Oh, who the heck even knows what real news is anymore. I tell ya, it's downright depressing that here we are with a wealth of sources and just about all of it is suspect. I view social media outlets as even more suspect than others, because you have every Tom, Dick, and Harry contributing and many of them are trolls.

I find Trump's incessant tweeting to be shameful. Truly a disgrace to the dignity of the office that he's about to hold. Broadcast outbursts such as his are pathetic. I found him revolting before he even entered the political realm, and now that he has demonstrated how he intends to conduct himself as he "leads" this nation, I can scarcely even bring myself to speak his name. His recent personal attack on Meryl Streep (while she only commented on his behavior, not his personal talent or lack thereof) is nothing short of a vulgar display of his inherent immaturity. He's an impudent child.

You are not overreacting and you are not a fuddy-duddy. You are someone with higher standards, and you should be proud of that. "Tweet" is an idiotic term. IDIOTIC.

By and large, mainstream media has become tabloid trash. It's even trickled down to the local level, with female presenters wearing skin-tight dresses as though they've just come from "the club", and every top story being given tantalizing lead-ins that then cut to commercials to sell us crap first.

I don't think you are overreacting at all.

The media (with few exceptions) is lazy, stupid, hypocritical and cares only about ginning up ratings, pushing their worldview, and creating needless controversy. It's a lot easier to publish tweets from random people, especially if they fit the narrative the media wants to create, than to do any type of actual investigative work or to write anything thought provoking. The mainstream media is about 80 percent of the reason we have Trump in the first place and they have learned nothing so are rapidly continuing their slide into utter irrelevance.

I don't quite get why mainstream media is why Trump was elected. They had nothing good to say about him ever, and dwelled on his negative and controversial remarks. While they didn't have much good to say about Hillary either, they didn't pound her negative statements into the airwaves as much.

But you are totally right, it is hard to find a truly balanced news reporting.

I think possibly the media helped elect Trump because there is such a large contingent of our population that doesn't trust the media as far as they can be thrown.

No you are not being a fuddy duddy. The news sources are outright sickening. I try to swap around with so called news stations to stay on top of things and just end up being aggravated. Yesterday it was all about Meryl Streep. When is the media going to get it that no one cares what mega rich out of touch to the real world movie stars think? When are the movie stars/musicians going to get it? You would think they would have a clue after rallying to get Hillary in office and failing. While I don't care what a movie stars/musician political beliefs are I do care if they try to cram their beliefs down my throat like they are a GOD. I'm taking a stand and baning myself from watching any of their movies.

BTW, i had to look this up to make sure I was right, but TV news in particular used to be a non-profit public service type of endeavor.

Twenty years ago, there was no network news “business.” The Big Three broadcast television networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—all covered news, but none generally made money doing so. Nor did they expect to turn a profit from news programming. They presented news programming for the prestige it would bring to their network, to satisfy the public-service requirements of Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, and more broadly so that they would be seen as good corporate citizens.

Back then, the networks earned enough money from entertainment programming that they could afford to run their news operations at a loss. And so they did. Former CBS correspondent Marvin Kalb recalls Owner and Chairman William Paley instructing news reporters at a meeting in the early 1960’s that they shouldn’t be concerned about costs. “I have Jack Benny to make money,” he told them.

It is no exaggeration to say that just about everything has changed since then. Today, ABC, CBS and NBC operate in a competitive environment in which most viewers have dozens of channels from which to choose. That has transformed not just TV news but the entire television industry. Those most severely threatened by the way the broadcast business operates are the Big Three. The ABC and CBS networks (now subsumed into larger corporate structures) are losing money, according to Wall Street analysts. NBC’s network profits are also falling sharply. Those who own these networks—Disney (ABC), CBS Inc. with its major stockholder, Mel Karmazin, and General Electric (NBC)—all demand that their news operations make money.

http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/

By and large, we are quickly becoming a clueless, spoon-fed nation with little to no idea of other events happening in the rest of the world. That is largely because the media panders to the lowest common denominator, such as pissing matches between the rich and powerful. I doubt there are many of us who didn't hear about the Streep-Trump event, which is really such a non-event except for the fact that it highlights the latter's consistently boorishness and we are attuned to that sort of thing. I am, and I'm embarrassed to admit it.

