Hustler

Fox Noise

I can't pick "The Internet"? If I pick one blog, am I allowed to click links? I suppose I'd go with the New York Times, then. (Or I could just chuck the whole thing and pick AICN.)

The Koran.

And I thought TNR was a snarky suggestion...

BBC

The BBC news website.

The NYTimes, alas.

Trick answer: Newspaper, because it can hold so much more information than the other media listed. (Though that could also be magazine or blog, depending on the scale.)

(No, I don't normally read the newspaper.)

The Onion.

NYTimes

The Economist. It has its flaws and biases, but they're readily apparent, and if the goal is to stay the most informed with one source then I think there's no contest.

Oh; my reading comprehension of the question was weak.

Voice of America site or BBC News site.

NPR Morning Edition. Can't eat a bagel without it.

NPR

The Economist

I would pick the New York Times.

It's not perfect, but it has a few things going for it:

1. It covers a wide range of material.
2. It doesn't dumb things down for the reader.
3. It has hard news as well as opinions, entertainment, comics, puzzles, etc.
4. Compared to most other sources, it's overall credibility is neither better nor worse.
5. It is heavy enough to kill intruders.

Frankly, I don't read it right now, because I barely have time to tie my shoes, let alone read a paper as substantial as the Times, but if I had to make my choice, I would choose it.

If I could have dinner with anyone, living or dead, it would be Jesus, Philip K. Dick and David Lynch.

My favorite color is blue.

The Bible.

The Daily Show, obviously.

New Yorker

The Daily Show, obviously.

TPM.

Hot & smart liberal girlfriend who reads the news for me, and tells me what happened.

Democracy Now.

NY Times.

But variety in news sources is important.

http://news.google.com/nwshp?ned=us

NY Times

NY Times

Oh, I misunderstood the question. Right now I read a few blogs and get a mix of news from elsewhere in addition, but if it had to be just one, I would pick one of the non-blog sites that rounds up headlines from blogs and/or newspapers and provides links to the stories.

BBC radio world service

Drudge, no doubt about it.

Online NYT.

Talkingpointsmemo

Hands down. BBC. They cover the whole world. No Commercials. Aggressive interviews.

Washington Post

Hands down. BBC. They cover the whole world. No Commercials. Aggressive interviews.

I'd have to go with my local paper (Toledo Blade). It's horrid, but at least I'd get some local news.

For all its faults, the New York Times.

That's easy--TPM!

Angry Citizen!

http://www.angrycitizen.com

The Washington Monthly blog, of course.

My one best source of news is, and will remain, the Daily Show. I read (and listen) to other sources mostly to get an idea of what the Daily Show writers may be cooking up for me later in the evening.

Jon Stewart is no Edward R. Murrow, but than again who wants to get their news from a dead guy.

Probably the Guardian/Observer

The crazy guy down by the bus stop. He is always the first with the story.

But would the news source have access to the other news sources? If so, I'd have to pick a blog like DK or TPM where I would hear about all sorts of news second-hand. If not, it's definitely the NYTimes.

The Financial Times

NPR

Does the BBC's web page count? It's neither a magazine, newspaper, news broadcast, radio show, blog, nor a newsletter, though it links to several BBC news broadcasts. If it counts, including their links to their broadcasts, then nothing else comes close.

If, however, it doesn't count, and if online newspapers do, then it's the New York Times web page.

Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me! (The NPR News Quiz.)

The Washington Post's web site.

All Things Considered

NY Times

The Guardian.

newspaper

It's a cop-out because it's a news aggregator, but my iGoogle home page, which gives me stuff like this:

Nearly two dozen federal agents yesterday raided the Washington headquarters of the agency that protects government whistle-blowers, as part of an intensifying criminal investigation of its leader, who is fighting allegations of improper political bias and obstruction of justice.

Agents fanned out yesterday morning in the agency's building on M Street, where they sequestered Office of Special Counsel chief Scott J. Bloch for questioning, served grand-jury subpoenas on 17 employees and shut down access to computer networks in a search lasting more than five hours.

No Political Animals?

The Economist. Hands down, the best news magazine in the world.

World Net Daily

I might also have to go with the Daily Show.

Democracy Now.

BBC World Service.

WaPo

http://www.amconmag.com/

hillaryclinton.com

NYTimes.com

NY Times. What BombIranForChrist said.

The Washington Post. It's also my hometown newspaper so that gives it an edge.

the Economist . . .

It's a tough choice between High Times and the Focus on the Family newsletter.

NPR Morning Edition

Daily Show

Another vote for The Economist. NYTimes doesn't have enough international coverage in depth.

NPR.

It was close between NPR and BBC World Service. NPR does more in-depth and continuing coverage, so you can get to know the context of a story as well as the story itself. That's what decided me.

