I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.

I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl5nnnYACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFFQgf/Wd/67GaYp/s/5FtSCJl83OCTllraWmP6piWqk4qRe9NQnHswlNs8jWch
CtGPGLndzYGyR27n/mCiHcINNFPgLqfOtryU8Hgm7MAh9M9sEwFZpvFnOaM3k/IF
zaAWrJAV631vHFpWiLrM93EzCBHakHJvFyjtqv3fBH+rfjaCokGo8y65lmYSIqCD
s5gNd7lBjnMQ33jX6aH5W6b4mJbX4BHmw8KKwg5M6kbYrSrDIhrN1r368Wcu711X
qnKAiKD/RP0IHRMV7b/HUGBgoXt1Lo+y8+lknW41gau3JAKNPCz/UFGGyIt+qDXO
Qr1Bxgc82+hRTTrOlzkZbN27ftn3LA==
=dibe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote

|I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
| But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.
| | I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
| Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?
|

You mean that you only want to watch videos of war
action? I don't allow videos to load, so I don't know how
much you'd like my news choices. But in terms of actually
getting info, I like dailymail, The Guardian, and BBC. (All
British, but American news just isn't.)

Sometimes I look at NYTimes and WashPo, but they mostly
just have whitewashed Washington politics and business from
the corporate point of view. I like alternet and Atlantic for
more in-depth, less time-critical stories.

For constant reporting I guess CNN and Fox are the standards.
I never look at either.

But there is one thing that might fit the bill for you:

https://www.france24.com/en/

I get this on over-the-air TV, not online. It seems to be
all news, footage, interviews. At least it is when I look at it.
It's got the intelligence of non-American news. And it
has a constant bar along the bottom with the latest
headlines. 15 minutes of that tells me all the latest.

A look at the online version... it seems to be an offering
of a selection of videos with connected stories. So that
might be what you want.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 04:46:28 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:
>
> I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
> But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.
>
> I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
> Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?

https://www.cnn.com/

is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
tries to be unbiased.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 01-03-2022 21:40 Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> https://www.cnn.com/
>
> is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
> tries to be unbiased.

Speaking of bias, take a look at this ranking of hundreds of news outlets.
https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc

I noticed cnn is defenitely left leaning and not tops in credebility.
But it was not too far left and not too far down on the credebility scale.

Not like salon and the nyt and the guardian and huffpost at the left bias.
Nor like fox and the nypost and the boston herald at the right bias.

AP & BBC seemed at the pinnicle of credebility with lack of political bias.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 22:35:28 +0530, mike <this@address.is.invalid>
wrote:

>On 01-03-2022 21:40 Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> https://www.cnn.com/
>>
>> is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
>> tries to be unbiased.
>
>Speaking of bias, take a look at this ranking of hundreds of news outlets.
>https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc

A very cluttered graph. Hard to read.

On 3/1/2022 11:08 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc
>
> A very cluttered graph. Hard to read.

They say that it's just one page out of a much large presentation.

But I can help you.
Tell me what news organization do you like to read most?
If they are on there, I can easily find their logo for you.
I'll let you know from that if they're left or center or right biased.

On 3/1/22 12:08, this is what Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 22:35:28 +0530, mike <this@address.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01-03-2022 21:40 Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/
>>>
>>> is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
>>> tries to be unbiased.
>>
>> Speaking of bias, take a look at this ranking of hundreds of news outlets.
>> https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc
>
>
>
> A very cluttered graph. Hard to read.
+1 But I can find a few. And Yes, Fox news is not the one to watch.
PBS doesn't surprise me.

On 2022-03-01 12:31 p.m., Big Al wrote:
> On 3/1/22 12:08, this is what Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 22:35:28 +0530, mike <this@address.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01-03-2022 21:40 Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/
>>>>
>>>> is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
>>>> tries to be unbiased.
>>>
>>> Speaking of bias, take a look at this ranking of hundreds of news
>>> outlets.
>>> https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc
>>
>>
>>
>> A very cluttered graph. Hard to read.
> +1  But I can find a few.   And Yes, Fox news is not the one to watch.
> PBS doesn't surprise me.

Fox news is utter shit!

