I listen to the voices.

Hey, don't get all Kaczynski on us just yet, Debe.

Personally, I don't think any one source is good for any specific kind of info. Some sources are great at some things, but suck at others. Fox sucks at almost all of them. CNN sucks at a lot. BBC is a bit better. For daily news, I bounce back and forth between CNN and BBC. If you want neuroscience news, I'd trust Nature Neuroscience, or the Journal of Neuroscience; or better, read at least 4 articles on any one topic from multiple journals. Those people have a vested interest in keeping things aboveboard. If people start to doubt their quality, they will fail. Sure, you could write a neuroscience article, but they wouldn't publish it. -The Journal of Neuroscience wouldn't even publish my last one.

I think if you read a neuroscience article on a blog and believe it, it's your fault, not the blog's author. -We need to be responsible consumers of information.

I don't worry too much about the deluge of 'news' and 'information'. The more sources I have to draw from, the better chance I have of picking out patterns of truth. What would really worry me, is if I just had CNN only. -Even if they seemed very responsible. Given enough sources, I believe the cream will rise to the top. That's what is great about Wikipedia, it's not Gospel, but neither is the Encyclopedia Britannica. Actually, Nature reported in a study, that when fact checked by 'experts' in the respective fields, Wikipedia was 70% accurate, and EB was 80% accurate. Wikipedia evolves faster too, so that might help close the quality gap.

Speaking of Gospel, (and I honestly don't mean to offend) how can you be worried about sources when you believe in a religion and the dogma that comes with it? Where is the source quality there? And that is one of the most far-reaching and consequential beliefs a person could have. I've never understood that about faith. I really don't. I know that's supposed to be a rude thing to ask too, but I don't know why. Why do people get a pass when it comes to religion?

Anyway, I don't have faith in any one source for all circumstances. I just look for patterns amongst a bunch of sources. Don't only read the New York Times if you want an objective view of a Republican. Don't only read the Washington Post if you want an objective view of a Democrat. And, WTF is up with Newspapers backing a candidate? WTF is up with that Nazi propaganda bullshit?!

Sorry. So, speaking practically, I read CNN and BBC for news. If something interests me, I'll Google the issue and peruse what comes up. I also read Nature and NewScientist and daily search PubMed for kewl science news. Kottke.org and bOINGbOING keep me up with pop culture. We also get the New Yorker in print, for the same. I use Wikipedia a lot when I want to learn a little about something new. I often follow the links from those articles. That's another great thing about Wikipedia. As for Dick and his war profiteering: I don't know of any specific war for cash connections. He got a sweet package from Haliburton when he retired, and CNN reported that he did sell some interests after that. -I haven't read anything to suggest he is directly lining his pockets. I think both the New York Times and Washington Post need to be taken lightly.

Here's a question: Has news ever been better?