Which is why I tell people that if they're getting their news from TV, they're doing it wrong.

> Above Board definitely correlates with quality, because it implies truthiness, which is obviously a key consideration.

It is one of many factors. You can have a news source that is 100% accurate and virtually useless.

> CNN is a broadcast news channel that covers things as they happen, not a newspaper where they write articles as long as they like.

> So you'd compare it to MSNBC and Fox and possibly Network News, not news papers.

Depends on your goals. If you want relevant and accurate, then print is better. If you want breaking news as soon as it happens and can't wait a day - sure, TV news is better (still worse than radio). In my experience, less than 1% of TV news content is needed by 99% of Americans on the same day it occurs. They're not worse off if they find out the next day.

On top of that, a lot of "breaking news" is riddled with errors and speculation. If you want to know what happened, as opposed to what may have happened, it's simpler to wait. When I was a news addict, I was drowning with too much content. I put limits on myself: Once a month I would catch up with the news feeds (could take over a week to do so), and it quickly became obvious how relatively worthless "early" news was. I'd get all the relevant information by reading a fifth of the articles.