I began watching BBC after 911. PBS began a nightly BBC broadcasts after that. The BBC has stories about countries broadcasters here wouldn't cover or maybe not even know about. It's interesting.
It's said the news on the networks changed when advertisers were brought in and the news became a show. Sixty Min began it when they discovered there is bucks in the news if handled with a hit of drama.
Fox, I believe is just show and no reliable news at all. Once a woman anchor person on fox was looking closely at Obama's birth certificate and said "It's obviously been Photoshopped." I work with PS and one thing I can say with confidence, there is NOTHING obvious about it. It would take an expert with large magnification and then there would still be questions. When a person can work on a pixel level it won't be obvious. In other words, she lied. I don't want to get into the birth thing I just know that there's no proof of anything by her staring at it. So much for entertainment.
On the negative side a network will hesitate reporting anything that might affect advertising dollars. The tobacco corporate law suit against Sixty Min. also caused them to reconsider their stories.
Notice how many network adds are for drug companies. Awhile ago the adds might not even tell what a drug is for. I think they've stopped that anyway.
PBS at least has no advertising and so doesn't owe anything to the corporates. A person in the news business said once advertisers weren't even allowed in the news room.
There is a web site called, I think, Truth In Broadcasting. They examine things said and report facts about it. The site didn't seem to have any particular political bent. I went there to check on something Limpballs said. If you looked up liar in the encyclopedia you'd would see his picture.
