Tuning out the news

[Elefantino]

Preface: I hope this does not turn into a flaming politics thread.

After having been both a consumer and generator of news for most of my life, I decided recently to detach myself, for the most part, from the daily madness of the news circus. By that I mean I removed all political players from my Twitter feed, no longer watch cable news and don't discuss it much anymore. I still have a Washington Post subscription but for the most part am avoiding the Beltway Blather and read the lifestyle pieces.

It has been refreshing.

Regardless of anyone's ideological bent, I don't think there's any argument that the daily drumbeat of he/she did this/that has made much if not most of our discourse more toxic. It's been more than 20 years since Psychology Today reported its first "negative news" study - which was damning at the time - and those days seem like a kumbaya campfire compared with the present. I have family members on both sides of the political spectrum, and the ones who spend the most time watching/discussing/living/breathing all things political have become very angry.

One of them called me just now and asked if I'd read the Mueller Report yet. Uh, no; hadn't and don't plan to. Then came the attack: "Don't you care anymore? Have you given up?"

In a sense, yes. I've given up structuring my thoughts and my day around what is happening politically. I'd much rather watch race reruns on Eurosport than the latest cable news gabfest. We're watching more movies and shows on Amazon and Netflix. We're taking more walks with the dog. We're playing more gin.

Some might consider this an abdication of my journalism roots (35 years in the news business), and it probably is to some degree. But so what.

Has anyone else cut the political/news cord?

[sokyroadie]

Pretty much, if I happen so see something when I scroll the web, I might glance at it but I haven't sat through a news program in years. I have enough issues to deal with without seeing all the depressing news. Drinking more Gin sounds like more fun than playing.;)

[oldpotatoe]

Sure, why not but please don’t give up your duty to vote, November 2020.

[Clean39T]

Yep - almost didn't even open this thread... !!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sipmeister]

I read cycling related news and scan some headlines occasionally. But each day the news is the same and has had a similar theme for years now. The more I stepped back, the more I saw a pattern in the news, meant to get people excited and get an emotion out of them. It's become predictable.

[jimcav]

I value FOI and having facts out in the open. Having some talking head with questionable true expertise (ie " _____strategist") give opinion and interpretation is a bit mind-numbing--which to me is dangerous. I wish people wanted to be informed versus influenced toward what they already wish was true.

[FlashUNC]

I fully support anyone taking a break when they need to, but I would caution that an engaged, informed society is necessary for a functioning democracy. So please don't fully disengage.

Apathy is corrosive to the institutions that the country has built over the last two centuries, and there are some segments of the population today who don't have the luxury of disengaging because our political choices have real impact on their lives.

But yes, there's times when I need to mute the news for a few days. Let someone else fight the good fight.

[old_fat_and_slow]

I couldn't disagree more. It is the electorate's responsibility to stay abreast of the news and the current issues affecting society. If you're uninformed about the problems affecting society, how are you going to make the proper decisions come voting time? Sure you need to account for a certain amount of "spin" depending on your news source, but I don't think the answer to society's problems is to just stick our collective heads in the sand and ignore the news because we don't like it or we're tired of hearing the same stuff all the time.

[prototoast]

I work for the federal government in the Government Accountability Office, so it's my job not to tune out a lot of the government news. I'd like to say that we pay attention so you don't have to, but at the end of the day, the government is run by elected officials or those they appoint; so to keep the system running smoothly it is important that the citizens vote, and it's important that citizens keep themselves informed.

But with all that said, it's probably healthy to tune out the cable news debate-as-sport 24 hour programming. It's probably healthy to not rush from one clickbait headline to the next. It's probably healthy to make sure that your life is the primary focus of your life, and not just following the stories of other.

Try to keep things in balance, keep yourself informed, be engaged with both local and national politics, but don't let them take over your life. Beyond that, know that there are many of us behind the scenes working every day to make our government work better for you

[Seramount]

seems like a somewhat important point in the country's history to pay attention to what's happening.

you don't have to mainline the news, but something beyond a vague awareness of currents events would be worthwhile to those intending to cast a ballot.

[OtayBW]

I hear you about taking a news break. I have a 1.5 - 2 hour commute each way, and I usually listen to news/talk radio. With all this continuing and degenerating $(#$&! going on each day, I have been about ready to seek counseling.....

But here right now, things are critical, so I'll continue to listen, but the chronic stress is really starting to get to me...

[Gummee]

I read cycling related news and scan some headlines occasionally. But each day the news is the same and has had a similar theme for years now. The more I stepped back, the more I saw a pattern in the news, meant to get people excited and get an emotion out of them. It's become predictable.

You know why, right?

If you're reacting emotionally, you're not analysing. You've stopped thinking logically.

People that are reacting are MUCH much easier to control than the ones that think things thru before they decide how to react.

I'm with the OP for the most part. If there's something particularly egregious, I'll pay attention, but overall? Pass. I don't need the negativity in my life that the news brings. ...since there's no such thing as good news.

M

[MattTuck]

I fully support anyone taking a break when they need to, but I would caution that an engaged, informed society is necessary for a functioning democracy. So please don't fully disengage.

Apathy is corrosive to the institutions that the country has built over the last two centuries, and there are some segments of the population today who don't have the luxury of disengaging because our political choices have real impact on their lives.

But yes, there's times when I need to mute the news for a few days. Let someone else fight the good fight.

Also worth noting that much of what passes for "news" today is more about making headlines than covering the important issues we face as a society. There is a bit too much attention paid to covering the horse race than there is to horse racing industry.

I'll also add that there are billions of people on the planet that don't have access to a free and independent press, and thus it shouldn't be taken for granted.

Sadly, true journalism seems to be a waning craft as the media industry chases clicks.

[choke]

I haven't paid attention to mainstream news outlets for years....they're toxic IMO. And they all have a bias....

A letter from Thomas Jefferson in 1807 (http://web.archive.org/web/20110221124111/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=176&division=div1):
To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, `by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.' Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day.

