I see your point about BW being informative, though I disagree it is consistently so. Who's that other economist guy with the glasses? He writes some fairly illogical columns. And as someone pointed out Jack Welch has a last page now, for dog's sake! More below...
> I gotta wonder what "MSM" you read. The much- and often deservedly
> maligned NYT is still a rich source of news, as are the Wall Street
> Journal and Financial Times. There's nothing in the alt.media that can
> hold a candle to them. Add the wires like Reuters and Bloomberg, and
> services like the BBC, and you really don't need much more other than
> good books (and my radio show) to know what's going on. Bush is the
> president of the U.S., which, as the Sparts say, makes him the chief
> executive of the world bourgeoisie, so his pronouncements, as idiotic
> and/or brutal as they are, are not trivial. Maybe living in NJ you're
> exposed only to the Newark Star-Ledger or the Bergen Record.
Ha! They shine in comparison to the Asbury Park Press. I think you can go to the wire services for news bits, as you mention above, and not need WSJ, FT, NYT, etc. But to answer your question: I rarely read MSM (and my opponents on-list will no doubt find that unsurprising ;-)). No NYT. No WSJ. etc. Not entirely true: I monitor them to see what the enemy is saying, and I use them when it serves my interest (to quote the content), but I don't use them for news or analysis.
Your needs probably differ from mine. I don't think Bush's pronouncements are trivial, just uninteresting and predictable. Similarly for most such news.
Oh yeah, there is one print media I read diligently: GQ. And as the Playboy readers say, I read it for the content.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/