Oh yes, of course, @my-little-kumquat! I’m glad you’re into different perspectives, too. I’m consciously trying to “diversify my inputs,” as it were, especially in light of recent events.
All of this being said, as I mentioned, I do check the New York Times and the BBC, but I consider what I read there with a critical lens. In fact, I think that’s actually the most important thing we can do when consuming news in today’s day & age: read critically. Read skeptically. Read with the understanding that, today, journalism is often more interested in profits than it is in covering news fairly and ethically--witness the splash coverage of our soon-to-be-President across all sorts of platforms throughout the election season. He sells.
So, when I go to news sources that I know are corporations and businesses first and foremost, I am careful to consider who is doing the telling--and by extension the framing--and why what is being told is being told the way it is. (Say that three times fast!)
Journalism sources that I rely upon and trust for news nowadays include Democracy Now!, The Young Turks, Unicorn Riot, and The Intercept. You’ll note that some of these are businesses or corporations, but all represent alternative media, which I think is critical in a time when information is power. If knowledge is power, then those in power have a lot at stake when it comes to controlling what knowledge is available, and how it is delivered.
On a less fearful of the government-sounding level (what can I say? I am my father’s daughter), it is critical in today’s world to be vigilant about how information is framed and presented to us. What is included? Why? What is left out? Why? These questions and this critical lens are tools I teach my students to think critically, read well, and write clearly--and many would argue that the lack of these skills in the general populace is what has gotten us into this situation in the first place (fake news, anyone?).
One thing to note, I feel compelled to point out, is that NPR is not one of the news sources I rely on anymore. Sure, I tune to my local NPR station in the car every morning on the way to work (peace out, Diane Rehm!), and I’ll check out NPR articles from time to time when the subject matter interests me, but I’ve come to view their content with as critical of a lens as any, for two important and related reasons: first, their lack of, and then belated, coverage regarding the water protectors at Standing Rock organizing against the Dakota Access Pipeline was disappointing, to say the absolute least. It is the role of a news source such as NPR to cover newsworthy events with impartiality, and that was not done in this case.
Perhaps this is because, secondly (and there is a part of me that knows I am making a jump in logic without a direct financial connection to the DAPL), starting this year I began to hear "paid for by” and sponsorship notices attributed to Koch Industries on my NPR station. While many could make the same argument that is made to excuse super PAC donations to politicians (it doesn’t change anything! It’s just financial support!), this line of thinking begs the question: why, then, is Koch Industries pumping money into the goings-on of NPR, a news source that liberals, by & large, trust without question?