NPR

The bar down at the American Legion.

fafblog

The Economist. No other publication equals its its breadth of coverage of international news.

Thinkprogress.org

(Political Animal would be my second source, if I was allowed another.)

The rest of the media has been corrupted by the corporations which owns it. I've even caught PBS and NPR in some right-wing spin during the last couple of years.

Radio Show

Baseball-Reference.com

The Christian Science Monitor.
Since fafblog went inert, anyway.

McClatchy DC

NPR.

Hands down, no question: NPR.

The Globe and Mail (Toronto).

The BBC -- that's cheating a bit, because it's more than a network.

Before Murdzilla destroyed it, I would have picked WSJ, if I could use the editorial page as fertilizer first.

Lehrer News Hour on PBS.

The BBC news site - nothing else is close

NYT, for sure. It drives me crazy, especially its political coverage, but as others have said, the sheer breadth and depth of info beats anything else out there.

The Financial Times.

nytimes.com - better than waiting for a morning edition.

washington post online

NPR. Do I have to choose one program? Like, I guess it would be All Things Considered, but I'd really miss Weekend Edition and Marketplace.

The AP wire.

BBC World Service

I said NPR above, but really I would say WNYC because I'd want local weather and sports.

It beats out BBC World because their "World Sport" is full of rugby and cricket scores. I still have no idea what an "over" is.

Guardian Unlimited

God's lips to my ears.

Gods lips to my ears.

The Daily Show, though I will suffer from Onion AV Club withdrawl.

The NYTimes.

The NYTimes.

A blog for a few reasons:

1. The links allow me to read other people's takes on the issues, as well as give context.

2. Commenters are often the best part of a good blog since they provide a variety of opinions, facts and links to other sources. Better blogs also allow for those with legitimate and non-trollesque opposing views.

3. They cover most things already presented in papers, radio programs, etc., and often issues that aren't covered in those venues.

With that in mind, it'd be The Huffington Post due to their wide range of topics.

It pains me to say that, since I love The Carpetbagger Report, Crooks and Liars, MY, and many others. But the HuffPost just covers so many bases it's a one-stop kind of shop.

Just my 2 cents ... keep the change.

BBC

I play rugby in NYC, I still don't get to see my scores ;)

An over (in baseball terms) is 6 pitches. The pitcher (known as the bowler) may have to repeat a pitch (known as a delivery) if he commits a technical error.

Teh Google News 8=P.

Daily newspaper.

Although all news is biased, reading allows one to read between the lines. TV and radio are more difficult to parse. Blogs and newsletters are more for reinforcing or rebutting opinion, not for information gathering.

Cursor.

International Herald Tribune, but I might take the NYT for the crosswords.

All of the above.

Torn between NPR and NY Times....

NY Times

FT (to be consistent with my sarcastic comment on Dowd) or NPR/BBC.

BBC, hands-down it's the best coverage of news worldwide.

The Huffington Post.

The Economist. Agree with comments made by Ernie Tedeschi.

The NYT, because of its comprehensiveness and because Frank Rich writes what I think. But I don't know whether life would be worth living without the Daily Show and, of course, this blog.

National Public Radio. The finest news source in the Known Universe.

TPM

The Economist

Without a doubt

commondreams.org

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

news.bbc.co.uk

since I drive a lot in my car (outside sales representative) the answer is Morning edition on npr.

My local public radio station...

If I could have only one source, I think I'd choose to be uninformed rather than misinformed.

Of course it's the NYT. It's not even that interesting of a question.

Although if I had to just read the NYT and stop listening to the BBC World Service every day, my knowledge of the news of the rest of the world would instantly drop by 75%. Oh well!

KUT (NPR + local news)

Because it's miles wide - news.google.com. Inability to click through would be painful, though.

National Public Radio.

TPM

NYT

San Francisco Chronicle.

Treehugger!!!

BBC, no question.

The Economist (assuming we're limited to a print magazine/newspaper)

The BBC (if we can choose a web site)

BBC news website

Countdown.

NYT online

Can't believe someone picked HuffPo. Yikes. Can't stand the shrillness, uniformity of opionion and stupid news about American Idol or which celeb got arrested last night.

NPR. It's not as broad as a newspaper, but it's less screwed up than any except McClatchy.

Once, recently even, it would have been the Wall Street Journal, but I find I'm reading less and less of it.

Another vote for Talking Points Memo.

YouTube.

Yahoo AP wires....

Salon.com

Radio Show

BBC World Service.. its irreplaceable.

NYT online. Seriously, the breadth and usability of the site is fantastic. Last night you could scroll over each individual Indiana county in real time to see the primary returns.

Magazine!

Financial Times.

