And I prefer NPR vastly to any of the Christian stations here. In fact, I change the channel as soon as voices come on the Christian station because I simply can’t handle the inanity. Yes, NPR tends quite liberal, but at least they talk about things I care about, and they usually present at least logical (if, IMO, wrong) arguments and opinions. They make me think. Were I to indict the conservative media I’m familiar with around here, the counts would be as follows:

1. They are not terribly insightful in the topics or stories they choose to highlight. God cares about the poor and downtrodden, which is a significant portion of our population, and an even more significant portion of society’s problems. Yet I cannot remember the last time I heard conservative radio cover a story about life in the projects, subsidized housing, or food stamps. I’m sure it’s happened, but in general they’ve forfeited the conversation on those topics to liberals.

2. They present the issue as though it is completely one-sided and don’t even pretend to have a dialog about it. They are so overt with value-laden terms and characterizations that their news scripts sound like a bad freshman English “persuasive paper.” I know they don’t mean it personally, but it’s hard not to feel insulted when I feel like I’m being told what to think. Further, I think encouraging people to think in those terms is ultimately damaging. When they talk about “the issues” with those of other persuasions, their reactions to alternative viewpoints will tend to be “Well that’s just dumb.” Not very persuasive, IMHO.

I accede to your distaste of the hijacking of true liberalism. Still, “Liberalz” seems a bit more P. Diddy than T. Kennedy. Even “neo-liberalism” implies a resemblance between primitive liberalism and its modern perversion. We’ll think of something.

The best daily is The Financial Times (30 articles per month after free registration)
The best weekly is The Economist (currently free but I believe it’s currently intended only as a one-year promotion)
A smattering of the sources Paul mentions for the rest. And blogs, of course.

TV news has its advantages for conveying certain stories, but moving images persuade mostly through emotion rather than logic.

I would also stress that anyone interesting in reading the news in the hopes of discovering truth rather than merely confirming his priors should seek to view news from geographically diverse agencies. It’s one thing to talk about the different editorial stances of the WSJ and NYT and quite another to compare the WSJ or NYT to Der Spiegel or Le Monde—or for that matter Al Jazeera.

Also Paul, in the interest of being more cosmopolitan, I suggest that instead of using the term “liberals” to describe those on the American left you use “liberalz.” My international sensibility chafes when good ol’ fashioned liberalism is perverted by its American application–let’s not forget that most American liberalz are quite wary of most economic liberalisation, for example.

Yes, I am a suscriber to The Economist and The Wall Street Journal. I typically check cnn.com, drudgereport.com, slate.com, and bbcnews.com every day to keep up. Like my babe I also listen to NPR on the way to and from work each day. Seriously, talk radio drives me nuts even, no especially, when I agree with the conservative ideologues.

Oh, and I’ve come to enjoy Christianity Today more and more. Many of their articles/editorials are insightful even when I don’t agree.

Another analogy for ya…magazines…WORLD vs TIME. The answer is no, wrong comparison. Get The Economist.

So I guess my sympathies would lie with Austin in saying maybe it’s best to avoid network news altogether.

Alas, news seems to conform, rather than inform, these days.

Perhaps Anna Nicole is fluff, but I’d rather eat Marshmallow Fluff than anything I’d find in a trash can……. (not a great analogy, but I know you love analogies, so I had to give you one!).