Meanwhile, the world turned and great and horrible things happened - all in a span of 24 hours. We know so very little of it though. Isn't that sad?

One of our local channels broadcasts (as in, over-the-air) France 24, DW, and RT. These are the for-the-international/US market editions of their news, but still cover global news (and sports!) we don't see. Some, especially RT, certainly have a bias, but it's not bad to be aware of other biases. The channel used to air Al-Jazeerah, but it went to a cable network and we miss it.

I've never seen tweets used as the substitute for real research of reactions on those news services. And I really like the movie reviewer on France 24, she's just delightful.

There are many relevant, well-researched, respectable and objective (or less-biased) news sources. But, no, they are not in your Yahoo news feed.

There are many relevant, well-researched, respectable and objective (or less-biased) news sources

Really, LisaD? I'd love to know what they are, in a world where even the BBC relies on tweets for current events. Truly I would, because I sure can't find them.

It is news that someone found controversial old tweets and that it has created some activity around it. The tweets themselves are the supporting information. The tweets themselves are not the news but are necessary to put in the articles because if an article just mentioned that someone found and responded to old tweets people would wonder what they said.

There are many relevant, well-researched, respectable and objective (or less-biased) news sources.

I truly cannot think of a single one. And I am a news junky.

News consumption is like food consumption. A healthy news diet requires a variety of sources to ensure you're getting a well-rounded perspective and understanding of current events.

Complaining about an article full of tweets is like complaining about a McDonald's hamburger. Don't consume it and then complain you don't feel well. Sure, that Yahoo home page or the link in your Facebook feed is quick and easy, but it's drive-thru news with no nutritional value.

Tweets themselves can be newsworthy as part of a bigger story, but a tweet is not "news." Articles that contain tweet after tweet aren't relevant. Don't read them. An article that contains a tweet as a point within it, or which uses the tweet and then further extrapolates on it to add context is more newsworthy.

I find people who are quick to dismiss the press tend to be poor news consumers who do not consult a variety of news sources, or who don't take the time to evaluate and synthesize the collective information.

I just don't accept generalizations about "the media" when there is no such thing anymore. And if you don't like what you're reading or hearing or viewing, turn it off, or find something else.

Lisa, which sources do you recommend?

Lest you think my question, the same as IdaClaire's, was frivolous, I will say that I regularly read the WaPo, NYT, Politico, LA Times, CSM, BBC, Xinhua, Al Jazeera, vox, theatlantic, and listen to some of the French TV stations like itele.fr that I can stream. But there's a bunch more fluff than substance in all of them.

I do not do facebook and have never seen the yahoo news feed.

FWIW, some of the best reporting is not necessarily in print, but broadcast &/or podcast.

& there are respectable journalists w/ Twitter accounts.

I agree that using the term 'the media' is falsely broad, too vague to be meaningful.

IOW just as lazy as so much of mainstream "reporting".

The same question for you as for Lisa, then, carolb--name them, please.

No, tweeting does not offer news. You can't have news in 144 characters.

trump would never have been elected if he weren't a mega rich reality TV star. And yes the media did have something to do with it. They never called him on his vile rhetoric, they never called him on his lies which continue to this day, they never researched nor called him on his bankruptcies or his failure to pay his bills, they never called him on his vile treatment of women, the parents of a Gold Star family, or the disabled. He is a vile human being and is going to be the President of the United States voted in by 1/4 of eligible voters.

The media, like so many other people and CEO's of corporations are now afraid of him because of his critical, condescending tweets that can destroy a person at the tap of his short fat fingers. He lies in his tweets and if the lies are corrected they are done so by main stream media and not by him and by then it is too late. He is a bully and is now leading-by-fear.

MtnRd - don't ever change. I too have a visceral juvenile hatred of the man.

Blfenton, I have to vehemently disagree with you on how Trump was treated by the news. All I heard about him was all the transgressions you just listed. Which news were you watching or listening to?

