine, I'll spend so much time reading it that I do little else beside that for the day.

[Logos]

I get mine on The Daily Show from the most trusted newscaster, Jon Stewart

http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

:D

[Mr Endon]

I get mine on The Daily Show from the most trusted newscaster, Jon Stewart

http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

:D

:lol: that's why I included it! He's not happy about the results of that poll, but at least he's getting the recognition he deserves. I watch it every day: as American news deserve only fleeting mentions from the Portuguese newspapers, I must turn to Jon Stewart for the in-depth analysis ;) And also in order to meet my daily laughter quota!

[Virgil]

Various sources also, but electronic news is the most predominant.

[mona amon]

I like to read the newspaper every morning. :)

[Logos]

:lol: that's why I included it! He's not happy about the results of that poll, but at least he's getting the recognition he deserves. I watch it every day: as American news deserve only fleeting mentions from the Portuguese newspapers, I must turn to Jon Stewart for the in-depth analysis ;) And also in order to meet my daily laughter quota! Yes I was very glad to see you had included it :D Do you watch on the internet? or do they show it on tv there?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have a love hate relationship with news, mostly hate, in fact there is little love there at all actually. Most news "stories" seem primed to cause some sort of angry response, fear or frustration or to evoke some sort of idiotic debate from the viewing public. Needless to say none of these are satisfactory to me, so I do my best to avoid it. However I don't want to be blind to things happening around me so I do keep one ear and eye open, but that only leaves me open to frustration once again.

I would say that I get most of my news from my wife who reads me things from the papers, which has me shaking my head, or the TV if I happen to stumble across it. I absolutely don't read the papers. I used to read The Guardian a little, but even that has grown tedious. I just detest the way newspapers "twist" reality and in order to "make a story" I'd rather just reject the whole thing.

Just ten minutes ago my wife has told me about how some Republican's have well and truly "twisted" reality about the NHS, which has annoyed me. Yesterday, (as I lay ill on the sofa) I heard about how the Scottish government are releasing the Lockerbie bomber, killer of 230+ people on "compassionate leave" because he is ill. And the day before that how the fat bankers are reaping the millions in bonuses again, now that the fuss has died down. See what I mean? There's only so much of this I can take. I'd rather give myself fiction, because it is more true than reality anyway.

Sorry for the rant, but there you go.

[Mr Endon]

Yes I was very glad to see you had included it :D Do you watch on the internet? or do they show it on tv there?

They do show it in Portugal (with 2 weeks difference :rolleyes:) but I watch it on their official website, they put up the whole episode in the very next day!

A downright shame that only people in the US can watch the Colbert Show online. From the hilarious 'toss' that Jon and Stephen have towards the end of some DS episodes I take it it's a riot?


I have a love hate relationship with news, mostly hate, in fact there is little love there at all actually. Most news "stories" seem primed to cause some sort of angry response, fear or frustration or to evoke some sort of idiotic debate from the viewing public. Needless to say none of these are satisfactory to me, so I do my best to avoid it. However I don't want to be blind to things happening around me so I do keep one ear and eye open, but that only leaves me open to frustration once again.

I would say that I get most of my news from my wife who reads me things from the papers, which has me shaking my head, or the TV if I happen to stumble across it. I absolutely don't read the papers. I used to read The Guardian a little, but even that has grown tedious. I just detest the way newspapers "twist" reality and in order to "make a story" I'd rather just reject the whole thing.

Just ten minutes ago my wife has told me about how some Republican's have well and truly "twisted" reality about the NHS, which has annoyed me. Yesterday, (as I lay ill on the sofa) I heard about how the Scottish government are releasing the Lockerbie bomber, killer of 230+ people on "compassionate leave" because he is ill. And the day before that how the fat bankers are reaping the millions in bonuses again, now that the fuss has died down. See what I mean? There's only so much of this I can take. I'd rather give myself fiction, because it is more true than reality anyway.

Sorry for the rant, but there you go.