[josephr]

I quit Facebook and news following last summer...occasionally people bring up politics and I just nod, try to change the subject or walk away. Also avoid others' drama too. I'm happy in my isolation. :cool:

[Ozz]

News has been "entertainment" and a political tool since 1987...

"The Fairness Doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine)"

Get multiple sources, check your facts, be skeptical and think critically....:cool:

[unterhausen]

It's a tricky balance between keeping abreast and getting too far into the weeds. I try not to get angry, especially at people that I might feel compelled to vote for.

[GonaSovereign]

A lot of people benefit when the masses tune out. It's almost as bad as tuning in to the garbage news.

Here's a handy news consumption chart (not mine). It's a straightforward and reasonably accurate guide to selecting a legitimate source. It's a bit like a nutrition guide: consume from both sides of the middle/top area. Don't be spoon-fed by the bottom. If you don't consume anything, you're starved of info.

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47586706262_b3693095db_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2fv5iSN)News diet (https://flic.kr/p/2fv5iSN)

[Gummee]

A lot of people benefit when the masses tune out. It's almost as bad as tuning in to the garbage news.

Here's a handy news consumption chart (not mine). It's a straightforward and reasonably accurate guide to selecting a legitimate source. It's a bit like a nutrition guide: consume from both sides of the middle/top area. Don't be spoon-fed by the bottom. If you don't consume anything, you're starved of info.

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47586706262_b3693095db_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2fv5iSN)News diet (https://flic.kr/p/2fv5iSN)
I've read more than a few Washington Post articles over the years since I live outside DC and can tell you they tend to skew leftwards. All you need to do is read which adjectives they use when describing the news they print.

Some 'reporters' more than others, obviously

M

[beeatnik]

My favorite jam at 17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS7vu0IQhqE

I hear it every day on the radio
Somebody shoots a guy he don't even know
Airplanes falling out of the sky
A baby is born and another one dies
Highways fill with refugees, now
Doctors finding out about disease
With all this uptight pushing and shoving
Keeps us away from who we're loving (loving)

Progressive hardcore punk is so weird.

[makoti]

I haven't paid attention to mainstream news outlets for years....they're toxic IMO. And they all have a bias....


So you get your information from the fringes? That's not good.

[Peter P.]

Get multiple sources, check your facts, be skeptical and think critically....:cool:

Ozz pretty much sums up my approach.

Regardless of vitriolic it is, I feel it's important to be well informed and think critically of the information you take in. It is necessary to help us make good decisions whether it be voting in elections or inspiring us to take action.

To stick your head in the sand makes for an ignorant, gullible public.

[rnhood]

So much of the cable and over the air news is sensationalized to get more readers. Stick to papers or outlets like the Wall St. Journal and you will be well informed. That's what I do, and I am happy. Somewhere, somehow, some time ago many of our politicians lost the American way, or spirit it seems. Now they just sit around spitting and bitching, and conducting investigations. They accomplish virtually nothing.

[joosttx]

A nice you of tuning out the news is to get a subscription to audible.com- at least what I did. I dont listen to CNN as much and it has been a joy. I think there is a belief that one needs to be update with current events to be a good citizen that I disagree with.

[beeatnik]

So much of the cable and over the air news is sensationalized to get more readers. Stick to papers or outlets like the Wall St. Journal and you will be well informed. That's what I do, and I am happy. Somewhere, somehow, some time ago many of our politicians lost the American way, or spirit it seems. Now they just sit around spitting and bitching, and conducting investigations. They accomplish virtually nothing.

Is the THN a good periodical?

[choke]

So you get your information from the fringes? That's not good.

Известия and Правда are hardly "fringes".

:)

[bigbill]

I get my world news from BBC and my domestic news from Reuters, AP, NPR, and Fox Business. I spend very little time on current events.

I'm sick of the current situation though, I'd like everyone in DC to just shrug their collective shoulders and get back to doing their jobs.

[d_douglas]

I am dangerously clued out. I don’t own a TV and process to hate it, but I don’t have a balanced understanding of world news.

I often listen in on Trevor Noah, John Oliver and Stephen Colbert (my wife watches religiously) but realize that entertainment masquerading as news is as dangerous to follow as Fox or other biased mainstream news sources.

I am a left leaning guy for sure, but there’s so many trump jokes per minute that even I shake my head and wish for some middle ground.

Maybe I need a tv?

[Blue Jays]

Pleasantly shocked that nobody has invoked Godwin’s Law in this thread yet. :banana:

[jamesdak]

I haven't paid attention to mainstream news outlets for years....they're toxic IMO. And they all have a bias....

A letter from Thomas Jefferson in 1807 (http://web.archive.org/web/20110221124111/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=176&division=div1):

So, so true. I even did a college paper years ago trying to prove that the mainstream media was unbiased and could not prove it. They are all just a mouthpiece pushing an agenda. :mad:

[pcxmbfj]

A lot of people benefit when the masses tune out. It's almost as bad as tuning in to the garbage news.

Here's a handy news consumption chart (not mine). It's a straightforward and reasonably accurate guide to selecting a legitimate source. It's a bit like a nutrition guide: consume from both sides of the middle/top area. Don't be spoon-fed by the bottom. If you don't consume anything, you're starved of info.

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47586706262_b3693095db_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2fv5iSN)News diet (https://flic.kr/p/2fv5iSN)

Up vote this! Most if not all TV news tends toward hyperbole. Even PBS, my preferred, seems to becoming a magazine.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[oldpotatoe]

Up vote this!

Where's www.aljazeera.com?? On that chart..I look at it cuz just the name tweaks a certain 'person'...:)

[Elefantino]

So, so true. I even did a college paper years ago trying to prove that the mainstream media was unbiased and could not prove it. They are all just a mouthpiece pushing an agenda. :mad:

Not all. Unless you count truth as an agenda; then, yes, myself included.

[GonaSovereign]

My favorite jam at 17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS7vu0IQhqE

I hear it every day on the radio
Somebody shoots a guy he don't even know
Airplanes falling out of the sky
A baby is born and another one dies
Highways fill with refugees, now
Doctors finding out about disease
With all this uptight pushing and shoving
Keeps us away from who we're loving (loving)

Progressive hardcore punk is so weird.

