Most people get their news from the Internet, according to our latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com.
The least popular source for news is "newspapers."
Full results are below.
Be sure and vote in our new poll: Are you looking forward to the 2020 Campaign? See the back box in the sidebar on home page at SharylAttkisson.com or scroll down on the mobile site.
Where do you get most of your news?
61% Internet sites, blogs, etc.
>1% Word of mouth
32% A combo of above
1% None of the above
I don’t longer get my news from the mainstream media. I watch and read news from independent journalists.
Dale and Donna Netherton says
Same here....as well as trusted twitter feeds _exps: @POTUS @VP @SaraCarter @lauraIngram and several others....NEVER trust MSM tweets!
Patty Cloonan says
I get all of my news from alternative media...websites, YouTube, Bitchute. Twitch, DLive. I do not watch TV, listen to mainstream radio, read mainstream news papers or magazines...You just can't believe anything they say. It is all propaganda, lies, and lies by omission. Honest journalists like you just can't make it in the world of mainstream media...truth is treason!
David Farrar says
Proving once again, these social networks need to be governed by We the People.
Len Mullen says
I read freerepublic.com regularly. When I get in my car, I listen to Jeff Kuhner, Sean Hannity, Howie Carr, and, when possible, Rush. After dinner, I try to catch Tucker-Sean-Laura.
Denny P says
For me TV news is a no-go. Except for Lou Dobbs and sometimes Tucker, until he brings on a liberal wanker. Then it's over to classic country. Mostly Internet, and Conservative Treehouse - the best.
Bob Smith says
I listen to the radio, NPR, but their bias and slant is so over the top, I take it with a box of salt.
I focus more on independent journalists as being creditable than MSM.
Tim O'Leary says
Not from TV anymore, except limited FOXNEWS, selected commentators; Tucker, Laura, Judge Janine, Hannity and Huckabee on TBN.
The rest from Internet such as Sharylattkisson
Eric Pulsifer says
Mostly the Internet, from a mix of mainstream and not-so-mainstream sites rolled into an old-school RSS feed.
Would have liked to see the Internet options broken out some, though. Getting your news directly from sites is a whole lot different from getting news via social media.
Tony Patterson says
I get my news mostly from alternate sources such as various websites, blogs, emails, radio, and selected Facebook pages. I listen to local news on tv but not any of the national tv news shows except to see how they will spin a news event. . I do watch Fox News on occasion. They still have some real journalist in the order of Sharyll.
charlie Hawkins says
RSS feeds and pages and programs like yours and Nataliekesing page very good information there
she has information stored on her page from 8 years ago you can review.. I;m slowly reading my way thru it..
Just think that was a very news worthy event going on in DC on the 4th of july and not one station covered it .. They would rather make shit up than cover real news.. I think 1 or 2 of my half sisters fly out to be there and watch it .. I haven't heard from them how it was, or where they went after. They might not be back yet..
george allen says
Results of this poll are not surprising, as it was taken from among individuals - like me right now - who're online for one reason or another. True measure of 'news sourcing' would be to poll a group of individuals not sitting there reading a newspaper or staring at a PC screen. Me? Still read two daily newspapers and pick up some news off the internet. Also other sources, e.g. news magazines.
The Conservative Treehouse with Sundance,Gateway Pundit,Weasel Zippers.
For Swiss news I read the papers and watch news on TV. Swiss news is relatively balanced for a number of reasons I will not address here. For US news this is another story, I use a set of RSS feeds and focus on bloggers who have been or are professionally engaged, i.e. banking, insurance, energy, and even legal, etc. I use the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal as base for seeing what the topics may be interesting to look into via bloggers and other sources.
Pat McAvoy-Costin says
I will do almost anything to avoid CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, People, NPR and MSNBC. There opinion is told as if "fact". There is no attempt to report without bias. I like Rush, Fox news, you, Real Clear Politics and the Wall Street Journal. I am watching the Democratic Debates. I am upset by all the promised giveaways--medicare for all, reparations, free college, universal income for those unwilling to work, and on and on. We don't have the money.
Leonard Reaves says
I believe many indicate Internet when they’re actually reading news articles from major media sources “on the internet.” For example, I use the internet to access various media websites that report the news. The internet is like what the television use to be...simply a vehicle for accessing. But there is one major difference. It’s a lot less expensive to use the internet to post reports than it is to do so using a television.
Maybe, as a number have indicated, it’s time to give much more consideration to regulating the “vehicle” itself. Unfortunately, those viewing the information are no different than their parents were at the same age, because they have serious deficiencies in sorting through the facts to determine exactly what is real or true.
Walter Gilpin says
A recent book (regret I've forgotten title) outlines origins of Buzzword and other sites and compares them with Washingtton Post and New York Times. It is written by former exec. editor of Times. These sites "steal" articles from "hard sources" and put them out as their own reporting - no sources are given for their copied stories, no verification is sought. Only criteria is RUSH TO GET IT OUT !! Many articles are fully made up based on it's author's agenda, almost universally far left agenda. These people are not journalists, have no investigative background and many are walk in hires. Check it out !!!