I completely understand your predicament. My prescription is: find a reliable news medium. I'd advise you to read the BBC website and the Prospect magazine (the aforementioned knowledgeable acquaintance recommended it to me and can't wait to sink my teeth in it, it's supposed to be really good).

But how I know what you mean. And those free London papers, it's like they're stuffed with air. Metro's headline today was how a kid unwittingly earned a school diploma just by getting on a bus. Sure quirky titbits of news like this may be fun, but on the first page? What about the Afghanistan war, for instance?

No news medium is 100% reliable, of course. And I too grimace at the spins some news are given, even by my favourite newspaper. As you said, however, it's a necessary evil. Exactly because you know how bad people can be and how much power some of those bad people may have over your life should you be alert and informed. If I know I'm sooner or later getting whacked on the head, I want to keep my eyes open - who knows, maybe if I react in time I might dodge it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I often check out the BBC news on Sky but it doesn't seem to make much difference, unfortunately, but maybe the website is less dramatic.

Those quirky titbit stories can be just as annoying sometimes though, don't you find? Three or four stories about death, rape and murder and a follow up story about a frog who has made friends with a cat or something! God it's all so stupid. The local papers and stations or worst for stuff like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ12ztFO8bU&feature=related

That's just depressing and irritating at the same time. It's funny but it's not. (And who's the geek with the annotations?)

[crystalmoonshin]

My day feels incomplete without me reading the newspaper, in print form, of course.

[Stargazer86]

Msnbc.com mostly

[blazeofglory]

I source my news from various sources, some from the Internet, some from local newspapers and some from radio and TV news channels or FM and it is an addiction we cannot do away under no circumstances

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hmm, I think whoever voted for "blissful ignorance" is the happiest (and perhaps wisest) of us all. I try to limit my news to no more than a couple of minutes a day, it's the maximum I can achieve without falling into despair.

Here's a little Tom Hodgkinson on the matter from the book How to be Free:


The veritable stream of scare stories in the newspapers about rising crime makes us feel anxious. Newspapers set out to provide entertainment and gossip, stories that feed our need for shock and horror. They do it well. Flick though the Daily Mail on any given day and you'll find the nine out of ten stories are negative and unsettling. Every radio bulletin and every TV news show, every newspaper and many of our daily conversations drive home the same message: worry, worry, worry. It's a dangerous world out there, filled with crazy, suicidal, bomb-hurling terrorists and murders and thieves and rotters and natural disasters.


But if we bother to investigate these myths for a few seconds, they soon reveal themselves to be mere convenient fictions. According to the brilliant anxiety analyst Brian Dean the truth is that crime rates have remained fairly constant fro the last 150 years. Dean maintains that our fear of crime is vastly out of proportion to the reality. The truth is that we face far more danger from auto-mobile accidents and heart disease than crime. Motor accidents kill ten people a day in the UK, and heart disease hundreds, but no one talks about banning cars or criminalizing the stress that puts a strain on the heart. The propaganda of insecurity, for Dean, is at the root of the problem. "Our beliefs programme our realities. If we believe that the universe is fundamentally unsafe, then we're going to experience perpetual anxiety - which isn't a good way to operate our brains."


Some of us may find a sort of pleasure in anxiety and its opposites, just as some enjoy swinging form white to brown, crack to heroine, from the highs to the lows. I recently sat next to a genial man in his sixties in the dining car of a train. He asked if I wanted to have a look at his Evening Standard. I said, no, that the newspapers made me feel anxious by parading a load of problems which I am utterly powerless to do anything about. He replied: "Oh, I rather like feeling anxious,. Then I have a drink!"


Real ale is compost for the soul. And this is also why it is important to read decent stuff. Put quality materials into your mind, quality ingredients. A diet of good writing, without crappy newspapers and magazines, which just make the anxiety worse, will produce quality thoughts and a self-sufficient, resourceful person. Feed your mind. [...] Replace TV with friends, and newspapers with books.