Grant Hart RIP.

[zap]

Back on topic, I think it is healthy tuning out "news" from time to time.

[Davist]

I haven't paid attention to mainstream news outlets for years....they're toxic IMO. And they all have a bias....

A letter from Thomas Jefferson in 1807 (http://web.archive.org/web/20110221124111/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=176&division=div1):

I'm sure T Jefferson knew the difference between its and it's (not a slam on you, Choke! on the interweb source material). Funny how everything old is new again, right? the 24 hour OPINION cycle is not worthy of too much attention, now or previously, IMHO. I've scaled back on it as well.

[Gummee]

Not all. Unless you count truth as an agenda; then, yes, myself included.

First you need to recognize personal biases in the writing/coverage of said 'truth.'

Then you need to compare biases against each other to figure out the 'real Truth.'

You can tell from the way adjectives are used which direction the particular writer is leaning. I'd prefer there were no biases in the news, but that'll never happen. What's worse are overtly biased coverages masquerading as non-biased sources.

Everyone has a lens through which they view the world. If you keep reading/watching the news and keep getting the 'truth' and keep agreeing with everything, be very wary because you're not getting 'the Truth.'

M

[makoti]

So, so true. I even did a college paper years ago trying to prove that the mainstream media was unbiased and could not prove it. They are all just a mouthpiece pushing an agenda. :mad:

So tell me, those of you who love to bash the "mainstream media", where do you get your information? The middle may have biases, but on balance they give a reasonably unbiased reading of the news. The...what, non-mainstream?...is littered with "news' that is so biased as to be little more than political ads.
Who do you trust, if not the established news sources? Where do you go to find news slanted the way you like it? Because that's all you're doing.

[Ralph]

OK....so cut back some, don't let it run your life. But please don't tune out completely. An apathetic public is a dangerous thing. Hitler never had more than 40% of the people supporting him, and by the time the rest woke up....it was too late.

[tuscanyswe]

Ill tune out as soon as i feel theres a person reasonably responsible in charge of the "world".

[Ozz]

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky there is freedom of the press...even if it can be biased: "'Tank man' video for Leica sparks outcry in China ahead of Tiananmen anniversary (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-leica-china-tiananmen-idUSKCN1RV0JG)"

"The ruling Communist Party has never declared how many people died in the crackdown and discussion of the incident is censored on social media."

I guess pretending it never happened is one strategy.....:cool:

[Blue Jays]

"...Pleasantly shocked that nobody has invoked Godwin’s Law in this thread yet..." :banana:

"...Hitler never had more than 40% of the people supporting him..."

It took until the third page, yet I knew we would do it! :hello:

[BlueFly]

Ill tune out as soon as i feel theres a person reasonably responsible in charge of the "world".

Amen, Bro

[Bruce K]

We were doing so good....:crap:

Can we PLEASE refrain from Hitler references and try and stay on the rails?

Even the chart was pretty objective and lots of the commentary has been on point and respectful.

Thanks in advance

BK

[jlwdm]

I love all of the technology advancements that have taken place. When I got out of law school and wanted to change something in a document the whole document was retyped. Later I worked for a restaurant company where an office of about 15 people shared one computer. Now I live on my phone and use zillions of apps and send docusigns almost daily.

The downside is I cannot put my phone down. If I am waiting in line at a fast casual restaurant I am looking at my phone. If I am watching tv I am still searching the web or looking at emails. I feel like I never relax. Clients expect to be able to contact me by text almost 24 hrs a day.

Phones and social media have likewise had positive and negative influences on the news. I can get news immediately, but usually it is not news I need immediately. I don't need to know about every bus crash or other accident in a foreign country or other part of the US. I do not need to know about the lives of celebrities. I think it is really difficult to be in the news business as someone is going to post about a situation before you can verify the information. News sources that do not worry about their reputations will post immediately and pay for stories. And in-depth verified news has less value today as people are looking for sound bites. So I do not follow a lot of news. I have a few streaming services and a TV antenna but I do not watch any tv news.

I listen to some sports news in the car and it amazes me how they can take 15 minutes to talk about something that is worth one minute. They are just trying to fill up the space.

I don't like the fact that with technology people are videoing everything that someone is doing. I also don't care if someone did something wrong as a youth. I don't want elected officials who have never made a mistake. On the other hand I do not understand why anyone who run for office in this day and age. You are giving up your privacy and your life. i stated quite a few years ago that I did not think I would ever see a candidate for president that I would want to vote for. So far this is true. I register as an independent but that does not have much value in a country with essentially a two party system.

It worries me where technology is taking us.

Jeff

[Gummee]

I love all of the technology advancements that have taken place. When I got out of law school and wanted to change something in a document the whole document was retyped. Later I worked for a restaurant company where an office of about 15 people shared one computer. Now I live on my phone and use zillions of apps and send docusigns almost daily.

The downside is I cannot put my phone down. If I am waiting in line at a fast casual restaurant I am looking at my phone. If I am watching tv I am still searching the web or looking at emails. I feel like I never relax. Clients expect to be able to contact me by text almost 24 hrs a day.

Phones and social media have likewise had positive and negative influences on the news. I can get news immediately, but usually it is not news I need immediately. I don't need to know about every bus crash or other accident in a foreign country or other part of the US. I do not need to know about the lives of celebrities. I think it is really difficult to be in the news business as someone is going to post about a situation before you can verify the information. News sources that do not worry about their reputations will post immediately and pay for stories. And in-depth verified news has less value today as people are looking for sound bites. So I do not follow a lot of news. I have a few streaming services and a TV antenna but I do not watch any tv news.

I listen to some sports news in the car and it amazes me how they can take 15 minutes to talk about something that is worth one minute. They are just trying to fill up the space.

I don't like the fact that with technology people are videoing everything that someone is doing. I also don't care if someone did something wrong as a youth. I don't want elected officials who have never made a mistake. On the other hand I do not understand why anyone who run for office in this day and age. You are giving up your privacy and your life. i stated quite a few years ago that I did not think I would ever see a candidate for president that I would want to vote for. So far this is true. I register as an independent but that does not have much value in a country with essentially a two party system.

