Actually I'll goto a site that gathers stories (from Newspapers) which meet my interest.

Pat Daly (above) makes a fundamental error by stating that, "truth is subjective." WRONG!!! Truth is an absolute. It either is or it is not, and therefore cannot be subjective.

My local newspaper is filled with stories from the Obama Associated Press. I get local news and entertainment from my newspaper. To get the truth I go to the internet.

Neal, by "internet" I would mean every newspaper I can click on. Online, that is. Nobody reads paper anymore.

"Silencing opposition is bad as long as it's not opposition to your views, amirite? Replacing liberal bias with conservative bias is still bias, it's just bias you agree with. The truth is subjective."

Perhaps you could tell us which side is trying to silence our voices?

Somehow I don't see Conservatives saying we must "balance" your words.

Perhaps you could show the same courtesy?

I thought not.

I am curious, Where do you get your news from? Are you telling me that you receive a hard copy of every publication you reference? More likely you get your news from the web too. As for that matter, what about the news papers, you think they dont use the web as we do to get the stories they print?
The days of the "Reporter" are over. Yes there are a handfull of them that actually go out and get the story, but then it is picked up and re-reported with heavy bias or personal opinion injected.
As with all things labled BAD the missing element is personal responsibility.

Mr. Neal,

I diagre....YouTube, TMZ and Boortz.com's are excellant places for the news.

I do like the TV news shows like ET, E, and BET.

So there...Mr. Neal.

What this illustrates more than anything else is that old media is dying, and quickly. Newspapers no longer report news. You can now expect a slant on everything as they blur the line between commentary and factual reporting. I get the Chicago Tribune delivered and I cannot tell you how many times I read stories that were obviously and blatantly slanted towards Obama. Often, reporters use specific words that have meaning to make their stories slant towards their own conclusions.
Old media is dead. While you do link credible news sources, it is clear that even some of these are rather biased.
The 'net is the best way to comb through multiple stories about the same events, read each, figure out the slant of the paper, and make up your own mind in moments. The old way would require buying the NYT (that'll never happen) the Sun Times, the Trib, the LAT, and more just to get a feel for what is really happening.
Newspapers are killing themselves slowly. That's why they don't make the list. People who want news want multiple sources so they can find the truth. People who don't care just don't care.

Of course that real answer to the question is that you need to get your news from a variety of sources then find the "truth" somewhere in the middle of the whole shuffle. That said, I fall solidly in the camp of those using Internet as their most reliable source. This, of course requires judgement. My standbys are Neal's Nuze (mostly for links), Drudge, and Fox. However, I hit CNN and Slate as well. . . The truth is out there. You just have to have the judgement to see it. I prefer the unfiltered Internet variety.
No as to commentary -- I would submit that commentary from someone you trust is the best possible news source, but Like Neal says, you should always verify it somewhere else. Dual sourcing works on a personal level as well as it does on a journalistic one.

Scott Hysell

Now I have less time to fact check because I'm reading all these comments!!
No time to watch tv. newspapers cost money. Internet is fast and east to fact check!!

Neal, get with the times. (News) Print is dead, as are the talking heads of nightly news. The Internet is the fastest way to get the news from all points of view (if you want them). Two People have lost trust in the traditional media outlets, I mean, look at the number of hits Drudge gets over 20 million hits a day, which is more than many of the other MSM outlets.

I do get my news from the Internet but it is sites like Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC, Real Clear Politics not the Blogosphere. Even with the true news or news from Neals page I fact check it. The advantage of the internet news is if a story comes out I can instantly research different sites for the truth. With just one Newspaper you get a fishwrapper that can report the news however they want to based on their bias and it is not scrutinized. With TV there are a few channels (well not many MSNBC is a waste as is ABC, CBS and NBC). I do try to vary between Foxnews and CNN to get 2 different but somewhat intelligent viewpoints. THe internet is just so easy to find different sources to get the truth.