The simple wisdom of Tom Hodgkinson there.

[Mr Endon]

Thanks for sharing that, a very insightful little piece of writing! I must admit I find Brian Dean's reasoning rather disingenuous in places, and the final suggestion that one should live without news sounds pleasant but is really quite dangerous (if taken literally) for democracy's notion of citizenship. On the whole, however, I agree with the man, and especially with the first quotation, that one's really spot on.

Also, we must distinguish the likes of Metro Lite from a decent newspaper. I flicked through a Metro (can't remember its weight) a few days ago and didn't find one text I could call 'news'.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes old Tom is quite fun, he does later confess that he reads on average one paper a week so he is not being quite so literal, but that is still a lot of time he has spared up and a lot of anxiety lifted to boot.

As I said earlier though, I think that there is as much harm in the rubbish papers as there is with the more quality, but politically driven, high-end ones. It is all well and good reading about the latest drivel, but in doing so a large section of the population is therefore all but blind to the real issues happening in society.

Take the worst newspaper in the UK, The Sun:eek: it is the lowest end type of rag, but it gets more readers than any other paper, anywhere between 5-7 million a day. That perhaps says more about society than the paper itself does, but that's a lot of nonsense covering up other issues (or so the conspiracy theorists would argue).

But of course, perhaps another reason for not reading the newspapers is that they are full of that other type evil, the real evil: advertisements!

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Mr Endon;765178] I must admit I find Brian Dean's reasoning rather disingenuous in places, QUOTE]

I am wondering why?

[Mr Endon]

As I said earlier though, I think that there is as much harm in the rubbish papers as there is with the more quality, but politically driven, high-end ones. It is all well and good reading about the latest drivel, but in doing so a large section of the population is therefore all but blind to the real issues happening in society.

I completely agree with the second sentence, but can't see how it follows from the first, with which I take issue. Unless you mean quality papers that are driven by an orthodox political ideology, in which case I agree. But look at papers like The Guardian and The Times. One left, the other right, so sure, maybe they could be more partial, but you can't say they do 'as much harm' as does, I don't know, reading The Sun!


Take the worst newspaper in the UK, The Sun:eek: it is the lowest end type of rag, but it gets more readers than any other paper, anywhere between 5-7 million a day. That perhaps says more about society than the paper itself does, but that's a lot of nonsense covering up other issues (or so the conspiracy theorists would argue).

Hahaha I know, it's absolutely dreadful. I blame its success on page 3 :)


But of course, perhaps another reason for not reading the newspapers is that they are full of that other type evil, the real evil: advertisements!

Ah, I feel your pain. It's getting harder and harder to hide from them. In a way they're a blessing because they bring down the product's prices (from the consumer perspective, of course). On the other hand I too am not particularly fond of being brainwashed and having my innocence defiled by the depiction of a gorgeous women flirting with a man wearing a Pokemon tie. Then I have to face all those bewildered questions my co-workers ask me the following day and I don't really know how to answer them!


I am wondering why?

Oh, it's just with this bit:


The truth is that we face far more danger from auto-mobile accidents and heart disease than crime. Motor accidents kill ten people a day in the UK, and heart disease hundreds, but no one talks about banning cars or criminalizing the stress that puts a strain on the heart.

Come on. Seriously? 'no one talks about banning cars or criminalizing the stress that puts a strain on the heart': this is surely some sort of fallacy. Of course no one talks about doing that. What people do to curb auto-mobile accidents are awareness campaigns of all sorts, or besides from not reading newspapers does he not read outdoors as well? And of course there can be no 'criminalization of stress', but again, awareness campaigns. Crimes are the only thing you can't try and curb with them, really. You can't say, 'Please don't kill. Imagine it were you at the other end of the knife. Come on, be nice'.

And of course people worry more about crimes than car accidents, because though you can sort of avoid having an accident by driving safely or heart attacks by going cold turkey on salt crimes are random and deliberate, and, what is worse, almost completely inevitable.