Bruce Smith says
Trying to find truth is akin to grabbing dollars in one of those old-time phone booths with a cyclone of money inside. What, in the news business, blows those dollars around, if not the agendas and biases of those running it? And what of the truth/money outside the booth?
I don't get too much from the local paper that has to do with national events, as these national items are provided by the same national conglomerates that lie to your face daily. The local paper is only good for local issues, and I'm in a pretty conservative state. I get national news from various conservative sources that I have discovered over months and years. Finding accurate readable news that is trusted is like finding an oasis in the desert. The internet provides little gems when you seek them out, but you have to search.
Steve M. says
Where are the independent reporters?
News papers for decades used sensational biased reporting to sell papers.
Today it's "astroturfing" and the truth is what you choose to make it in social media, aka Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, etc....
DANIEL MEYERS says
hehe, is it a joke poll? should be titled, "do online readers read online?"
do the poll in the newspapers, bet you get the opposite results.
D tyler says
I read Drudge bless his heart, Iquit Facebookand Twitter, am on Gab, Minds and listen on youtube
Charles Warner says
Only use private services for news, however, even sources like Kiplinger are not that accurate these days. Congress is an abomination at all levels, these services just cover for them for the most part. Endless Game Show panels, nonstop books hawked, solutions = 0. Same losers who made mess cycled through Media shows asked how to fix mess they made? Sad state of affairs!
Walter Gilpin says
Tony Patterson has my approach to "real news" approach.
Walter Gilpin says
My recent podcasts from Sharyl Attkisson have been severely limited in comparison to recent past. Even this reply is prematurely marked "Cancel reply" I sense Facebook censors are responsible to this censure. I rely on news like Sharyl's show, Fox with Shannon Bream, Howard Kurtz, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, VERY LIMITED CNN, MSNBC only to get their reactions to breaking stories and their laughable twists on otherwise what I consider positive events and their limited coverage to ongoing events in real time.
Donna Martin-Netherton says
Chris Wallace and Bret Baier are now far left and antiTrump...DONE with them!
Walter Gilpin says
FAKE NEWS - nice try Donna ...., or whoever you really are. This is preposterous and warrants other non-fake remarks.
Dick Lanier says
Fox News is really two operations, the News side and the Opinion side. The News side (Wallace, Baier, Smith, et. al.) do a decent job of reporting on the news. Wallace was hard on those he interviewed from the Obama Administration. I guess that was OK to those on the Right. Now that he is equally hard on those from the Trump Administration he suddenly is a bad guy. Why would that be? Is it because he is no longer playing for the "home team"? He's just doing his job.
As Walter says, it is truly preposterous to imply that these people are purveyors of fake news or are anything other than conscientious reporters. But the comment that they are "anti-Trump" is right out of the playbook. When Shepard Smith famously debunked one of Hannity's many conspiracy theories by citing the specious claims and lack of evidence, Hannity's response wasn't to provide that evidence. It was to accuse Smith of being "so anti-Trump". If you can't shoot down the message, the next best thing appears to be to shoot down the messenger.
But perhaps I am wrong. How about some specific examples of bias on the part of these guys. If they are as bad as portrayed, such examples should be easy to come by.
I am probably one of the few on this thread that gets most of my news from the MSM (local newspaper, national news broadcasts, national magazines, some cable news) although I do get a weekly small dose of conservative talk radio, and I do read articles on-line. I agree that the MSM is biased, but I believe they do a much better job in general of separating facts from opinions and fact-checking what they claim than what I find in a typical internet site. The biggest flaws I see is something they share with all media: (1)sensational stories trump more mundane but more newsworthy stories, (2) commenting on some story before all the facts are known, and (3) their choice of stories reflects their bias.
But the idea that anyone is going to get the whole truth from Hannity or Limbaugh is problematic at best. I don't listen to those guys all that often, but the list of unsupported conspiracy theories that I have heard those two promote is as long as my arm (pizzagate, Uranium One, the murder of Seth Rich, Obama as head of the Deep State, millions of illegal voters in 2016, the climate change hoax, Obama's birthplace, paying Trump protesters, the Left is out to destroy Western civilization, Hillary Clinton's health, the NFL kneeling protests are really an attempt by the Left to economically damage the league because they despise the "manly virtues" that the NFL embodies are just a few). My favorite Limbaugh conspiracy is from 2012 when he accused Warner Brothers of releasing the movie The Dark Knight Rises and naming the villain Bane so it would damage Romney's campaign because Romney was once a principal in Bain Capital (I kid you not). No evidence was provided to show that any of these conspiracies were true (and most strain credulity). It was all smoke and mirrors and innuendo. Yet despite this, they still enjoy high ratings. 'Tis a mystery to me.
The term "news" no longer has a concrete definition. Now we have facts and analysis. Without complete facts we are left to talking heads looking for ways to to attract viewers to generate advertising revenue
Rene Wailace says
"The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated."
~Bertrand Russell, 1953