If you read or watch the news on a daily basis, the contrasts between different sources are in themselves educational. As print newspapers decline, more and more sources are on the Internet. Having a single source is dangerously myopic. Nevertheless you develop preferences. For plain old what's going on in the world in the here and now, I watch the BBC. Auntie Beeb has been at it for a long time, they are relatively independent and have been since the inception and if they get it wrong I know we are at the end of civilization. With the British newspapers you have to decide between the gutter press (Mail, Express, Sun- "Prince Hurry's son circumcised.") or highbrow. (Times "Queen's left for Sandringham." or "No change in the weather patterns in Kent for the next three years."). Of course there is The Guardian, a newspaper most Americans would dismiss as socialist reports, comfortably on middle class perspectives and is read all over the Empire...sorry... British Commonwealth...Canada, etc. And by odd left leaning bearded intellectuals in Holland and other European capitals as well as the long forgot colonies. It's even becoming popular in the US.

On TV I watch PBS for fair balanced programming and Christiana Amanpour's interviews always contain insight and extend horizons. By trying to emulate the stridency and partisanship of Fox, CNN has likewise gone into overdrive though they make attempts at fairness. The New York Times is a bastion, overflowing with correspondents and news from around the world. It takes a lot of reading. Sunday's edition is like tackling Tolstoy's War and Peace. Washington Post I read online. Sober, careful, avuncular.

Watching news on the TV is like negotiating a minefield.