Rene

"Big Al" <Bears@invalid.com> wrote

| > A very cluttered graph. Hard to read.
| +1 But I can find a few. And Yes, Fox news is not the one to watch.
| PBS doesn't surprise me.

It surprises me. I'd say I lean left but don't like dogma on
either side. I see PBS as having degenerated into little more
than wokist propaganda. Their News Hour is a combination of
mostly wokist drivel and DC politics. All of February was filled
with black history programming. March will probably be filled
with suffragette history and breast cancer research news.
I think gay month is in June or some such. Since when is it
public service programming to advertise identity politics?

I think these ratings, though, are faulty to begin with. They're
equating bias with opinion, as though opinion has to be right
or left. PBS reports lots of facts and analysis, but they choose
which facts matter. They'll report big on police violence against
blacks, for example, but don't look for them to report on how the
BLM founders are being investigated for a missing $60 million and
how one of them, Patrice Cullors, owns 3 houses worth $4 million.

Or they might do a story about a woman who's helping other
women get trained for high-level white collar jobs. That sounds
like a respectable thing to do. But choosing that as news makes
numerous assertions about the urgency of oppression against
women, white collar jobs being superior, etc. When Al Franken was
accused of touching someone, where was the story about Kirsten
Gillibrand throwing him to the MeToo dogs in order to furrther her
own presidential ambitions?

It may technically be pure news, but the presentation
makes it left-wing propaganda. Just as it would be right wing
propaganda if Fox News reports on ranchers going broke because
the EPA won't let them kill wolves. It could be all fact, but the
act of making it news and eliciting sympathy for the ranchers
makes it propaganda.

Similarly, NYTimes is not very leftie, but they won't report news
unfavorable to big business. Again, it's not a case of biased opinions.
It's a case of choosing what actually is news. And the very fact that
they're mainstream means they can't report on anything controversial.
WashPo is well regarded, but for them news is mostly just DC gossip.

These companies are telling the pubic what to think through
their choice of what constitutes news, whether it's left, right,
or middle. The major TV networks are even worse, with the
likes of Norah O'Donnell telling us how we should feel about events.
They don't tell us about military facts in Ukraine or forest fire
facts in CA so much. They spend much more time telling us about
a family in each place, turning the story into a soap opera with
prepackaged value judgements. So they may not be left-right biased,
but what value does newsertainment really have in a democracy?

On 3/1/2022 10:10 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 04:46:28 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:
>>
>> I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
>> But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.
>>
>> I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
>> Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?
>
> https://www.cnn.com/
>
> is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
> tries to be unbiased.

Now that MotherZucker is gone, perhaps they can sever the DNC ties.

I suggest United Spot. They report the news the most reliably.

<https://www.youtube.com/c/TheUnitedSpot>

On 3/1/2022 11:42 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 2022-03-01 12:31 p.m., Big Al wrote:
>> On 3/1/22 12:08, this is what Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 22:35:28 +0530, mike <this@address.is.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01-03-2022 21:40 Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
>>>>> tries to be unbiased.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of bias, take a look at this ranking of hundreds of news
>>>> outlets.
>>>> https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A very cluttered graph. Hard to read.
>> +1  But I can find a few.   And Yes, Fox news is not the one to watch.
>> PBS doesn't surprise me.
>
>
> Fox news is utter shit!
>
> Rene
>
Geez. Calm down.

"Rene Lamontagne" <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:j87b8eFo0leU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 2022-03-01 12:31 p.m., Big Al wrote:
>> On 3/1/22 12:08, this is what Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 22:35:28 +0530, mike <this@address.is.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01-03-2022 21:40 Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> is the traditional choice. I won't say it's best, but at least it
>>>>> tries to be unbiased.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of bias, take a look at this ranking of hundreds of news
>>>> outlets.
>>>> https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A very cluttered graph. Hard to read.
>> +1 But I can find a few. And Yes, Fox news is not the one to watch.
>> PBS doesn't surprise me.
>
>
> Fox news is utter shit!
>

That must be a technical term. I've not seen it anywhere other than here.

--
Regards
wasbit

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 08:22:11, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>
>"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
>
>|I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
>| But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.
>|
>| I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
>| Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?
>|
>
> You mean that you only want to watch videos of war
>action? I don't allow videos to load, so I don't know how
>much you'd like my news choices. But in terms of actually
>getting info, I like dailymail, The Guardian, and BBC. (All
>British, but American news just isn't.)