It worries me where technology is taking us.

Jeff
IMO if you want to be POTUS, you probably shouldn't be.

With the last few POTUSes we've had, you could grab anyone off the street and they'd do a better job.

Crimes against children are generally down. Nowadays you can have a mom in San Diego hearing about a kid abducted in upstate NY... Now she thinks OMG it isn't safe! Thank you 24/7 news media. SOMEthing's gotta fill that space.

M

[Red Tornado]

My wife has pretty much done this. She never liked the political "news" channels and even regular news seems to be mostly negative these days.

My soon-to-be college graduate daughter has always prided herself on keeping up with all sides of the political arena, world events, etc. Lately she has been saying it's exhausting with all of the political fighting, vitriol, he said/she said, etc.

I try to stay abreast of the main issues. Typically use voting records as one of my main guides when determining who to vote for.

[72gmc]

I've been off F'book since the 2016 elections.

If I want to attend my high school reunion, I'll have to sneak back in.

Hmmm ...

[raygunner]

I read cycling related news and scan some headlines occasionally. But each day the news is the same and has had a similar theme for years now. The more I stepped back, the more I saw a pattern in the news, meant to get people excited and get an emotion out of them. It's become predictable.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%2Fimag e%2F4f3ad6d16bb3f78a15000015-1190-625%2Fspooky-the-1976-movie-network-predicted-youtube-and-two-and-a-half-men.jpg&f=1

[Buzz]

The chart is interesting. What “expert” came up with it? Really, CNN, The NY Times and WashingtonPost are at the center indicating minimal political bias?? The same NY times that has endorsed only two republican presidential candidates (one of whom was Eisenhower) in the past 100 years? The same NY times that knowingly published a false front page article during McCain’ presidential run implying that he was having an affair with a lobbist even though the editors knew it wasn’t true or refusing to publish a letter by McCain in response to a policy position by then candidate Obama because the editor of the times deemed MCains response not newsworthy? Why would an supposedly apolitical news outlet do those things especially during a presidential campaign when voters were relying on it to understand the candidates?

I am a lifelong subscriber to The NY Times but it’s political bias is pretty obvious. Which makes me question the reliability of said chart.

Things have changed out there. My good friends father was the editor of a large city daily. A real old school newsman. To this day I never figured out his political affiliation. Now it seems to be a prerequisite for a media position (or even university level teaching position)

Everything politically related you see, read and hear is filtered and sent out with a purpose in mind, is skewed by the perspective of those preparing it...and in essence is becoming no different than the intent behind advertising - to sell something whether it’s the Democratic Party, the Republican Party or newest flavor Green socialism.

Anyway, I agree with the OP and have also moved to limit social media interfacing and others’ comments on how they are dealing with the avalanche of news, opinion, vitriol.

I recently finished a trial and during the initial jury selection opposing counsel kept asking the prospective jurors what news outlets they listened to. You used to get answers to that 20 years ago. Now, most say they don’t watch tv news because there is too much yelling and it’s hard to understand what’s true or not. Quite a shift and not a particularly good endorsement of current news media.

[Davist]

agree with above, the chart is tripe. The Economist has a clear bias. Slate? really? etc, etc..

[Ozz]

IMO if you want to be POTUS, you probably shouldn't be....

It was Plato's opinion first....Philosopher King - Only those who do not wish for political power can be trusted with it.

[thwart]

The same NY Times that knowingly published a false front page article during McCain’ presidential run implying that he was having an affair with a lobbyist even though the editors knew it wasn’t true

First, I am an admirer of Senator McCain and what he accomplished throughout his military and political career. He will always remain a model of what a true American patriot is.

Second, we are all human.

You may want to check your facts on the statement you made above... a subsequent libel suit by the lobbyist was settled with no monetary award whatsoever and the Times agreeing to post a 'note to readers' that they did not intend to conclude that a romantic relationship had occurred.

You can draw your own conclusions.

[dddd]

I cut the cord on my television service almost four years ago, and that was a great start. Not one little regret and I even saved some money.
Giving any of today's TV channels any right to control the sound atmosphere in one's home seems like madness (or an invitation to madness).

Same goes for the sound control on one's PC or phone, nothing should be left set to "launch" audio without operator's consent in real time, so I adjust those settings so as not to ever get blasted with blather.

As for the car radio, thankfully I do not drive often!

[GonaSovereign]

The chart is interesting. What “expert” came up with it? Really, CNN, The NY Times and WashingtonPost are at the center indicating minimal political bias?? snip

agree with above, the chart is tripe. The Economist has a clear bias. Slate? really? etc, etc..

It reads like you've both been taught the skill of critical thinking. That is a good thing!
I predicted the major complaint about the chart would be some sort of disagreement about which outlets are the closest to unbiased (whatever that is). Now that you've offered your commentary on the chart, would you agree or disagree that:


there is value in sharing a framework with others who might not have benefited from the same grounding in critical thought
the publications at the top center generally do invest more in telling a complete reporting of events, have writers/stringers located in multiple locations around the world, include long-form pieces, and balance their obvious (to us) bias with articles that present an opposing view
No two people will ever agree on every outlet on that list (and I certainly don't) but in general it's pretty accurate....and you've never seen anyone else go to the trouble of doing something like that, to try to bring objectivity to the issue (I certainly haven't tried)



It seems like most people will benefit more than less from a little guidance on how to think about the info presented to them. Call me out if I'm wrong.

PS: @Davist- tripe is fed to people who can't stomach something that will upset them. I can't imagine there's an English-literate human alive who could consume all those pubs without feeling some upset.

[makoti]

agree with above, the chart is tripe. The Economist has a clear bias. Slate? really? etc, etc..

EVERYTHING has bias. Jeez. In relation to what else is on the chart, WP, NYT, WSJ fall in the middle. I'd say the chart is pretty accurate. Something being in the center of it doesn't mean you can read it & just accept it without applying some critical thinking skills.

[gasman]

I miss Walter Cronkite so I’m showing my age.