I don't say we should live in perpetual fear, and I think what he says about that is spot on. I just think that his argument of comparing crime mortality with that of car accidents or cardiovascular diseases is comparing apples with oranges and thus disingenuous.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Come on. Seriously? 'no one talks about banning cars or criminalizing the stress that puts a strain on the heart': this is surely some sort of fallacy. Of course no one talks about doing that. What people do to curb auto-mobile accidents are awareness campaigns of all sorts, or besides from not reading newspapers does he not read outdoors as well? And of course there can be no 'criminalization of stress', but again, awareness campaigns. Crimes are the only thing you can't try and curb with them, really. You can't say, 'Please don't kill. Imagine it were you at the other end of the knife. Come on, be nice'.

And of course people worry more about crimes than car accidents, because though you can sort of avoid having an accident by driving safely or heart attacks by going cold turkey on salt crimes are random and deliberate, and, what is worse, almost completely inevitable.

I don't say we should live in perpetual fear, and I think what he says about that is spot on. I just think that his argument of comparing crime mortality with that of car accidents or cardiovascular diseases is comparing apples with oranges and thus disingenuous.

Yes he bends reasoning and takes liberties, as does Hodgkinson at times, Hodgkinson also uses plenty of rhetoric (in the rest of his book) in order to fit his 'manifesto' for a want for a better word, but still there is a grain of truth in this statement from Dean nevertheless. There is a grain of truth in the sense that the news has to consist of "stories" as opposed to just relaying events. It is not news that ten people die in car accidents everyday, it is not fresh, it is not a "story", it would make for boring and repetitive broadcasting. This is the same thing for the people dying of heart disease or the fact that 500 children die of aids everyday in Africa, this is not a story, it is boring.

Do you remember the start of the Iraq war 2? At first it was really exciting stuff, shock and awe and all that, explosions everywhere, everyday reports showing the display of power and devastation, people were gripped. But then after a few days people got bored with it. I remember them saying as such, "I'm getting fed up with all this Iraq stuff" etc, like it was a bad film, repetitive and badly directed. So newscasters starting changing the story, getting the personal angle, the "inside story" the human side and the film got better and more exciting for a while, until they had to twist it again..and again in order to keep up the ratings. Jesus!

What news thrives off is fresh ways to twist the same old anxiety ridden and fear inducing stories, new angles of despair - (I fear I am beginning to sound like Hodgkinson, but you get the picture).

Take the latest story and the very first thing I woke up to this morning courtesy of my wife's horrible radio station, the news that the Lockerbie bomber has received a hero's welcome back home in Libya. Now that is a great story for inducing frustration and anxiety, it really gets under the skin -great journalism!

Now, as I am quite a sensitive sort of person sometimes the frustration has in some way affected my day and there is not a damn thing I can do about it either way, which begs the question: would I have been better not listening to the news today? I know that the world is a mess and that mankind is selfish and that ghastly things happen all the time, so do I need to remind myself of this by listening to the news? Besides you can get all the knowledge you need to know about human nature from reading Shakespeare, so why bother with the news?

[Mr Endon]

Yes he bends reasoning and takes liberties, as does Hodgkinson at times, Hodgkinson also uses plenty of rhetoric (in the rest of his book) in order to fit his 'manifesto' for a want for a better word, but still there is a grain of truth in this statement from Dean nevertheless. There is a grain of truth in the sense that the news has to consist of "stories" as opposed to just relaying events. It is not news that ten people die in car accidents everyday, it is not fresh, it is not a "story", it would make for boring and repetitive broadcasting. This is the same thing for the people dying of heart disease or the fact that 500 children die of aids everyday in Africa, this is not a story, it is boring.

Absolutely. And I'm not saying he is wrong or anything, I just take issue with some of his arguments, but he and I - and you - well, we are all on the same side here. And that's a particularly apt word there: 'stories', not news. That's the word I was looking for. Stories. Because if you take the date from the first page of say Metro or The Sun or whathaveyou you can't situate it anywhere in time within 5 years, and that says a lot about the 'news' they 'report'.