And I have to state that I understand that twitter is not news. So, why do purported news sources use responses as part of their stories? And I mean things like "famous so-and-so tweeted Rest In Peace in response to news of well-known thus-and-so's death". Some are a little more substantive, but not much.

"Name them" is the straw man strategy, not going to go there. Here's what I look for as a strategy to determine the objectivity and reliability of my news, for starters.

1. Who is the journalist? Is he or she named? and what is his/her education, background and life experience, from which his/her credibility stems.
2. What is the source of the news? Who puts it out, who profits from it and how?
3. What is their editorial policy? Who edits it and what are their qualifications?
4. How is it written? Are sources identified and their credentials explained? Is it full of factual information or just a lot of opinions? And if it is full of opinions, are the opinions identified as to whom they belong? Is it complete, comprehensive, allude to sources where I can learn more?

"Is Twitter Real News?" is a pretty strange question. Tweets are short by design. Is the opinion of the President news might be a better question. I would say yes, to some extent. Not sure why the press didn't report on every Tweet Obama or Clinton or any of the 50 state senators or governors, etc. tweets. That's the issue, why do some folks tweets get deemed worthy of printing? That's an editorial call. I get bored beyond bored of "news" that is just name calling, on either end. So I don't bother reading most of it. I still have zero problems finding really good and interesting information to read out there. The name calling banter back and forth sells, that's why we see it. Is nothing new. We don't teach in school all the horrid names the founding fathers called each other. It was petty then, it's petty now, not for the ages. But still part of the din around us that we can either tune in or out of. I prefer tuning out.

As for news I like, all my life I have been an avid NPR radio consumer, for all kinds of news. My life has been greatly enriched by the information I have learned about from NPR and not just from their news shows, they have shows on all kinds of topics. I donate to as many stations as I can. Has every news piece on NPR been golden and award-worthy, no, but if you want perfection in this world, you are going to always be on edge. Which is of course what marketers want you to be, so you'll keep buying the palliative products.

Edited to add: I don't think DT's opinions on an SNL skit, "Celebrity Apprentice," the appearance of this or that person, or movie or theater performance are all that newsworthy, particularly when you consider all the other things going on in this fast changing world of ours that actually affect me. But I'm not a editor at a major news chain, and I never even understand why much of anything that is gossipy has to do with anything, but yet it gets reported on, and always has. I think mainstream news editors are making a mistake giving so much credence to FB and Twitter and Instagram, etc. Do they influence the public anymore than the your average tabloid? I don't know and have no sound data to answer my question.

Pink, by "name them" perhaps they are thinking along my own lines: I'm really interested in finding objective reporting, and am happy to hear sources that others have found to be objective.

I read tons of news and commentary every day from both sides of the aisle. New York Times, Wapo, LA Times, CNN, Huffington Post, Washington Examiner, etc. I also regularly read Atlantic, Mother Jones, Daily Wire, ProPublica, Think Progress, Daily Kos, Townhall, HotAir, etc. I am a news addict. Virtually All of it is biased (which is fine for the sites meant to be that way...but it drives me insane when they pretend to be "objective" and aren't... if you want to be a hack for the democratic party then be one, but be honest about it). A lot of it is also click bait, even from so-called "reputable" sources.

The media wanted Trump and gave him free air time and endless coverage in large part b/c they thought Hillary could beat him more easily than anyone else. They, and the Clinton camp, REALLY wanted him to the nominee. They were too smart by half.

Then once they got him as the nominee, they went into raging hysteric lunacy about him. The problem is twofold though.

First, they already destroyed their credibility through years and years of everyone is sexist and racist nonsense... so no one listened to them. They are like the boy who cried racism and sexism and so when there was a candidate who was actually terrible, no one listened their seriously, for reals this time! shouting.

Second, they react to every single thing he does at defcon five and they report things in such stupid ways that again, no one believes a word out of their mouth. It is like they had this story for days about Trump yelling at a baby and picking a fight with a baby... but that's not what happened at all, so when they report in such a dishonest way, everyone just starts to disregard and tune out everything.

Then there's the problem of the media living in this Acela/ NY bubble and having no idea what anyone outside of the coasts and DC is thinking.