Ive been cutting back a lot on what I read/consume in the news cycle. It seems to be a continual fight on both sides of the aisle that is made much worse by the news that is really just sound bite entertainment .

My wife doesn’t read the front section of what’s left of our local paper and she listens to zero radio/TV news.

[sipmeister]

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%2Fimag e%2F4f3ad6d16bb3f78a15000015-1190-625%2Fspooky-the-1976-movie-network-predicted-youtube-and-two-and-a-half-men.jpg&f=1


Haha, nice!

[RFC]

sure, why not but please don’t give up your duty to vote, november 2020.

+1

[Jef58]

Preface: I hope this does not turn into a flaming politics thread.

After having been both a consumer and generator of news for most of my life, I decided recently to detach myself, for the most part, from the daily madness of the news circus. By that I mean I removed all political players from my Twitter feed, no longer watch cable news and don't discuss it much anymore. I still have a Washington Post subscription but for the most part am avoiding the Beltway Blather and read the lifestyle pieces.

It has been refreshing.

Regardless of anyone's ideological bent, I don't think there's any argument that the daily drumbeat of he/she did this/that has made much if not most of our discourse more toxic. It's been more than 20 years since Psychology Today reported its first "negative news" study - which was damning at the time - and those days seem like a kumbaya campfire compared with the present. I have family members on both sides of the political spectrum, and the ones who spend the most time watching/discussing/living/breathing all things political have become very angry.

One of them called me just now and asked if I'd read the Mueller Report yet. Uh, no; hadn't and don't plan to. Then came the attack: "Don't you care anymore? Have you given up?"

In a sense, yes. I've given up structuring my thoughts and my day around what is happening politically. I'd much rather watch race reruns on Eurosport than the latest cable news gabfest. We're watching more movies and shows on Amazon and Netflix. We're taking more walks with the dog. We're playing more gin.

Some might consider this an abdication of my journalism roots (35 years in the news business), and it probably is to some degree. But so what.

Has anyone else cut the political/news cord?

Yes...kind of. I look at this way, until it affects me personally, it is all noise in the end. For the most part, it doesn't matter who is in office, things really don't change all that much on our level. As long as we are free, have a decent way of life and our civil liberties are intact, that is all we can ask for. Politicians make a living off of creating problems so we can vote for them to solve. As long as they don't solve them, they convince us to keep voting for them.... Thankfully we live in a country where we can voice our disagreements openly without retribution.

[Seramount]

I miss Walter Cronkite...

yeah, there was a time when news anchors like WC and Huntley/Brinkely simply reported the news of the day in a 30-minute broadcast with little added analysis or spin.

the advent of 24/7 cable 'news' mandated constant interpretation for the masses to help fill the hours.

in this day, there is no such thing as a neutral news source. they all have bias and agendas.

[paredown]

I have no nostalgia for Cronkite or the rest of the talking heads from the past--a lot of the news coverage then was uncritical/shaped by spin/not tough enough on DC politicians.

A group of friends have taken a different course than quietism--since they have decided they do not like the actions and attitudes of some current politicians, or see issues that need addressing, they have become activists--some have run for office, most have actively worked on campaigns, most have participated in candidate forums or issues-related meetings and shared their concerns with the "electeds" about what could be done differently.

My personal gripe is not with the people that have let the news dominate their lives, but with those who stay angry and rant all the time, but don't take the step to consider what could be made better, and then participate and especially vote.

A funny thing about participating--it changes your perspective about this country. My favorite experience was a few years ago, poll watching in a local, a gloves-off, hard fought race. The poll watchers were the loveliest group of people--they ranged in age from the oldest who was 70+ to the 'youngster' who was in his 30s, and some had been poll-watching at the same poll for 30 years. It's hard to communicate why it encouraged me--but they were embracing their "duty" as citizens and participating--and something about that is critical to this (and every) democracy.

For me--no TV news (never developed the habit), sampling two major newspapers (Times and Post), a hand in on long form (New Yorker, Atlantic and others), occasional podcasts on specific topics and no phone consumption of anything. My personal favorite these days is a blog called Lawfare--a bunch of smart lawyers trying to figure out where we are...

[Davist]

EVERYTHING has bias. Jeez. In relation to what else is on the chart, WP, NYT, WSJ fall in the middle. I'd say the chart is pretty accurate. Something being in the center of it doesn't mean you can read it & just accept it without applying some critical thinking skills.

I'm sure we're agreed. Understood that "everything" has a bias and your point about critical thinking!.. Showing NYT, Slate and the Economist (clear left bias) in the middle was my issue. I don't think there is a representative middle currently, or a shortcut that can be shown via infographic. Maybe the WSJ is a little closer to middle with a right bias? I tend to read business news mostly so perhaps my bias is toward WSJ as a more reliable source.

The lack of journalism basics (dual independent sources as one) have really impacted my view. Lara Logan recently has spoken out about this, as someone who has some bona fides globally and coming into the US system from outside..

[Hilltopperny]

I personally dropped it all back in 2016 and haven't looked back. I find my moods are better and my family is happier for it.

Focusing on one's own life and remaining positive by being the actual change you'd like to see in the world is much easier when not focusing on the he said/she said mess that is politically driven "news".

Getting caught up in the right/left paradigm with false narratives pushed everyday is a tough existence IMHO and too easy to get caught up in. I know how I personally feel about things and don't need a talking head to try and sway me one way or the other.

Looking at things with a positive outlook and doing the right thing are how I choose to live at this stage of my life and it seems to be working much better than finding things to be angry about or allowing constant negativity to flow through the TV/Computer/smart phone and creep into our minds.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[steveoz]

Tuned it out and really wish some of the more "passionate" ones would do the same....I remember seeing a man berating the cashier at the grocery store screaming "Benghazi!Benghazi! huh! what about that!" (funny how that just dropped off the radar), had another "acquaintance" (former friend) tell me how there was going to be civil war in 6 months if Hillary got elected (he also added the little nugget that I'd be his first target...hence "former friend") people are so mentally fu**ed by the constant negative bombardment that it's having an effect on the fabric of our society...