Take the latest story and the very first thing I woke up to this morning courtesy of my wife's horrible radio station, the news that the Lockerbie bomber has received a hero's welcome back home in Libya. Now that is a great story for inducing frustration and anxiety, it really gets under the skin -great journalism!

Oh, the Lockerbie bomber! I actually have something to say about that: I read the first page of The Guardian. Instead of giving the news of his release, they have this huge text by a relative of one of the tragic deaths where he writes about how he felt when he read the news.

What's the point of having this in the first page? I mean, how is this news? Sure they could have it in there, in the opinion section, but first page? Really? That's what shocks me about British newspapers. They are held with such a regard in Portugal, yet there's no distancing, they're out to play with people's emotions, and screw the news! In the Portuguese newspapers I read (Expresso, DN) they stick to the facts, there's no toying of emotions like that. Of course there's always a slant, but not the kind of the visceral, in-your-face approach. That sort of manipulation really gets to me.

And let's not even talk about the Baby P business.


Now, as I am quite a sensitive sort of person sometimes the frustration has in some way affected my day and there is not a damn thing I can do about it either way, which begs the question: would I have been better not listening to the news today? I know that the world is a mess and that mankind is selfish and that ghastly things happen all the time, so do I need to remind myself of this by listening to the news? Besides you can get all the knowledge you need to know about human nature from reading Shakespeare, so why bother with the news?

Sure, as a man of letters I understand the appeal of the timelessness of (seeming) apolitical literature. The problem is that Shakespeare doesn't tell you about how successful the Western troops are being in Afghanistan, or even if they're doing any good at all there, and sort of appraisal is vital for me to decide whether I submit my vote to party X or Y.

[wessexgirl]

Take the worst newspaper in the UK, The Sun:eek: it is the lowest end type of rag, but it gets more readers than any other paper, anywhere between 5-7 million a day. That perhaps says more about society than the paper itself does, but that's a lot of nonsense covering up other issues (or so the conspiracy theorists would argue).



I agree that The Sun is appalling, but I don't think it is the worst, it ties with The Daily Mail for that coveted honour :rolleyes:. If ever a "newspaper" was designed to scare the c&*! out of the public, and play up to the worst type of anxiety and phobias a nation can display, that's it. It's a terrible excuse for a newspaper, and I wouldn't give either of them house room, (even in the smallest room if you get my drift).

The choice of newspapers for our Library (where I used to work) used to cause so much trouble, with certain members of the Public insisting we should buy the tabloids. They didn't succeed. I am in the position now where I can choose what we have, but unfortunately I have cancelled them for the foreseeable future due to budget cuts. One part of me is not happy, as I think we should have them, as an information centre etc. but on the other hand, they were often put into the recycling unread. Think of all that waste of money and paper etc. Anyone wanting news will have to be pointed towards websites. After all, they can get the papers online. It was only a few teachers, (I can count them on one hand) who ever read them, and they will have to buy their own for now if they really miss them. I still feel mean though, but there are other priorities, like books .

[LitNetIsGreat]

Absolutely. And I'm not saying he is wrong or anything, I just take issue with some of his arguments, but he and I - and you - well, we are all on the same side here. And that's a particularly apt word there: 'stories', not news. That's the word I was looking for. Stories. Because if you take the date from the first page of say Metro or The Sun or whathaveyou you can't situate it anywhere in time within 5 years, and that says a lot about the 'news' they 'report'.

Yes I can see that we agree in general, certainly Dean and Hodgkinson are rhetorical, perhaps it had just rubbed off from reading the papers? Yes, I do think that "stories" are the one thing to keep in mind, here because that is what they are, it is easy to take them as events that are relayed but it is not so innocent as that.


Oh, the Lockerbie bomber! I actually have something to say about that: I read the first page of The Guardian. Instead of giving the news of his release, they have this huge text by a relative of one of the tragic deaths where he writes about how he felt when he read the news.