I find people who are quick to dismiss the press tend to be poor news consumers who do not consult a variety of news sources, or who don't take the time to evaluate and synthesize the collective information.

This is precisely why I asked for recommendations, and do not consider the request to be a straw man strategy. Obviously a couple of you believe that there are still viable sources out there, and it would be a kindness if you would share them with those of us who are not sure where to turn.

True about the bubble. A drive around the Midwest in October really opened our eyes to the possibility that he just might win. It was infuriating to watch the pundits on election night looking like deer caught in headlights: haven't you guys been paying attention? (Not to mention the smugness of SNL. I like SNL and liked most of the political sketches, but come on, talk about people living in a bubble.)

It's been very funny to see reporters try to venture out into other parts of America after this election.

They treat "fly-over" country people like they are some exotic, perhaps dangerous and curious species to study. Like, there was a NY Times article the other day explaining to its readers that people in Texas like trucks. LOL.

And then there was the senior Think Progress editor, Ned Resnikoff, who apparently fell into a tailspin of fear, which he felt the need to post to Facebook about, because his "perfectly professional" plumber who had come to fix his drain had a Southern accident and was a man who might have voted for Trump.

It is beyond parody.

I have found some great reporting from the Christian Science Monitor as well. I read the Washington Post and the New York Times and my local newspapers. Yes, coastal media is pretty bubble-ish which is one reason I forgo most national media, since their reporting on issues around the country is sketchy at best. But local reporting is getting poorer and poorer since local papers can't afford to have many journalists on staff, less and less every year and many are folding. For in depth stuff, I go to journals and research centers on the topics. TED talks always intrigue me, they are not news but food for thought. I get linked to a lot of podcasts and blogs from friends who have similar interests. I'm a scientist so sharing information is our bread and butter. There are articles on regional TV and Web pages but they usually are just tip of the iceberg stuff, so they might alert me to an issue, but I'll have to google other sources to get a fuller picture. There are still great regional and local reporters out there, but they are an endangered species.

There are quite a few economic pieces that I go to, like the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, but I find reporting on economics and health care to be extremely poor overall, so when I get really interested in one of those issues, I usually have to do some research to find good information. My alma mater and my mother's alma mater put out journals which sometimes inform me to some extent, but usually they just skim the surface of new research and put some kind of "spin" on it to make it interesting to the average person. That does factor in somewhat too, most people do not want to wade through a lot of facts and data. The ability to write about complex issues in a way that is truthful and yet concise and readable by the average person is a skill that not everyone, even every journalist has. I'm a science writer myself and I find reporting on science topics to be generally awful, due to the disconnect between those who are able to crunch the numbers and those who are able to explain things to the average citizen. The two skills don't necessarily go hand in hand, (see "think" vs "feel" discussion, for examples).

I occasionally find a good blog or two but I have to be honest and say that I don't routinely read blogs. I basically find most news so poor that I tune it out. About the only news I could stand to have on hand regularly is the aforementioned NPR. I misspoke, not PBS, NPR radio is the news I prefer. Right now I am in one of my "no TV" phases but will probably get one eventually. I stopped watching prime time news ages ago, although the Sunday news shows sometimes have interesting discussions. CBS morning news has interesting pieces too, but I have to put up with and wade through a lot of garbage on that, so I don't bother. Some of the best "food for thought" I have heard over my lifetime has been Charlie Rose's interview program on PBS, along with Tavis Smiley. Like I said, I am now without TV so not sure they are even on anymore.

Ida and Writersblock, the news sources I consult depend upon the issue I'm researching. Pinkmountain's questions above are part of what I keep in mind. If you have a particular topic, for example, I can illustrate further. But too many people single-source their news or go through a stand-by list they happen to know.

I find people who are most entrenched in their viewpoints are least able to apply critical thinking skills to synthesize news information.

We need to remove our rose-colored glasses about an unbiased "media" and realize that a free press in a democracy is what it is today, and focus on how we gather and assess information, rather than viewing ourselves as passive receivers or victims of "media."

