Tuning out the news

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Gummee

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]

Originally Posted by Buzz

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]

Originally Posted by 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?? snip

Originally Posted by Davist

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]

Originally Posted by Davist

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]

Originally Posted by raygunner

Haha, nice!

[RFC]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

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

+1

[Jef58]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.