As a Brit, I'm flattered. Of the three you've chosen: The Grauniad
(so-called because it used to be famous for its misprints) is regarded
here as somewhat left-wing, or rather catering to a liberal elite
("liberal" in UK is _not_ the insult it seems to be in US), but if that
is taken into account, respected. The mail _does_ sometimes - maybe
often - get stories others don't, but it _does_ have an outlook -
humorously shown by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI . The
BBC is thought - pretty strongly! - by both left and right to favour the
other, which I think means they're probably about right! They tend to be
a little more critical of whichever government is in power, which is as
it should be as such government _has_ more power. By its nature as an
about-a-century-old institution it tends to be _slightly_ old-fashioned
at times, though far from strongly or always. (I'm not sure how much of
its output you have to pay for in the USA; it's free here.)
>
> Sometimes I look at NYTimes and WashPo, but they mostly
>just have whitewashed Washington politics and business from
>the corporate point of view. I like alternet and Atlantic for

All news media based in the same towns/cities as government (or
financial) centres has a _tendency_ to cover politics (or business, but
less so except specialist channels) excessively. (That's _part_ of the
reason a lot of the BBC moved out of London.)

>more in-depth, less time-critical stories.
>
> For constant reporting I guess CNN and Fox are the standards.
>I never look at either.

I've _heard_ that Fox is very Trump/right biased. Never having seen it,
I can't comment.
>
> But there is one thing that might fit the bill for you:
>
>https://www.france24.com/en/
>
> I get this on over-the-air TV, not online. It seems to be
>all news, footage, interviews. At least it is when I look at it.
>It's got the intelligence of non-American news. And it

Getting news from outside your own country is always good. (BBC and Sky
- the main two I generally dip into - do often, sadly, get
Britain-obsessed [though not at the moment!].)

>has a constant bar along the bottom with the latest
>headlines. 15 minutes of that tells me all the latest.
>
> A look at the online version... it seems to be an offering
>of a selection of videos with connected stories. So that
>might be what you want.
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
writer (1864-1910)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 14:53:23, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>or middle. The major TV networks are even worse, with the
>likes of Norah O'Donnell telling us how we should feel about events.
>They don't tell us about military facts in Ukraine or forest fire
>facts in CA so much. They spend much more time telling us about
>a family in each place, turning the story into a soap opera with
>prepackaged value judgements. So they may not be left-right biased,
>but what value does newsertainment really have in a democracy?
>
Yes, that really irritates me: not so much that giving me intimate
details of specific individual's or family's problems makes me
uncomfortable (it does, but maybe I _should_ be made uncomfortable) -
but that _too much_ of the time allocated to a report concentrates on
it, at the expense of giving more _information_.
>
Another thing that bugs me is what I call monostoryism: do you get that,
where some story grips the media (_all_ channels) to the exclusion of
all else, such that what else is happening in the world (or even the
country!) hardly gets a look-in? It seems to happen here with almost
anything to do with the Royals, or the misbehaviour of a politician (of
_any_ party). [Doesn't seem to be happening much at the moment, but I
wish it hadn't been such events that made it happen.]
>
Weird: I've just watched the main 6pm news on the BBC, and - like many
bulletins recently - the _entire programme_ (including cutting to
reports from elsewhere) was _presented_ from Kiev/Kyiv. I'm not sure why
they are doing that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
writer (1864-1910)

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 14:53:23, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>> or middle. The major TV networks are even worse, with the
>> likes of Norah O'Donnell telling us how we should feel about events.
>> They don't tell us about military facts in Ukraine or forest fire
>> facts in CA so much. They spend much more time telling us about
>> a family in each place, turning the story into a soap opera with
>> prepackaged value judgements. So they may not be left-right biased,
>> but what value does newsertainment really have in a democracy?
>>
> Yes, that really irritates me: not so much that giving me intimate
> details of specific individual's or family's problems makes me
> uncomfortable (it does, but maybe I _should_ be made uncomfortable) -
> but that _too much_ of the time allocated to a report concentrates on
> it, at the expense of giving more _information_.

