How do you like to be informed...

...I'd be grateful for your views on the following options:

1. News only: Simple factual content from verified sources.

2. News and commentary: The above plus the writers personal views as a clearly distinguished comment on the issue.

3. Retrospective commentary: A longer term view on events rather than daily 'firing from the hip' predictions.

4. Unbridled rant.

only a liberal jew dupe of the msm would ask such a question

depends on the thing

e.g. weather simple

history of fascism, from wise georgetown professor in portentous lady morgan freeman narrative voice

Strutts... ...I'll put you down as a 4.

1 through 3 only

And if it hasn't been reported in either (i) The New York Times, (ii) The Washington Post or (iii) The Guardian then it probably didn't happen. They don't have to be the first to report it, but if they don't pick it up then I will struggle to believe that the original source was legit.

TBH at 10 o clock, each night, on the telly before a repeat of question of sport. ideally endinv with an uplifting tale of a cat being rescued from a cement mixer or a panda finally conceiving i think telly news people find it harder to be w**kers.

Supes does that mean you don't trust online media sources to verify?

1 to 3 although 4 can be amusing from time to time. Clearly anyone who reads the Express is just after 4.

Really Wang... ...I would counter that will Tom Bradby who comes across as a pretentious arsehole.

I don't Fluffy. I will give an online source greater credibility if their stories are regularly picked up by one of those three, but I won't trust a story 100% until it has been picked up.

Supes, sorry to target you (you are the only one responding ) - do you subscribe to the NYT or WP.

Not at all tbh. Information tends to conflict with my opinions

I do subscribe to both of them as well as the Guardian, even though it's free. They are basically the only thing stopping us from plunging headlong in to chaos.