What's the point of having this in the first page? I mean, how is this news? Sure they could have it in there, in the opinion section, but first page? Really? That's what shocks me about British newspapers. They are held with such a regard in Portugal, yet there's no distancing, they're out to play with people's emotions, and screw the news! In the Portuguese newspapers I read (Expresso, DN) they stick to the facts, there's no toying of emotions like that. Of course there's always a slant, but not the kind of the visceral, in-your-face approach. That sort of manipulation really gets to me.

Yes that is what I think I meant earlier about the "bad" papers being just as bad as the "good". The Guardian and The Times both with political slants to the left and right respectively, are perhaps the best papers, or most regarded papers in the UK, yet they still play these little games. I have not read The Guardian but it looks like they are going with the human angle story there. Like you say, this sort of reaction is not news at all, it is just there to raise anxiety and to give the situation a different slant, cutting straight to the emotional aspect of the piece, its not news, just a story and I can read better stories elsewhere in fiction. It may be true that in Portugal you have better papers than that, but I'm stuck with the British press and all their journalistic fiction.



And let's not even talk about the Baby P business.

Indeed, the media loved that one, lots of outrage potential.


Sure, as a man of letters I understand the appeal of the timelessness of (seeming) apolitical literature. The problem is that Shakespeare doesn't tell you about how successful the Western troops are being in Afghanistan, or even if they're doing any good at all there, and sort of appraisal is vital for me to decide whether I submit my vote to party X or Y.

Well let's not get into politics for obvious reasons, but in order to make that decision of X or Y, and I am by no way saying that there might be little difference between X and Y:redface:, you have to try and cut through the stories, to get the "reality". Though the "reality" is going to be very difficult to find with all that smoke in the way, it does bring into the discussion the nature of the real in a postmodern sense I think.


I agree that The Sun is appalling, but I don't think it is the worst, it ties with The Daily Mail for that coveted honour :rolleyes:. If ever a "newspaper" was designed to scare the c&*! out of the public, and play up to the worst type of anxiety and phobias a nation can display, that's it. It's a terrible excuse for a newspaper, and I wouldn't give either of them house room, (even in the smallest room if you get my drift).

The choice of newspapers for our Library (where I used to work) used to cause so much trouble, with certain members of the Public insisting we should buy the tabloids. They didn't succeed. I am in the position now where I can choose what we have, but unfortunately I have cancelled them for the foreseeable future due to budget cuts. One part of me is not happy, as I think we should have them, as an information centre etc. but on the other hand, they were often put into the recycling unread. Think of all that waste of money and paper etc. Anyone wanting news will have to be pointed towards websites. After all, they can get the papers online. It was only a few teachers, (I can count them on one hand) who ever read them, and they will have to buy their own for now if they really miss them. I still feel mean though, but there are other priorities, like books .

:lol: Oh, yes that is another good paper, I think I quoted Hodgkinson on The Daily Mail. I'm not saying that newspapers aren't useful, just that I try to keep my intake of the stuff down to an absolute minimum, because it just tends to frustrate.

Books certainly have more longevity than papers anyway, and for me that is money better spent.

Edit: though I would still side with The Sun as the worst paper, check out some of the headlines today:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/

"Boob Camp"
"Baby P Killer: I'm a good dad"
"Is a Degree in Posh and Becks Worth 20K in debt?" [Well I think so.]
"Jacko: Gay Lover Lost a Soul Mate"

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
Which is your primary source for news?

Mine is the internet. I get my Portuguese news from the 'Expresso' website and European news from 'presseurop'. I also read in paper, but avoid to because it's expensive and not very environmental friendly. I'm not a radio person at all, but I'm thinking of starting to listen to 'BBC Radio 4', a very knowledgeable person recommended it to me.

Where do you get your news? And try to pitch it to me, I'm on the lookout for good reliable mediums :)