Journalism has always been about stories. They're presenting the situation
through a story. I also love facts but a news article simply about facts is
pretty dull.

> Weird: I've just watched the main 6pm news on the BBC, and - like many
> bulletins recently - the _entire programme_ (including cutting to
> reports from elsewhere) was _presented_ from Kiev/Kyiv. I'm not sure why
> they are doing that.

It is weird isn't it? I can understand presenting live from the location of
significant events like elections or the olympics opening ceremony etc. Not
so sure about from the middle of a war zone. Definitely have your
correspondents there, but the whole news program? nah.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 19:12:35, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 14:53:23, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> []
>>> or middle. The major TV networks are even worse, with the
>>> likes of Norah O'Donnell telling us how we should feel about events.
>>> They don't tell us about military facts in Ukraine or forest fire
>>> facts in CA so much. They spend much more time telling us about
>>> a family in each place, turning the story into a soap opera with
>>> prepackaged value judgements. So they may not be left-right biased,
>>> but what value does newsertainment really have in a democracy?
>>>
>> Yes, that really irritates me: not so much that giving me intimate
>> details of specific individual's or family's problems makes me
>> uncomfortable (it does, but maybe I _should_ be made uncomfortable) -
>> but that _too much_ of the time allocated to a report concentrates on
>> it, at the expense of giving more _information_.
>
>Journalism has always been about stories. They're presenting the situation
>through a story. I also love facts but a news article simply about facts is
>pretty dull.

Yes, but going too far the other way isn't good either. (If you're in
UK, do you remember Damien in "Drop the dead donkey"?)
>
>> Weird: I've just watched the main 6pm news on the BBC, and - like many
>> bulletins recently - the _entire programme_ (including cutting to
>> reports from elsewhere) was _presented_ from Kiev/Kyiv. I'm not sure why
>> they are doing that.
>
>It is weird isn't it? I can understand presenting live from the location of
>significant events like elections or the olympics opening ceremony etc. Not

Agreed.

>so sure about from the middle of a war zone. Definitely have your
>correspondents there, but the whole news program? nah.
>
Indeed.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everybody has the right to their own personal opinions. But nobody has a
right to their own personal facts. The world just doesn't work that way.
--scott (Dorsey, 2021-10-10)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| The mail _does_ sometimes - maybe
| often - get stories others don't, but it _does_ have an outlook -

I've found them very informative. But they like drama.
The headline says "Alien footprints found." The story
says archaeologists have found footprint fossils that
they can't identify.

| I've _heard_ that Fox is very Trump/right biased. Never having seen it,
| I can't comment.

I've never seen them, either, because that's only on cable,
which I don't have. Fox network is broadcast, with no notable
angle. Fox News is a cable news station that's apparently very
skewed.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| >Journalism has always been about stories. They're presenting the
situation
| >through a story. I also love facts but a news article simply about facts
is
| >pretty dull.
| | Yes, but going too far the other way isn't good either.

I have no problem with facts. I don't need weathermen
telling me what to wear tomorrow or news anchors giving
me advice about how to drive in snow. Yesterday there
was a robbery nearby and we got interviews with cops
to tell us how to stay safe if we see a store being robbed.

If Walter Cronkite didn't do it, don't do it.

An increasing number of stories are now based on
available cellphone video, while online stories are built
around Twitter wars. There's no actual relevant story.

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 19:12:35, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 14:53:23, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> []
>>>> or middle. The major TV networks are even worse, with the
>>>> likes of Norah O'Donnell telling us how we should feel about events.
>>>> They don't tell us about military facts in Ukraine or forest fire
>>>> facts in CA so much. They spend much more time telling us about
>>>> a family in each place, turning the story into a soap opera with
>>>> prepackaged value judgements. So they may not be left-right biased,
>>>> but what value does newsertainment really have in a democracy?
>>>>
>>> Yes, that really irritates me: not so much that giving me intimate
>>> details of specific individual's or family's problems makes me
>>> uncomfortable (it does, but maybe I _should_ be made uncomfortable) -
>>> but that _too much_ of the time allocated to a report concentrates on
>>> it, at the expense of giving more _information_.
>>
>> Journalism has always been about stories. They're presenting the situation
>> through a story. I also love facts but a news article simply about facts is
>> pretty dull.
>
> Yes, but going too far the other way isn't good either. (If you're in
> UK, do you remember Damien in "Drop the dead donkey"?)
>>
>>> Weird: I've just watched the main 6pm news on the BBC, and - like many
>>> bulletins recently - the _entire programme_ (including cutting to
>>> reports from elsewhere) was _presented_ from Kiev/Kyiv. I'm not sure why
>>> they are doing that.
>>
>> It is weird isn't it? I can understand presenting live from the location of
>> significant events like elections or the olympics opening ceremony etc. Not
>
> Agreed.
>
>> so sure about from the middle of a war zone. Definitely have your
>> correspondents there, but the whole news program? nah.
>>
> Indeed.
>>
Almost all TV and Radio available on line. Depends on your location. One
example is I subscribe to Optonline/Cablevision and can easily use ABCny on
my iPad.
--
Zaidy036