NPR

A couple of posts down Kevin calls The New York Times "the greatest newspaper in the world", and I'm struck by how many responses above reflexively default to the NYT. I don't really get it. They have a stable of political reporters that, as documented repeatedly by Bob Somerby, is just horrible. Their international coverage is very spotty and of course with cutbacks becoming more so by the say. For example, they have one person covering all of Latin America -- that's ridiculous; they would do better to have someone in New York reading the Latin American press then to have Larry Rohter roaming around from place to place. Their European coverage is very poor; there is no reason not to go to European newspapers for that coverage. Their Iraq coverage has its goods and its bads, Michael Gordon being of course the rock bottom. Their science reporting is by and large horrendous. Their economics reporting, as noted constantly by Dean Baker and Brad DeLong is stupid and uninformed. as between the Washington Post and the NYT there's not a dime's worth of difference in terms of standards. They both have a few really good reporters and a large host of lousy ones.

Sadly, because of massive staff reductions and a falling away of standards, the BBC is also a shadow of its former self; its coverage is wide but extremely shallow, not to mention tendentious and unreliable.

There is obviously no answer to Kevin's survey question.

BBC

Financial Times.

Yahoo News

Irrelevent question. Anyone who relies on one source for all their news is lazy, stupid, or likes being mal-or-under-informed.

But, if I had only one choice, probably BBC (since NPR clearly is influenced by US political attacks from the right.)

Wikipedia. Its rabid contributors tend to keep it fairly up to date and it'll come in handy in case you decide to impose any other arbitrary media restrictions.

The New Yorker!

NY Times.

But you should modify your question. There are news aggregators, which if you read every day you'd be reasonably well-informed. Even Drudge. But the aggregators aren't actually providing the information, they're just linking or quoting news stories. (Or they're providing wire stories.)

TPM is an informative site, but it wouldn't be if you just limited yourself to stories which TPM uncovered itself and wrote itself. In fact, you'd only be reading about 1% of the site.

Which brings me to my point: Name one online news source. A web site which does its own reporting, and if you'd read every day you'd be well-informed about whatever it covers.

Just one.

NYT

I'll echo The Economist. They often interpret events in a conservative but intellectually honest, without dogmatic knee-jerking (usually). Also, the magazine has a pretty good sense of humor, and (most importantly) won't hesitate to call bullshit bullshit. The obituaries are always outstanding.

(Runner up is the Daily Show, for surprisingly similar reasons to the economist; 2nd runner up is TPM)

Newspaper: The New York Times

New York Times

You know, I think I'll go with the New Yorker. My knowledge would be eclectic and spotty, but deep in those spots, and I'd enjoy the process.

DailyKos

DailyKos

Yup -- New Yorker for me too. I wouldn't be up to the minute, but whatever was important enough to make it would be interestingly digested. Come to think of it, maybe I'll just stop reading everything else right now -- I bet my life would be way better!

BuzzFlash.com.

And before you even open your mouth, yes, I am assuming I get to click through the links. That's the whole point: You question is flawed.

news.google.com

NPR radio. I don't trust the BBC anymore to be completely unbiased, but several other shows balance that out.

The Economist is only once a week, not enough for a news junkie like me so I suppose I'd have to choose the IHT even though it's gone downhill since the New York Times acquired full control.

I suppose it would be the MSNBC news channel.
Or, if this counts, MSNBC.com.

A silly question.

Now, if the question had been "if you could only listen to one band for the rest of your life who would it be?" I might be more open to the question.

I absorb as much information from as many sources as possible on a daily basis. To do less would render me no less than a fucking Fox viewer or dittohead.

In my comment at 4:19, I wasn't talking about a robo-news-aggregator like Yahoo or Google have, I was talking about a website run by some news freaks who pick out interesting stories and post links, but don't do much (if any) original writing on the site themselves.

I think this is the best answer to the question, because if you look at a blog, you click through on links to stories, and if you look at newspaper website, you click on links on a front-page to articles. A news website like I'm talking about is really like a person virtually cutting and pasting articles from many different newspapers and blogs to make one combination-newspaper, because all the articles are headlined on, and just one click away from, the main page on the site.

add me to the NPR votes. all day. is that cheating?

I would pick the LA Times, thus assuring myself of national, international and local news. If I lived in NY, of course, I would pick the NYT. If I lived in the hinterlands, I might select NPR -- but at the cost of local news.

BBC world service on radio.

NPR. Not Even Close.

Fark!

How can any one read a newspaper without a comics page? I first thought blog; but, think BBC is a good answer.

TPM

CNN.com

Ha, just kidding of course.

NPR All Things Considered

And a definite vote against the NY Times. As a left coaster, they are clueless regarding anything occurring west of the Mississippi.

TPM

I canceled the WashPost this past winter.

