Websites and blogs?

Ludo

Just wondering where people get their news about the US election from mainly.
What websites or blogs do you read regularly.

My current daily reading list is:
Drudge Report
Huffington Post
Real Clear Politics
Politico
Electoral-vote.com
Daily Kos
RushLimbaugh.com

Any good sites out there that I am missing?

RichTea

I mainly just use the websites of some of the newspapers over here and there.

guardian.co.uk - Great coverage


newyorktimes.com - Quite good, site is annoying

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

Any good sites out there that I am missing?

I would suggest adding three interesting websites to your list (bias warning!... there is a definite right leaning flavor to the sites):

National Review Online, founded by William F. Buckley has contributions by many of the best conservative writers in the business.
http://www.nationalreview.com/

The Newsmax online site is a companion to the monthly Newsmax magazine. It is a conservative political site focusing on breaking news, and although often accused of being far right, their accompanying facts are very well sourced.
http://www.newsmax.com/

Scott Ott is one of the best political satirists in the business, and finally is gaining some national recognition. The tag line for the site is pretty good and telling: “News fairly unbalanced: we report, you decipher.”
http://www.scrappleface.com/

Ludo

I do read the National Review every so often...but newsmax...noooo..read that before and it did my head in lol.

Will look into the third one also...thanks.

The Raven.

It's not difficult to figure out the political leanings/bias of the media. Most of it is abundantly clear. Wikipedia is helpful even if only to confirm one's own assessment.

Overheal

it doesnt take much reading into an article to tell when its biased to be fair.

I just come here to get a fair bit of my digest. the rest comes from television or news-googling.

SteveS

FactCheck does a decent job of debunking the political ads and various statements from the candidates. They do miss stuff, but they are mostly non-partisan.

banquo

Yeah, factcheck are usually on the ball.

realclearpolitics - for breaking news, polls
cnn - for in depth stuff on something that's 24 hours old
rasmussen - a must for polls

for everything else, Google news

Manic Moran

I hit the major media sites. CNN, BBC, etc. If there's anything interesting that I miss, it usually gets referenced by someone on a social board.

Many of the specific-to-politics boards like Kos and Drudge are just a little insufficiently unbiased to be considered reliable.

NTM

Ludo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Many of the specific-to-politics boards like Kos and Drudge are just a little insufficiently unbiased to be considered reliable.

NTM

OK...I only read KOS for a laugh as it is a joke of a website. Utter tripe but entertaining.

Drudge is good however. I am a dem leaning person but I must say I like the stories he has. A lot of the time his headline bears no relationship to the story though which I find funny as he has put his own spin in the headline to make the Reps sound good. Or not reporting polls unless they are good for McCain when they get a big headline.

Although I do remember during the primaries that the Reps were getting worried that Drudge was becoming a Dem supporter as he had lots of pro Obama news on it and some negative stuff about Reps for a few months. Probably came from him wanting Clinton out though as normal service has resumed now.

Pocono Joe

...but newsmax...noooo..read that before and it did my head in lol.

That might have been your Obama Blinders shattering. LOL

FactCheck does a decent job of debunking the political ads and various statements from the candidates. They do miss stuff, but they are mostly non-partisan.

I watched an interview with the owner of FactCheck.org. He admits even his staff is biased. He also said there is just too much out there right now and can't cover it all. FactCheck only has a staff of seven. (sorta like Biden's 2nd debate... they would need to triple the staff to cover all of Biden's errors).

Ruskie4Rent

I watched an interview with the owner of FactCheck.org. He admits even his staff is biased. He also said there is just too much out there right now and can't cover it all. FactCheck only has a staff of seven. (sorta like Biden's 2nd debate... they would need to triple the staff to cover all of Biden's errors).

It's ok. They only needed to focus on Biden because Palin rarely attempted to state any facts that would need checking.

Podge_irl

I find www.fivethirtyeight.com rather interesting for following polling data and what not.
Aside from that, I actually find the politics tab on Fark gives a decent (if somewhat left leaning) mix of stories from across the spectrum so I tend to look there a lot as well as the main news sites.

SteveS

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I watched an interview with the owner of FactCheck.org. He admits even his staff is biased. He also said there is just too much out there right now and can't cover it all. FactCheck only has a staff of seven. (sorta like Biden's 2nd debate... they would need to triple the staff to cover all of Biden's errors).

True, but they seem to try and balance their coverage, instead of just focusing on one candidate.

Crash

To be honest, any site along the lines of fact check that will turn around and state that there is a reasonable chance of some bias creeping in automatically deserves extra kudos for that simple fact. Its all too rare for news sources to admit that despite all best efforts, human interaction will lead to some bias. They do good work despite that fact though, and are surprisingly good and fair about it.

Inquitus

Pocono Joe wrote: »

http://www.nationalreview.com/

http://www.newsmax.com/

http://www.scrappleface.com/

I want the 20 minutes of my life back I spent reading the first 2, they make Fox look balanced, I would say they are verging on the delusional.

The 3rd was a good read, made me laugh.

SteveS

Going Forward wrote: »

To be honest, any site along the lines of fact check that will turn around and state that there is a reasonable chance of some bias creeping in automatically deserves extra kudos for that simple fact. Its all too rare for news sources to admit that despite all best efforts, human interaction will lead to some bias. They do good work despite that fact though, and are surprisingly good and fair about it.

Good point. I don't think it is possible to be completely unbiased. I would prefer that people just be up front about how they are biased. As much as I don't like pundits, most let you know where they stand.

catch--22

Anyone know what's happened to Jack Cafferty on CNN? His blog has been AWOL for the last week or two!

Ludo

Well his wife died early last month...maybe this has something to do with it?

catch--22

Ludo wrote: »

Well his wife died early last month...maybe this has something to do with it?

Ahhh...that could be it. Thanks Ludo.

Ludo

Of course rumour has it that he has been "given a break" after this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

catch--22

Interesting Wiki entry for him too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cafferty

Ponster

http://www.freerepublic.com

Only if you *really* have time to kill though...

Ludo

Ponster wrote: »

http://www.freerepublic.com

Only if you *really* have time to kill though...

LOL...it's like a mirror view of the Daily Kos.

I particularly enjoyed this entry:

When I logged onto Drudge this morning, I had a Rip Van Winkle moment. According to the headlines, Obama has somehow become president. Nope, its still October 20. The election hasn’t been held yet. But you wouldn’t know that by scanning the headlines of one of the major news outlets in America. According to headlines on Drudge, Obama is in the process of planning his transition.

LMAO...Drudge...a major news outlet of America. Maybe if all you want to read is GOP biased stories. Wouldn't mind but the story he is referring to is actually from the Times in England...morons.