In article <6ypOrE5Va7HiFw$u@a.a>, G6JPG@255soft.uk says...
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 08:22:11, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> >
> >"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
> >
> >|I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
> >| But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.
> >|
> >| I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
> >| Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?
> >|
> >
>
> As a Brit, I'm flattered. Of the three you've chosen: The Grauniad
> (so-called because it used to be famous for its misprints) is regarded
> here as somewhat left-wing, or rather catering to a liberal elite
> ("liberal" in UK is _not_ the insult it seems to be in US), but if that
> is taken into account, respected. The mail _does_ sometimes - maybe
> often - get stories others don't, but it _does_ have an outlook -
> humorously shown by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI . The
> BBC is thought - pretty strongly! - by both left and right to favour the
> other, which I think means they're probably about right! They tend to be
> a little more critical of whichever government is in power, which is as
> it should be as such government _has_ more power. By its nature as an
> about-a-century-old institution it tends to be _slightly_ old-fashioned
> at times, though far from strongly or always. (I'm not sure how much of
> its output you have to pay for in the USA; it's free here.)
> >
> > Sometimes I look at NYTimes and WashPo, but they mostly
> >just have whitewashed Washington politics and business from
> >the corporate point of view. I like alternet and Atlantic for
>
> All news media based in the same towns/cities as government (or
> financial) centres has a _tendency_ to cover politics (or business, but
> less so except specialist channels) excessively. (That's _part_ of the
> reason a lot of the BBC moved out of London.)
>
> >more in-depth, less time-critical stories.
> >
> > For constant reporting I guess CNN and Fox are the standards.
> >I never look at either.
>
> I've _heard_ that Fox is very Trump/right biased. Never having seen it,
> I can't comment.
> >
> > But there is one thing that might fit the bill for you:
> >
> >https://www.france24.com/en/
> >
> > I get this on over-the-air TV, not online. It seems to be
> >all news, footage, interviews. At least it is when I look at it.
> >It's got the intelligence of non-American news. And it
>
> Getting news from outside your own country is always good. (BBC and Sky
> - the main two I generally dip into - do often, sadly, get
> Britain-obsessed [though not at the moment!].)
>
> >has a constant bar along the bottom with the latest
> >headlines. 15 minutes of that tells me all the latest.
> >
> > A look at the online version... it seems to be an offering
> >of a selection of videos with connected stories. So that
> >might be what you want.
> >
> >

As interesting a thread as it is off-topic!

As a Brit, the BBC is my main source of trusted news, via Radio, TV (BBC News
Channel) website and the BBC News app (that last one a bit closer to being on-
topic). And I love the News Quiz (broadcast and podcast) which, while
consciously and honourably striving to maintain representation of a more
conservative outlook does tend to slip into leaning left. The corporation as a
whole is a bit like that, though it doesn't stray beyond reliability,
trustworthiness, and a reasonable balance. Nor do ITV (Independent Television)
News, or Sky (cable) news in my view. It's only in the decidedly right-leaning
printed press that you'll see overt conservative portrayals of current affairs.
The BBC News website's daily roundup of "The Papers" shows often hilarious
contrasts in accounts, particularly of our (scurrilous) current government and
to a lesser extent our (BiPolar) opposition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cpml2v678pxt

Other sources for serious and well-researched analysis include The Economist
(weekly) and the FT (Financial Times, daily). Both have several really
excellent free daily audio podcasts, and if you want more than the superficial,
I can't recommend them highly enough.