Thank you, IdaClaire and bpathome. That is exactly why I was asking, and thank you for the detailed response, l pinkmountain.

bpathome - yes, the talking-heads and political pundits talked about his behaviour but the NEVER said - he can't do that, that isn't appropriate behaviour, it's wrong. Why? Because they're afraid of alienating any of their viewers, of alienating trump. When they questioned Conway or McEnany, or Scottie Hughes or Katrina Pierson or Lewandowski, the gobbleygook that came out of their mouths was just spin and nobody pushed them to tell the truth of his lies. The only stations I get are CNN and MSNBC, I can't get FOXnews (I think that's probably a good thing).

Even now, when KellyAnne Conway is interviewed she is a mass of contradictions to the point where she isn't worth listening to anymore.

Every thing I now read I double check the topic with other sources. I no longer believe any single source of media - print or tv or the internet.

Here's how it might work for me, with an example. Flint has/had a serious problem with their public water supply corroding pipes and releasing lead, when they switched water sources, (perhaps you have heard). Being a scientist and one who is highly interested in water quality issues, I found the local reporting sketchy, and confusing. So I had to search out other sources, which I could find online--in depth reports and position papers from the EPA, local health agencies, U of M researchers, and other reporters who either blogged or later in depth pieces in national and local news outlets. Just heard a blip about a report the other day, about the fact that aging lead pipes corroding are a nation wide problem, a lot in older, urban areas. Here's an example of an article. In that article, there are lots and lots of other sources cited, which you can then go to for further information. NPR is the source of origin, but in the article are tips for many other places to follow up for further details.Where are lead water pipes in Michigan

Another example, HC's e-mail scandal. I read an in-depth article on the FBI report on her e-mails in the New York Times. Still wanted more info. so one simple google led me to the FBI's Web site and I found their release of their report on their entire investigation, which I then read. Went to a few other articles on various lawyers opinions on the legality or illegality of her actions. Worked for the feds a couple of times, and had to go through FOIA training for my e-mail so I was familiar with the issues too, through real-life experience. Also did my masters thesis on using the Internet so had some basic background knowledge and a piqued interest in subjects relating to Internet use.

Political news is different then other 'news'.

Cable news is more opinionated then Network news.

I still depend on the 3 major network (half hour) nightly news programs to see reporting about things happening in the world. If I hear something that I want to hear other people's opinions, then I head over to cable.

When the President-elect (shutter) tweats out something stupid, I see it and decide for myself that it is not appropriate and he needs to have his phone taken away. (Where is Ivanka when we need her?) His tweets are not Fake News. Reporting of his tweets is not Fake News. Yes, real news can come from Twitter.

Thank you, pinkmountain, for being willing to provide the names of some of your sources. This gives those of us who are genuinely interested in learning about different sources that others consider reliable something tangible to look into.

Media personalities like Chuck Todd are part of the problem. Many like him prefer to "make news" not report it.

See Todd Tweet on Ethics

Of course, Twitter is real news. You might remember Seal Team 6 OBL raid info started with a tweet. The Arab Spring uprising took place on Twitter.

I get a lot of valuable information for work through Twitter: notice of new journal articles, new reports related to my work, updates on legislation related to my work and research, conferences, grant opportunities, etc.

So, it is entirely possible to set up your Twitter account to help you in your work and life and avoid celebrities, etc. It's kind of hard to avoid politics altogether because a lot of things are related to my work, but at least it's not a constant stream.

DH's account (we don't even follow each other) is separate. He has noticed a lot more "fake news" and alt-right posters since the T election.

Thought of this conversation while reading this article today...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/why-journalists-love-twitter

"...Thus presenting tweets as evidence of some national or global trend (rather than as a trend on a social media platform) is several shades of problematic. Inevitably, if we take trending hashtags for actual trends, we will be dealing with a biased sample: we are looking at what is popular among people who spend time on Twitter rather than among people more broadly. Forgetting the Internet’s biases creates delusion..."

Most every time a new subject is written about, there was a press release that someone published to start the discussion. I always go to the actual press release to start my own review - they are generally about as factual and unbiased as can be. Then I go to publications of that pertinent industry. For example, Trump says he has kept Ford jobs in the US... Ford press release, and then automotive news.com.