true, that is what news papers/internet are for. tv news is for breaking news as it happens, nothing more.
in fact i would say that now the internet works so fast as to render tv news almost completely useless 'cept the rare live footage of news happening. even on websites, when a news story is video instead of words it is worse. video just doesnt lend itself to news.
hey man, to each his own, but fox news is objectively terrible. although there is that one guy, krauthammer, he might be ok. the rest, diots. esp and oreilly and beck and hannity and those idiotic sexy blondes they have.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Clearly you don't watch much so you are merely squawking out of your ass based on minimal knowledge. You normally don't tolerate that kind of crap.
eh? i grew up watching tv news. it just doesnt work. news needs to be laid out with proper details and not as much exploding title screens and special effects. news that is ratings-oriented cant be as good. written news is rating oriented in a sense as well, but the tv news is worse because they cater to a dumber consumer. i am not saying fox sucks and the others are great. all tv news it crap. even bbc, which is the best tv news available, is not as good as spending that same time reading a couple stories.
I must object. Each has its own place. Print gives you the advantage of absorbing information at your own pace. But TV gives you the experience. You could have spent weeks reading printed descriptions of 9/11, and I daresay it would not have the impact of a 20 second clip of the planes hitting the towers, and seeing them collapse on themselves.