Once I retire, and get the house sorted out, I hope to subscribe to the three
major UK weeklies:
* The Spectator (conservative leaning, but sound reporting)
* The New Statesman (left-leaning, also with sound reporting)
* The Economist ('liberal' in the old sense - certainly not the US usage)
If it had to be only one, it would be The Economist, whose 'bias' must match my
own so exactly that I can't detect it. All the more reason for reading the
other two as well! Wikipedia has very good summaries of all three.

--

Phil, London

"Philip Herlihy" <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote

| * The Spectator (conservative leaning, but sound reporting)
| * The New Statesman (left-leaning, also with sound reporting)
| * The Economist ('liberal' in the old sense - certainly not the US usage)

It's hard to pin down the US usage. The US has always had
a split personality, I think, going between monarchy/plutocracy
and socialism. Our founders, after all, started as monarchists.
But over time we've developed radical wings. The conservatives
serve the rich, but the duty of noblesse oblige is gone. The
liberals seek social progress, but personal freedom has become
a fetish. Both sides have lost the core sense of ethics that used
to be part of their view, while "citizen" has been replaced by
"consumer".

Money has also got into it. Liberals are not so much union
workers now as they are feminists, abortion rights advocates,
etc. They're concerned mainly with equality for the upper
middle class. So liberals want affirmative action hiring for
female executives, and they want abortion rights guaranteed.
Progressive was sort of the new name for the real liberal --
the socialist-leaning idealist -- but
now the progressive is that one who wants gov't funding for
child care and special accommodations for LGBTQ. Once
again, it's mainy upper middle class concerns. The working
class only dream of a job to pay the bills.

A great example might be Ellen Pao, who worked at Kleiner
Perkins. She's a millionaire lawyer and venture capitalist. She
sued KP for racial and gender bias when she wasn't elevated
to full partner, suing for $7 million. Her 19 claims were all
thrown out by a jury. But she's now hailed as a warrior for
womens' rights. Not a woman's right to food and shelter. A
woman's right to make oodles of money. That's the new
progressivism: King of the Hill defined in terms of identity
politics.

It's so complicated. Since Reagan, 40+ years ago, we've
increasingly instituted corporate welfare, to the extent that
corporations almost act as gov't. For example, much of the
drug research is done with gov't grants, yet drug companies
can charge as they like. In Biden's address the other night, the
conservatives were predictably against Medicare (elder health
insurance) being allowed to bargain over prices. It's simple
corporate welfare. (And our major netwrok news here is
funded mainly by drug ads for happy pills, sleep aids, allergy
pills, acid reflux pills, and various other dubious treatments
for the maladies du jour.

Why has this been allowed? Companies no longer provide
retirement. Workers no longer have loyalty. Workers invest
for their own retirement. So everyone's in the stock market.
It started with tax rules allowing IRAs -- tax-free retirement
accounts. Even left wing extremists like AOC probably now
have a vested interest in the growth of Apple, Exxon, Bayer,
etc, at the same time they deride corporate welfare.
Even the most left of the left wing don't see a problem with
the Wall Street casino that feeds money to corporate CEOs.

Then there's the marketing and anti-marketing of terms.
Conservatives have worked to define "liberal" as God-hating,
selfish tax lovers.
But they've been attacked for decades. In the 1960s, Phil
Ochs, the popular activist folk singer, had a song titled "Love Me,
I'm a Liberal". In concert he defined a liberal as 10 degrees
left of center in good times and 10 degrees right of center when
something affects them personally.

