Wall Street Journal (print), CNN, Google News, and local papers(online), occasionally watch TV news, some radio as well.

Try not to be too addicted to one source

I watch whatever, and apply common sense and "you're so full of ****" sensing abilities and overall just take it with a grain of salt. The only accurate way to get the "news" is by looking into it yourself. It's a shame most people just believe their news source, and think the rival news sources suck. Fox News is biased, and so is CNN, NBC, etc.

I keep an open mind, and really I don't understand why people react to news.

Unless you know someone personally, you can't really objectively tell "who's saying it". Many people think Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews or Rush Limbaugh are credible and unbiased news sources. I always kinda have to chuckle when I see someone make a post on an internet forum or blog or whatever about how superior their knowledge of politics is, and Fox News is biased. Then you ask them what sources they prefer, and they say Chris Matthews or Jon Stewart.

Anyways, it's fine to watch those shows, you just have to take all of it with a grain of salt if you want to be taken seriously.

I watch a little bit of everything, and read a lot of news online. I prefer CSPAN on television, even though it can be dull as dirt. It can be just as biased as the rest of them, though. Usually, whenever I see a story breaking that piques my interest, I'll read up on it on several different news sources, and try to find the full coverage of what they're actually talking about to draw my own conclusions.

Stewart and Matthews are certainly bias. They aren't lead in, though, by an ad for the network saying "Fair & Balanced", neither of which Mr. O'Reilly is. And this is the problem with Fox News. They actively refute their bias. In fact O'Reilly had to change his affiliation from Republican to Independent just to keep the ghost up when the Post discovered it.

News sources often aren't perfect, but Fox is in a league of its own.

Eh? By that logic, any paper that features opinion columns is biased throughout.

By what rationale? I'd like to see you substantiate the logic that claiming "fairness and balance" somehow brings Fox to a different level of bias. Open bias does not equal to less bias.

In fact, MSNBC used to play the balanced card, as almost all media outlets do, but only recently became open about their liberal bias.

Guys like O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck are very open about their political biases.

Point here: bias distorts the truth, and almost every source is guilty of having an agenda. That's why it's important to gather as much truth and detail as possible to draw conclusions that are well informed.

Because its attempting to hide the bias. And its not about effecting how much bias there is, but how much bias is perceived. If you're saying a network is "Fair & Balanced" - then it should be. But even you're saying no one can be bias free.

So, your primary objection is the slogan they use?

What else would a person object to? I agree with the rest of what he said. No one isn't bias.