Since I now get the news from a wide variety of sources, no one of them would do the job, so I'm left to choose from ones I don't already consume, which makes it tough. But I guess I'd choose the BBC website.

If I had to choose from among my current sources, though, I'd go with The Daily Show, if only because it would be the hardest one to give up.

Los Angeles Times, because I live in the OC.

Up until 2 years ago I would have said _The Atlantic_, but I fear it is headed down the TNR road now.

Cranky

Tough call, love NPR (former Morning Edition host) but feel BBC4 is what I would have to choose. As with the aforementioned Economist, coverage of stateside-issues can be sketchy at times but is most likely still the best overall source for news.

Addendum. Regarding the Economist and it's fantastic talent for snark; why can't American media get the this concept?

The BBC America newscast with Matt Frei is great as well -the comments that Mr. Frei passes when subjects strike him are at times hilarious.

In These Times

No Brainer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

As much as I dislike it at times...WaPo

NY TIMES online.

NY TIMES online.

BBC

Wow, tough choice. NPR or BBC. I'll go with NPR, since I'll get a bit of BBC with it.

ESPN; just as an irrelevant news service as everyone else.

It's hard to choose just one. I think the variety of what I read and listen to all contributes. It's certainly easier to tell you what I live without--TV news. I turned it off in 1999 and never regretted that decision.

I love all my blogs, but for max content: NPR

Bloomberg.com

Given that it is an absurdity to limit oneself to one, here goes: I would not go for the "broad coverage" angle and focus more on quality, hence I would pick Amy Goodman's Democracy Now.

The Daily Racing Form

I read sports section first.

Washington Post

NPR

Google News?

Your specification of "one source" is imprecise when the net is involved.

Am I really only the second person to endorse Fark?

Neue Zürcher Zeitung - the world's most compleat newspaper, in the actual meaning of compleat.

daily show

NYT

The Financial Times.

Unmatched breadth of international news coverage - and the articles are shorter and more to the point than the admittedly great (but fewer and longer) stories in the New York Times.

And it has a wonderful, wonderful weekend section on saturdays - Life & Arts, on books, art, etc. To get a taste of the FT pick up this saturday's copy. You won't regret it!

[and no, i don't work for the FT!]

NPR

BBC. Bitch. Scream. Like Porsche. There is no substitute.

I should also point out that I am a Guardian fanatic. My homepage is the Irish Independent, I lived on my NYT subscription for years and every year I spend a month in Europe where the Guardian, IHT and Independent are rarely more than a foot away. But the BBC is unsurpassed in its comprehensive approach to the world. As for faults, the BBC's coverage of Northern Ireland in the 80s and 90s was an embarrassment surpassed only by the US media's coverage of America for the past two decades. Yet, the BBC remains incomparable as a view to the world.

TPM

Vin Scully.

The President's Daily Brief

BBC Radio 4

Late Night Live. - Sooner or later they do a decently in depth interview almost anyone of importance, often before the rest of the world finds out about them. Almost every episode is quality and genuinely very interesting and they run 4/5 nights a week. Can't be beat.

BBC

NYTimes online. I'm originally from NY and can't do without the local news....

Looking down this list, I have to say I'm amazed that anyone might possibly choose a blog such as TPM or Kos.

Who might choose one of these blogs, so transparent in their biases and so incapable of restraining them, as their sole source of news? Only someone so committed to indulging their own prejudices that whatever processes go on in their brain can scarcely be described as reasoning anymore.

Which would explain a very great deal about the blogosphere and its commenters.

The Wall Street Journal

I'm suprised I'm the only one. The non-business coverage is getting better, more focus on political, cultural, personal finance, etc., the editorial page is crap but that's fine I just ignore it.

Easily the BBC. Limited only to US sources? McClatchy.

Washington Post

In These Times

Duh

Financial Times of London--they tend to notice stuff that is happening from 2 to 4 weeks before the rest of the media.

Economist, like many others.

And I have to say, if I could read nothing other than the Huffington Post, I would shoot myself.

If I only had one I'd probably get bored and never read, watch, or listen. That said, I'd probably regret not watching the Colbert Report more than I'd regret not reading the NYT.

NY Times without doubt, the problem with radio and TV is you can't choose what youre hearing/watching at any given time. NY Times has so much content to access and the quality is way above any blog or website (sorry).

Christian Science Monitor

BBC World news (website preferably, but TV will do in a pinch)

cursor.org

best portal. i use daily

TPM

With only 1 source, I would take the NYTimes, though I'd sorely miss yours and the blogs of others.

The Guardian online.

Only one? In that case it would be my local newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune. Not because it's a great newpaper (though it's better than it was in its dark ages), but because its the only one that would provide reasonalby decent coverage of national and world news and news of San Diego city and county. Man, am I glad this is hypothetical.
. . . jim strain in san dieg