Neal, take a moment to re-read this post:

"The reason I find the Internet to be the most reliable source of information is that I can quickly check facts against multiple sources. Basically, if you combine the Internet with critical thinking skills, then you can get a three dimensional view of most issues.
By Independent Ed"

That says it all in a nutshell. Long ago the mainstream news sources gave up being an actual news source, so you had better be able to cross check the information.

I almost hate to say it, but you are oftentimes a better source of news than ABC,CBS,and NBC.

At least you are honest enough to tell us to check your information.

I wish that our citizens would realize that it has been proven that about 70% of the information on the internet is FALSE!! Always back up information with more research and don't draw conclusions fast.

Except, maybe, Jamie's. The only difference is that you guys are upfront with that while the Slantinel and others pretend to be objective. If they would tell us what they think along with what they choose to think is news, that would be a lot more informative.

For a discriminating news consumer, and long time news junkie, the internet is the only way to go.

The internet allows you to scan multiple news sites at your leisure. While those sites may report with a "slant", you can always visit other sites to get the opposite view, knowing the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At the very least, you can take the two sides and logically deduce the truth from the different presentations.

Unfortunately, newspapers and tv news don't allow you any options. Like the old Saturday Night Live old man skit, "you'll take what they give you and you'll like it!"

I gave up on tv news and newspapers about 10 years ago, and I feel more informed now than I ever did in my life.

So "The Internet" is the "most reliable" source of news? Doesn't it depend on what Internet site. It's like if you were asked "what food is the most nutritious" and you responded "Publix" or "Kroger".

David who wants the AJC to fold: so you think society would be better off if no point of view existed other than those with which you agree and which make you comfortable? I am a somewhat left-of-center person on most issues (though quite conservative on select issues), but I enjoy news and opinion from a variety of sources (like Boortz). Reading, listening, and watching a diversity of opinion is good for the mind and helps one to consistently question and evaluate one's point of view. A person who watches only FoxNews, listens only to the usual cadre of conservative talk show hosts, and reads the likes of townhall and drudge for all his news is delusional if he or she thinks this makes him a well-rounded, educated, informed citizen. I'd say the same to a liberal whose viewing is limited to MSNBC's evening lineup and whose reading is limited to the NY Times.

All news is biased, to a greater or lesser degree, but if you know the direction of the bias you can make allowances. By reading coverage of a story on several differently-biased websites, one can find a pretty useful approximation of the truth.

Internet is the most reliable because it is the most up to date. Something is wrong? Most of the time commenters point it out and the article gets fixed in hours. Newspapers are updated once a day, and even then corrections are printed in obscure sections. Internet is a much more dynamic medium. As far as bias goes, where isn't there bias? News stories provide concrete detail + analysis (or ramblings)--straight up facts wouldn't sell.

The fact that I can almost 'instantly' do background research, get a slew of further research leads(and what library or public archive they are in, which I'm old enough to appreciate), and find opposing points of view to almost anything I read.

It's not that a particular source or article is reliable, it's that an individual can fill in the blanks that most sources and articles leave, and better judge a sources veracity.

Neal, I spent 30 years trying to stomach that rag, and the Augusta papers aren't much better. I do check the internet version of several rags but gag while doing so. These printed masses can't even proofread correctly!

The reason I find the Internet to be the most reliable source of information is that I can quickly check facts against multiple sources. Basically, if you combine the Internet with critical thinking skills, then you can get a three dimensional view of most issues.

I think you should use the "follow the money" philosophy. Which medium is more expensive to produce per perspective viewer? The higher this cost, the more likely that medium will be corrupted by external incentives.

Neal,

It is not your internet site or radio program that is considered reliable news. However, News sites such as Drudge, Newsmax, Foxnews, Townhall, etc. are reliable.

I long for the day when liberal newspapers will dry up. I refuse to purchase the Atlanta paper. Liberalism is too harmful to society.