I mean this broadly. When you look to "the news," whatever that might mean to you -- whats wrong with it? Why don't you engage? Why don't you trust it (if you don't?)
What do you consider "the news" -- and what are your thoughts, good or bad?
I am really curious -- looking for any and all opinions.
That, and also seeing how disempowered the average American has become in terms of their ability to actually make any difference in the political or corporate world. It's just a dog-and-pony show in these waning days of democracy combined with ever-more-powerful corporate interests... the news really just serves as a way to reaffirm how helpless the overwhelming majority of us really are, no matter if it's the latest hot-button political topic, layoffs, return-to-office mandates, etc. The news helps the elites mirror each other's strategies and behaviors, while doing little more than instilling a sense of cyclic doom and gloom for the average Joe.
They don't call it "doomscrolling" for nothing.
It's also true that a lot of anti-oligarch news gets published, there's some bells you can't unring. If news orgs published only Baghdad Bob type lunacy, they'd loose all credibility. Framing and selective publishing can do the trick.
Skimming the Infotainment dopamine sites for fun but not for news. There has never been a news site and probably won't ever be in my opinion. Not newspapers, radio, television, scrawling on cave walls. Everyone has multiple agendas, hidden agendas and some more obvious.
Somewhat off topic from your question I enjoy when people make a mashup of all the "news" sites repeating the exact narratives they were given verbatim whilst playing circus music.
Example [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo [video][2 mins][warning: does not contain circus music]
There is however great value in its archives, e.g. for contemporary historians and journalists painting a bigger picture or consulting decision makers. Can't compute history from today.
And of course there's possible problems with bias, agendas, etc. But that's history science 101.
Not American and dunno about CNBC, but national news seems more for economic decision makers, politicians. Not saying nobody else should have access to that sort of thing, but it's cognitively too hard to follow for me alongside everything else.
It's a difficult delivery/targeting problem. Everything's happening all the time. Right (truthful and complete) information for the right person (role, intention, interest?) at the right time/occasion (entertainment, time-sensitive, deliberate research?). And to be clear: I do not necessarily mean algorithmic targetting or recommendation. E.g. the (hobbyist) historian certainly wouldn't want to be swayed this way.
Incidentally sifting through news archives is something LLMs might be quite good at, e.g. for consolidation, comparison, lookup. However they mustn't kill their sources doing that. There's no replacement for primary sources (except AGI yadda yadda)
Reuters is a wire service that many other outfits license and republish, usually verbatim or with some truncation for brevity. It's the journalistic equivalent of retweets without any further comments. They also try to maintain a high degree of non-partisanship (because they want to broadly resell their content across demographic/cultural boundaries), which is good in a "just the facts" kinda sense, bad in the sense that it makes for boring reading and usually doesn't carry a lot of detail/commentary/analysis – which for people not already informed on a topic usually means they're just glossing over it and not getting any of the subtext. It's kinda like trying to understand world affairs through RSS feeds instead of in-depth expertise.
Nothing inherently "wrong" with that model, but it's not the same as true investigative journalism (which there is less and less of, both in terms of producers/journalists and audiences interested in that material) or even a good blogger explaining the important background of a topic. As our attention spans shorten to tweet length or below, perhaps our thoughts become similarly oversimplified. Nuance and depth don't really sell anymore, so our journalism is likewise shallow...
Who?