[daker13]

I struggle with many of the things the OP brought up. Generally, I think the less news one reads the better, but I do believe one has a certain responsibility to the world and for one's country. You can't just bury your head in the sand. I try to be very critical about what I read.

I dislike the chart for reasons different than most. For one thing, it uses the word 'liberal,' which most people on the left, or at least the younger ones, are avoiding, and is a dirty word to those of us to the left of the Democratic party. People who use this word are just relying on an outdated vocabulary. There was a funny exchange recently where the NYT referred to the magazine Current Affairs as a 'liberal' magazine, and the Current Affairs staff threatened to sue them for libel.

The chart refers to the Atlantic as 'leaning liberal'--a magazine edited by Jeffrey Goldberg and featuring David Frum! Give me a break. People refer to the NYT as biased because it's too 'liberal'... In debating whether to use military force in other countries, the Times has been in favor of every intervention in the last 40 years except for the invasion of Grenada, I believe. This is not a lefty newspaper. The op ed pages are so full of conservatives that it became a joke in the publishing industry, until they finally were bullied into hiring Michelle Alexander. (I subscribe to the NYT and the Post.) I could go on and on, but it's really inaccurate to refer to the NYT and the Post as 'liberal' newspapers. They are biased, but as to which side, it's going to depend on where you're standing. (I do agree that nearly the entire media machine favored Clinton in '16--though again, whether that was more unfair to our current president, or to Bernie Sanders, is subjective.)

All news sources are biased. But the ideological fallout of the Cold War is that many Americans are completely unequipped when it comes to thinking about leftist movements, or anything to the left of the Democratic Party. The so-called 'liberal' mainstream media is as bad at this as anyone. Leftwing political factions of one sort or another are powerful players around the world, dominate the governments of many nations and regions (and show signs of being emergent even here in the US), and yet the average American is unable to wrap his head around this beyond the routine 'capitalism is the greatest' mindset. Truly left-wing and critical sources like Counterpunch, the Gray Zone, FAIR, etc., are really valuable if you're interested in a truly 'balanced' view--also non-US sources such as RT, Al Jazeera, etc.

[makoti]

I'm sure we're agreed. Understood that "everything" has a bias and your point about critical thinking!.. Showing NYT, Slate and the Economist (clear left bias) in the middle was my issue. I don't think there is a representative middle currently, or a shortcut that can be shown via infographic. Maybe the WSJ is a little closer to middle with a right bias? I tend to read business news mostly so perhaps my bias is toward WSJ as a more reliable source.

The lack of journalism basics (dual independent sources as one) have really impacted my view. Lara Logan recently has spoken out about this, as someone who has some bona fides globally and coming into the US system from outside..

I think we do agree. The NYT/WP are absolutely lean left pubs, while The Hill & WSJ are right leaners. My point was that, in the context of THIS graphic, these are your centerist news sources. Dead center? No, but much much closer than, say, Breitbart or Occupy Democrats, both in the graphic & fringe loonies.

[HenryA]

I am sure that as the Mueller report is digested there will be a portion of the population who don’t want to hear any more about it ever again. Dissappointment can be a powerful emotion. And another portion for whom the report result will never be good enough and who will continue to try to overturn the results of a fair election with their inane ramblings and caterwoling.

One thing for sure is that the media in general will continue to roll out stories to keep their ad revenue stream flowing. Another thing is for sure - we are a loud and raucous country and the internet allows anyone to yell what they want, crazy or not and to a huge audience. This has never been so. Turning away sometimes from the cacaphony is understandable.

[72gmc]

You were doing fine until your third sentence, henry. All of us need to remember to be open to other points of view, insist on multiple sources, do our own fact checking, and never let up on our scrutiny of those who wield power. Even--especially--when power is aligned with your vote.

[FlashUNC]

For the most part, it doesn't matter who is in office, things really don't change all that much on our level. As long as we are free, have a decent way of life and our civil liberties are intact, that is all we can ask for. Politicians make a living off of creating problems so we can vote for them to solve. As long as they don't solve them, they convince us to keep voting for them.... Thankfully we live in a country where we can voice our disagreements openly without retribution.

This is just patently untrue and such a corrosive idea.

Three examples from the last 20 years:

-- If Al Gore is President, do we invade Iraq?

-- If John McCain is President, do we get the ACA?

-- If Hillary Clinton is President, do we have the immigration policies in place that we do today?

I disagree with nearly everything Steve Bannon has to say, but he's right about one thing, elections have consequences. The vote matters. Whatever your personal politics are, to argue there's no difference ignores even a basic reading of recent history, and belies a position of privilege where one doesn't care about what may happen to other portions of our society as a whole.

[XXtwindad]

I love reading the newspaper (SF Chronicle, NYT, WSJ) with my morning cup of coffee. It's one of the few rituals I have that's sacrosanct. I certainly have a bias (I come from a journalism background) but I still think the traditional "gatekeepers" have an important role to play in the Marketplace of Ideas.

I'm keeping my eyes on House Bill 2054, which would exempt newspapers from anti-trust laws in order to compete with Facebook and Google for advertising.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/amp/How-Google-and-Facebook-suppress-the-news-13745431.php

A world in which the primary news source is Facebook leads to deranged conspiracy freaks raiding pizza parlors.

[XXtwindad]

I have no nostalgia for Cronkite or the rest of the talking heads from the past--a lot of the news coverage then was uncritical/shaped by spin/not tough enough on DC politicians.

A group of friends have taken a different course than quietism--since they have decided they do not like the actions and attitudes of some current politicians, or see issues that need addressing, they have become activists--some have run for office, most have actively worked on campaigns, most have participated in candidate forums or issues-related meetings and shared their concerns with the "electeds" about what could be done differently.

My personal gripe is not with the people that have let the news dominate their lives, but with those who stay angry and rant all the time, but don't take the step to consider what could be made better, and then participate and especially vote.