https://genius.com/Phil-ochs-love-me-im-a-liberal-lyrics

On 2/28/2022 11:46 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
> But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.
>
> I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
> Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl5nnnYACgkQjhHd8xJ5
> ooFFQgf/Wd/67GaYp/s/5FtSCJl83OCTllraWmP6piWqk4qRe9NQnHswlNs8jWch
> CtGPGLndzYGyR27n/mCiHcINNFPgLqfOtryU8Hgm7MAh9M9sEwFZpvFnOaM3k/IF
> zaAWrJAV631vHFpWiLrM93EzCBHakHJvFyjtqv3fBH+rfjaCokGo8y65lmYSIqCD
> s5gNd7lBjnMQ33jX6aH5W6b4mJbX4BHmw8KKwg5M6kbYrSrDIhrN1r368Wcu711X
> qnKAiKD/RP0IHRMV7b/HUGBgoXt1Lo+y8+lknW41gau3JAKNPCz/UFGGyIt+qDXO
> Qr1Bxgc82+hRTTrOlzkZbN27ftn3LA==
> =dibe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

https://ustvgo.tv

On 3/3/2022 11:14 AM, al wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 11:46 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> I normally don't watch or read any news because it is boring.
>> But with Ukraine going on I am for the first time interested.
>>
>> I only have Internet on my cable. Nothing else.
>> Is there a good web site for streaming live news reporting?
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl5nnnYACgkQjhHd8xJ5
>> ooFFQgf/Wd/67GaYp/s/5FtSCJl83OCTllraWmP6piWqk4qRe9NQnHswlNs8jWch
>> CtGPGLndzYGyR27n/mCiHcINNFPgLqfOtryU8Hgm7MAh9M9sEwFZpvFnOaM3k/IF
>> zaAWrJAV631vHFpWiLrM93EzCBHakHJvFyjtqv3fBH+rfjaCokGo8y65lmYSIqCD
>> s5gNd7lBjnMQ33jX6aH5W6b4mJbX4BHmw8KKwg5M6kbYrSrDIhrN1r368Wcu711X
>> qnKAiKD/RP0IHRMV7b/HUGBgoXt1Lo+y8+lknW41gau3JAKNPCz/UFGGyIt+qDXO
>> Qr1Bxgc82+hRTTrOlzkZbN27ftn3LA==
>> =dibe
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
> https://ustvgo.tv

https://ufreetv.net

In article <svqkp3$sk6$1@dont-email.me>, mayayana@invalid.nospam says...
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote
>
> | * The Spectator (conservative leaning, but sound reporting)
> | * The New Statesman (left-leaning, also with sound reporting)
> | * The Economist ('liberal' in the old sense - certainly not the US usage)
>
> It's hard to pin down the US usage. The US has always had
> a split personality, I think, going between monarchy/plutocracy
> and socialism. Our founders, after all, started as monarchists.
> But over time we've developed radical wings. The conservatives
> serve the rich, but the duty of noblesse oblige is gone. The
> liberals seek social progress, but personal freedom has become
> a fetish. Both sides have lost the core sense of ethics that used
> to be part of their view, while "citizen" has been replaced by
> "consumer".
>
> Money has also got into it. Liberals are not so much union
> workers now as they are feminists, abortion rights advocates,
> etc. They're concerned mainly with equality for the upper
> middle class. So liberals want affirmative action hiring for
> female executives, and they want abortion rights guaranteed.
> Progressive was sort of the new name for the real liberal --
> the socialist-leaning idealist -- but
> now the progressive is that one who wants gov't funding for
> child care and special accommodations for LGBTQ. Once
> again, it's mainy upper middle class concerns. The working
> class only dream of a job to pay the bills.
>
> A great example might be Ellen Pao, who worked at Kleiner
> Perkins. She's a millionaire lawyer and venture capitalist. She
> sued KP for racial and gender bias when she wasn't elevated
> to full partner, suing for $7 million. Her 19 claims were all
> thrown out by a jury. But she's now hailed as a warrior for
> womens' rights. Not a woman's right to food and shelter. A
> woman's right to make oodles of money. That's the new
> progressivism: King of the Hill defined in terms of identity
> politics.
>
> It's so complicated. Since Reagan, 40+ years ago, we've
> increasingly instituted corporate welfare, to the extent that
> corporations almost act as gov't. For example, much of the
> drug research is done with gov't grants, yet drug companies
> can charge as they like. In Biden's address the other night, the
> conservatives were predictably against Medicare (elder health
> insurance) being allowed to bargain over prices. It's simple
> corporate welfare. (And our major netwrok news here is
> funded mainly by drug ads for happy pills, sleep aids, allergy
> pills, acid reflux pills, and various other dubious treatments
> for the maladies du jour.
>
> Why has this been allowed? Companies no longer provide
> retirement. Workers no longer have loyalty. Workers invest
> for their own retirement. So everyone's in the stock market.
> It started with tax rules allowing IRAs -- tax-free retirement
> accounts. Even left wing extremists like AOC probably now
> have a vested interest in the growth of Apple, Exxon, Bayer,
> etc, at the same time they deride corporate welfare.
> Even the most left of the left wing don't see a problem with
> the Wall Street casino that feeds money to corporate CEOs.
>
> Then there's the marketing and anti-marketing of terms.
> Conservatives have worked to define "liberal" as God-hating,
> selfish tax lovers.
> But they've been attacked for decades. In the 1960s, Phil
> Ochs, the popular activist folk singer, had a song titled "Love Me,
> I'm a Liberal". In concert he defined a liberal as 10 degrees
> left of center in good times and 10 degrees right of center when
> something affects them personally.
>
> https://genius.com/Phil-ochs-love-me-im-a-liberal-lyrics

