I tend to go to Google News first, then to CNN or other TV sources for details.

I tend to go to Google News first, then to CNN or other TV sources for details.

I tend to go to Google News first, then to CNN or other TV sources for details.

I tend to go to Google News first, then to CNN or other TV sources for details.

I like to eat cheese. Ymummy. I want to watch TV and eat cheese when terroriests sattacks.

I like to eat cheese. Ymummy. I want to watch TV and eat cheese when terroriests sattacks.

We heard you the first time.

But seriously, news.google.com is not the best place to turn *if* you know something's just happened (say, from IRC or another chat environment where someone else is watching TV), as it's on roughly 15 minute delay from what's happening on the planet.

If you think you're in danger and can't get to "realtime" media for some reason, any of CNN/ABC/CBS/heck_even_FoxNews would be worthwhile first hits before checking to see if Google's picked up on the event. Of course, if you're far enough removed from whatever it is, you probably won't mind waiting the couple minutes for the newsbot to refresh itself.

And what if the power goes out? I guess everyone has battery powered TV and computers?

During the power outages in Toronto, Canada, I talked to colleagues who were kicking themselves for not having a battery-powered radio while sitting in darkened offices, with no cell phone and computer access, seeking information. The phones worked, which is why they phoned me (about 600 miles away) for information on what was happening just outside their window.

Why is radio not coming up high on this sort of survey?

I'm severly hearing impaired. I've made notice, since I've lost my hearing, that when a hearing person has a conversation on a phone he/she raises their voice? What's up with that?

It takes people a long time to get used to using a new product. They say about 50 years.

We've had telephones now for at least 100 years. And we don't have to yell into them as we thought we did when they were first brought onto the market in the late 1800's. "How can someone hear you miles away if you don't yell?"

But, as humans "evolve", we still raise our voices when we use the telephone?! "Can you hear me from here?"

I use News.Google as my homepage, but I have to
agree with A.P., they are not the quickest on
the story. During 9/11AM we listened on the radio,
wifes called in with video reports, and I
was on my way home within 2 hours, to watch it on
broadband internet. We do have internet at work,
however it was taxed beyond usefulness.

It would all depend on what was out - with no power at home I'd use a wind-up radio. If local power was still OK, I'd watch TV (BBC - I'm in London), supplemented by the Internet.

Whatever the source, I would be wary of all breaking news, rumours abound at times like this and it usually takes a few hours to get the basic facts. To find out the whole truth could take a lifetime!

osomosis is fun . . . but sometimes inaccurate.

When 911 happened, I heard incomplete reports that a plane had hit a building in NY. I tried to find information on the Net, but nobidy had anything but just that data. Then I turn on CNN and they already have a camera on the roof and are reporting that a jet liner had hit the WTC. A minute later, plane number 2.

I prefer internet for news (google news rocks). But for realtime, emergent information like terror attacks and the like, TV gets the jump on all other media.

When 911 happened, I heard incomplete reports that a plane had hit a building in NY. I tried to find information on the Net, but nobidy had anything but just that data. Then I turn on CNN and they already have a camera on the roof and are reporting that a jet liner had hit the WTC. A minute later, plane number 2.

I prefer internet for news (google news rocks). But for realtime, emergent information like terror attacks and the like, TV gets the jump on all other media.

Doesn't anyone remember trying to get news online on 9/11? The Internet was overloaded and snowed under -- most of the major news networks' home pages were worthless, you couldn't load a page in five minutes. Can't imagine how much more useless the Net would be in a larger catastrophe.

I didn't have problems loading webpages on 9/11.

I do prefer TV unless I'm at work and we have no tv just internet (unauthorized but accessable).

Seeing stuff real time on TV is nice, but if something were to happen on a regional level, not just one or two cities, I'd probably be clueless. Most of my city was blacked out in the power failure recently, (not my place though!) but I couldn't get any info on my area because the cable networks were saturated with NEW YORK.

Having been in Kuwait during the Iraq war, TV was a godsend. Inside a metal box full of noise, when the scud alarms went off it was Wolf Blitzer putting on his mask that alerted us to incoming. Thank goodness we never needed them.

Newness is relative.