A funny thing about participating--it changes your perspective about this country. My favorite experience was a few years ago, poll watching in a local, a gloves-off, hard fought race. The poll watchers were the loveliest group of people--they ranged in age from the oldest who was 70+ to the 'youngster' who was in his 30s, and some had been poll-watching at the same poll for 30 years. It's hard to communicate why it encouraged me--but they were embracing their "duty" as citizens and participating--and something about that is critical to this (and every) democracy.

For me--no TV news (never developed the habit), sampling two major newspapers (Times and Post), a hand in on long form (New Yorker, Atlantic and others), occasional podcasts on specific topics and no phone consumption of anything. My personal favorite these days is a blog called Lawfare--a bunch of smart lawyers trying to figure out where we are...

Just checked out "Lawfare." Good stuff. Thx for the recommendation.

[redir]

I remember as a kid my dad would come home, watch the news, then do something else. That's the way it was. There was no constant barrage of news 24/7. It's Orwell's nightmare come true only it's not governments out for control but corporations out for profit. You give them their attention and they feed you what you are looking for.

So I don't blame anyone for pushing it aside. Just don't give up on staying at least a bit informed becasue if we all did that then 'they' win because that's exactly what they want. They want to push forward an agenda without anyone paying attention.

I used to come home from work and while I was usually in my workshop building things I'd listen to NPR news. THey would play the news then put on typically a Jazz show or one that I miss was a swing show. Now they have abandoned all that. It's all news or opinionated news shows and it's really annoying. They have jumped on the band wagon too.

[bambam]

Tune out a lot of so called news seems like ages ago.

When partial quotes on what people say are analyzed by 4 people for their opinions, that seems pointless.

Lets react to actions that follow claims, not words someone assumes what some other person meant.

Also, When the so call sports channels put on highlights 12 hours a day and fill up multiple channels for weeks with mock pro drafts and fantasy picks. Whats the point.
Why do I want to hear who Joe Blow thinks is going to pick in a draft? Just wait for the actual draft.

Just like MTV, remember that, "Music television", Use to be 24 hours of videos now 24 hours of junk.

I'm glad and happier now.
If its really important we will talk about it 3 days after whatever happens.
If it is rushed to get something out and wrong we won't even hear the retraction that would happen at 2:30 in the morning.

I'm to the point I don't believe most stories before 48 hours are elapsed since the reported incident.

That's what rocks about doing a 600k. No time for news.

[merlinmurph]

When I was younger, and even well into middle age, I was horribly uninformed. I could have been the posterchild of the Uninformed American. Seriiusly. The good part about that is that I didn't care about what was going on, never got upset, never yelled at the TV, never had a violent argument with a friend over politics. I was way more interested in powder days and big wind for windsurfing.

I decided to change that a number of years ago, and I have to say that I get pissed a lot more. The modern non-stop news cycle coupled with the current political climate definitely contribute to that, but being better informed is the main reason. Right now, I'd rather be informed than be clueless. Maybe there will be a time I check out, but one of the things that riles me up the most these days is uninformed people who disregard facts.

There's something to say for being in the middle of nowhere with no internet, TV, etc. It's harder to find, though.

[bambam]

When I was younger, ...
I decided to change that a number of years ago, and I have to say that I get pissed a lot more. ...

Yea, old people get pissed off a lot more.. :)

That stereotype old man in black socks yelling at the kids to get off his lawn doesn't come from thin air.

I have confidence that that there is more talk than action and changes are USUALLY minimal.

bike content: anybody find they need smaller cue sheet font the older they get? :)

[Tandem Rider]

This chart seems like an upgraded perspective, maybe the 11 speed version.:) I make an effort to read from the green box, both sides, I just refuse to waste time on the orange and red boxes. And like OP said VOTE!

[Black Dog]

Once you get away from poor sources of news (just ideology machines) and focus on sources with minimal bias things get much better. Ideology is bad from within and without. It is great however, if you don't want reality interfering with your narrow model of the world and love a sense of certainty about everything. The more ideolouges I meet the more I am starting to wonder if Ideology is a mental illness.

[bigbill]

I watch Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business before I leave for work. Not much use for Fox News but the business channel is good. I've got BBC on my phone and I'm routinely surprised by their reporting of events in the US and World that I hadn't heard about on any other network. There's more to the news than Trump.

[gdw]

That new chart is still off. MSNBC and CNN are as bad if not worse than FOX.

[Tickdoc]

That new chart is still off. MSNBC and CNN are as bad if not worse than FOX.

Agreed. That chart is off the chart.

I love the news feed on Apple and how you can tailor it to what sources you like.

I still find bias.

[PQJ]

That new chart is still off. MSNBC and CNN are as bad if not worse than FOX.

There is no universe in which CNN is remotely as close to / as bad as, bias-wise, as Fox. (I can't speak to MSNBC because I never tune into that channel.)

[Jaybee]

That new chart is still off. MSNBC and CNN are as bad if not worse than FOX.

Agreed. That chart is off the chart.

I love the news feed on Apple and how you can tailor it to what sources you like.

I still find bias.

There is no universe in which CNN is remotely as close to / as bad as, bias-wise, as Fox. (I can't speak to MSNBC because I never tune into that channel.)

Not picking on any of these posters, just using these posts for illustrative purposes:

The fact that we can't even agree on what an unbiased news source is, if one exists, or which ones are biased and in which directions speaks to how effed we really are. We aren't even working from a shared set of information - how can we possibly debate/discuss in good faith?

Consumers tailoring their news feeds to (usually) only include sources that confirm existing ideas and their own "correctness" only exacerbates the problem.

[CunegoFan]

There is no universe in which CNN is remotely as close to / as bad as, bias-wise, as Fox. (I can't speak to MSNBC because I never tune into that channel.)

Have you watched CNN recently? It's become a total joke. Once it was modestly biased left. Fox News used it as a bogeyman to promote its own channel. At some point CNN decided to become the very caricature of itself that Fox created. Someone at CNN made a conscious decision to make the channel the flip side of Fox and then some.

TDS is real and the media has found it very profitable.

[Ozz]

...Consumers tailoring their news feeds to (usually) only include sources that confirm existing ideas and their own "correctness" only exacerbates the problem.

+100

Nothing like creating your own private echo-chamber!