I think we'd find we agree on much of that (once the wrinkles were ironed out).
In any event, people can get along - be friends even - if they share the same
values, even if their analysis of effects may be drastically different. Here,
I don't detect much difference even in that.

In my view, the three key dimensions on which people (and parties) differ are
these:
* Preference over size and reach of Government
* Attitude to personal liberty and freedom of choice
* Tolerance of inequality

Extremes on any of those scales (and the first two are arguably interdependent)
make you a crank, and very likely a damn nuisance.
The last one is interesting, as - just like inflation - too little is a bad
thing too. Though that's something we don't have to worry about in our
lifetime. (That Russian oligarch's yacht seized in Germany had TWO helipads:
who needs more than one, I ask you?)

In the UK, both our major parties are split on ideological lines. The Labour
party has until recently been obsessed with middle-class (and that means
educated and affluent over here) ideologues obsessed with "identity" politics
like race and gender, rather neglecting the working people who it was founded
to serve. The Conservative party is dominated by hard-right (but not quite
far-right) ideologues prepared to cause any amount of damage to achieve the
deregulation (from all sources) they worship, and have actively suppressed the
broader element of the party whose main goals are prosperity and stability.
Much still to work out in both parties, but meanwhile the damage mounts. Just
as the hardening divisions is continuing to damage the US. I'd hope the
emergence of a clear shared enemy intent on a reconstructed USSR will bring us
all closer together, both within and between our nations.

That Windows 10 is quite good, isn't it? I like the multiple paste buffer, and
Quick Assist best.

--

Phil, London

"Philip Herlihy" <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote

| In the UK, both our major parties are split on ideological lines. The
Labour
| party has until recently been obsessed with middle-class (and that means
| educated and affluent over here) ideologues obsessed with "identity"
politics
| like race and gender, rather neglecting the working people who it was
founded
| to serve. The Conservative party is dominated by hard-right (but not
quite
| far-right) ideologues prepared to cause any amount of damage to achieve
the
| deregulation (from all sources) they worship, and have actively suppressed
the
| broader element of the party whose main goals are prosperity and
stability.

That all sounds very familiar. And then there are the uneducated,
afraid of change, who want to be led according to their interpretation
of the Bible, but don't mind if Trump or some similar anti-Christ is
the leader, so long as they ban abortion and deride change.

I came across an interesting analysis recently, in my efforts
to understand the roots of wokism, identity politics, triggering,
and so on:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/how-journalism-abandoned-the-working

Bari Weiss started her website after quitting the NYT because
they were becoming wokist censors. This piece makes the
case that it's still, really, about class. It's not about food
and shelter for poor blacks, but rather about getting more rich
blacks into the ruling class, which will allow upper-middle-class
trust fund babies to believe that they've fought for equality,
without giving up their inheritance for social programs.

Which goes a long way toward explaining the wokist approach
of let them eat cake. Talk of poverty is glaringly absent from
wokist rants. Much more important is the right to wear an afro
to work, or the demand that Lizzo be officially declared beautiful.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that in England, class in
institutionalized, while in the US it's ubiquitous but rarely
acknowledged. We pretend we're all equal, as we believe
we should be.

|
| That Windows 10 is quite good, isn't it? I like the multiple paste
buffer, and
| Quick Assist best.
|

Oh... yeah... yeah... Great stuff.