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

I like listening to all news channels...when I see/hear conflicting info on a topic that piques my interest, I will look for more info on the topic to try and figure it out...but yeah, staying out of that red box is a good idea.

BBC, NHK, and CBC are very enlightening....

[Tickdoc]

Not picking on any of these posters, just using these posts for illustrative purposes:

The fact that we can't even agree on what an unbiased news source is, if one exists, or which ones are biased and in which directions speaks to how effed we really are. We aren't even working from a shared set of information - how can we possibly debate/discuss in good faith?

Consumers tailoring their news feeds to (usually) only include sourc that confirm existing ideas and their own "correctness" only exacerbates the problem.

Nothing is unbiased.

It is crazy how nowadays I won’t get more than a word or two into a headline before I can decifer the source. Didn’t used to be that way when we had three channels and two papers to depend on. Doesn’t stop me from reading the news, just changes my speculation of its accuracy, regardless of source. Could be just the fact that I am older now too.

Who what when where journalism is officially dead, imo.

[bicycletricycle]

That new chart is still off. MSNBC and CNN are as bad if not worse than FOX.

yes sir.

[CunegoFan]

Not picking on any of these posters, just using these posts for illustrative purposes:

The fact that we can't even agree on what an unbiased news source is, if one exists, or which ones are biased and in which directions speaks to how effed we really are. We aren't even working from a shared set of information - how can we possibly debate/discuss in good faith?

Consumers tailoring their news feeds to (usually) only include sources that confirm existing ideas and their own "correctness" only exacerbates the problem.

If the media only reported the facts then no one would watch. It would be boring. The news is the business of using a subset of the facts to tell a story. The difference now is the media does not stop at macro bias; it packs stories with micro biases where the bias is injected into sentences, the use of charged terms, and the presumption of the reader's own biases.

[Johnny P]

i work for the federal government in the government accountability office, so it's my job not to tune out a lot of the government news. I'd like to say that we pay attention so you don't have to, but at the end of the day, the government is run by elected officials or those they appoint; so to keep the system running smoothly it is important that the citizens vote, and it's important that citizens keep themselves informed.

But with all that said, it's probably healthy to tune out the cable news debate-as-sport 24 hour programming. It's probably healthy to not rush from one clickbait headline to the next. It's probably healthy to make sure that your life is the primary focus of your life, and not just following the stories of other.

Try to keep things in balance, keep yourself informed, be engaged with both local and national politics, but don't let them take over your life. Beyond that, know that there are many of us behind the scenes working every day to make our government work better for you

+1

[goonster]

Nothing is unbiased.

Yes, but bias, especially if acknowledged, is not the same as an agenda.

[FlashUNC]

That new chart is still off. MSNBC and CNN are as bad if not worse than FOX.

One is unabashedly left-leaning, the other center-left. The last is Pravda with splashier graphics.

[axel23]

Dear Moderators - Best to not let threads like this even get started. They will (inevitably) devolve into partisan bickering.

Enjoy PL for what it is: a respite from all things political.

[bthornt]

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. From 1966, by the way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=girnJH7tvpM

[XXtwindad]

Dear Moderators - Best to not let threads like this even get started. They will (inevitably) devolve into partisan bickering.

Enjoy PL for what it is: a respite from all things political.

I disagree with this. There are many talented writers and thinkers on this site, regardless of their political perspectives. I enjoy reading their comments. Usually, people can keep it civil even if they disagree.

[Tickdoc]

I disagree with this. There are many talented writers and thinkers on this site, regardless of their political perspectives. I enjoy reading their comments. Usually, people can keep it civil even if they disagree.

Agreed. I love to keep it civil and disagree at the same time. Two of my best friends are complete opposite of me politically but we never let that get in the way of our friedship. It’s healthy adulting. I’m not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. I love trying to figure out out how someone can come to different conclusions than me. How can they be so wrong all the time and still live with themselves? ;) Discuss it, yell about it, explode if you want, but let’s all go ride bikes at the end of it.

[sipmeister]

Dear Moderators - Best to not let threads like this even get started. They will (inevitably) devolve into partisan bickering.

Enjoy PL for what it is: a respite from all things political.

Agreed. Should we start discussing favorite radio talk show hosts? :eek:

[sg8357]

One is unabashedly left-leaning, the other center-left. The last is Pravda with splashier graphics.

As was said in the good old days,
"There is no truth on MSNBC
and no news on Fox"*.

*original quote "The is no news in Izvestia, and no truth in Pravda"

I think Isvestia was of a higher standard than RT.

[GonaSovereign]

That new chart is still off. MSNBC and CNN are as bad if not worse than FOX.

Explain your thinking, please.

[93KgBike]

Cable political news is largely not nutritive subject matter. There may still be a handful of pro journalists out there doing research, writing long-form, asking followup questions, and so forth - but they are almost never being paid by the cable news providers to produce their stories for TV.

Cable news is a business product that simulates journalism, for a profit.

In the same way that a restaurant might reduce the cost of a meatball by increasing filler and reducing meat, so too does cable news reduce the cost of providing news by increasing opinion and reducing investigative journalism.

[makoti]

In the same way that a restaurant might reduce the cost of a meatball by increasing filler and reducing meat, so too does cable news reduce the cost of providing news by increasing opinion and reducing investigative journalism.

This explains why both Olive Garden & cable news shows give me the same queasy feeling...

[berserk87]

Sure, why not but please don’t give up your duty to vote, November 2020.

A great sentiment, but how does a voter stay dutily informed without some intake of news?

I think a short yet temporary break from the daily insanity is a good idea. In a country where you vote matters, I think it's essential to stay current on events in our world.

Resist the urge to be apathetic. Apathy is as bad, if not worse, than outright malice.

[Black Dog]

A great sentiment, but how does a voter stay dutily informed without some intake of news?

I think a short yet temporary break from the daily insanity is a good idea. In a country where you vote matters, I think it's essential to stay current on events in our world.

Resist the urge to be apathetic. Apathy is as bad, if not worse, than outright malice.

This...apathy gives power to those with malice to rule over everyone.