Don't read the news

[Kaitzilla]

No, seriously, don't. News media only serves to pigeonhole us in prefabricated opinions and ideologies. News media is supposed to make us critical, yet we uncritically take 'critical' assertions by newspapers.

So, try to avoid newspapers, news magazines and pretty much everything else that has 'news' in it for a week, and see how you have ended up.

I gave up watching the 24 hour cable news and all sports news.

Stress went down and happiness went up.
And not missing anything really.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're just advocating a change at the level someone would trust a source. And people at the upper local level would still be getting their information from a level above. In effect, you're calling for a hierarchy.
The problem is, this has been tried before. It was called "fascism", a modern-day politicla ideology largely based on a fantasy vision of some ideal feudal past where everything was neatly organized according to corporations and hierarchies, and all very harmonious. It was a big steaming pile of bullcrap invented by those on top of that hierarchy to safeguard their place on top.

I'll take the mistakes, lies and uncertainties of democracy, thank you.

Give him a minute and he'll tell you that all news should originate from the king.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Who needs the world? You're never going to meet it,
its full of thousands of people; you, insignificant.
It's easier to keep it local, only think about those nearby,
I mean those are the ones who'll care if you die.

Cut yourself off, liberate your views,
you'll never again be tainted by news.
Faraway places, in mountains and deserts,
wondrous things that will never be mentioned.

It'll be nice at first, a concern free life,
just stick to your farm, working that scythe.
Until one day it happens, and you will lack the voice,
when the world comes to your doorstep by accident or choice.

A terrible occurrence! Disturbing indeed!
You cut yourself off to escape the very thing!
But it so happens, shameful I must say,
the world we live in is connected anyway.

Isolate yourself, try as you might,
it'd be like trying to make a night bright.
The world is one whole, a massive living being,
one cannot simply choose to disagree.

From New York to Dubai, Rio to Bombay,
everything we do affects one another in some way.
It's a globalized world, in present and past,
to think otherwise is silly and crass.

 

[calad]

So how do you get to find out about things happening? I take it visiting this site would be out of the question as well.

Find as many sources as you can lay your hands on. Be critical when digesting it. Realise the sensationalist angle news has taken to survive.

I find reddit a great source of news. Of course it is not perfect, but the system that allows rising and lowering comments really has it benefits. When there are +1000 comments usually first 10 comments clear up what really happend and gives much better backround of events.

But yeah, dont read news. They are propaganda, biased and news corporations behave like attention whores.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Kaiserguard I know exactly who reads the papers:

Link to video.

 

[Camikaze]

You don't need to know it. 'Terrorist attack in X' is probably irrelevant unless you hear from it directly from friends or family, for instance.

I would elaborate on this by saying that 'terrorist attack in X' isn't 'news' that can be known in the sense of an objectively existing event, but is an interpretation. The news media will mediate an event as terrorism, but that's by no means a given. A series of actions is not something which can inherently be a 'terrorist attack'.

This approach becomes more problematic, though, when you consider whether there are any objectively existing events in that sense. Can there actually be 'news' in the idealised sense? I get the impression you're suggesting that the news media has deviated from its intended purpose, which could theoretically be fulfilled. But the news media must select and interpret. It can't be a complete database of every discrete action in the world, but rather must package those actions into 'events' and place them within a hierarchy of importance. Everything it presents by necessity involves selection and interpretation, and is located within various pre-existing discourses shaping the bounds of what can be said. More broadly, this extends to all 'knowledge'. If accepted, your argument then suggests that we should completely shut ourselves off from any input or knowledge, because it might have an agenda. Surely it'd be better to just approach knowledge in an appropriately sceptical manner.

 

[Tahuti]

You're just advocating a change at the level someone would trust a source. And people at the upper local level would still be getting their information from a level above. In effect, you're calling for a hierarchy.
The problem is, this has been tried before. It was called "fascism", a modern-day politicla ideology largely based on a fantasy vision of some ideal feudal past where everything was neatly organized according to corporations and hierarchies, and all very harmonious. It was a big steaming pile of bullcrap invented by those on top of that hierarchy to safeguard their place on top.

I'll take the mistakes, lies and uncertainties of democracy, thank you.

Except that fascism was pretty much a democratic mass ideology highly dependent on total control of the media, not unlike today's democracies. In fact, mass media will be key should a liberal democracy ever transform into a fascist state again. The corporations and all that stuff was merely intended as distributist alternative to unrestrained capitalism was one of the few good points of fascism. But overall, fascism can go ahead with its propaganda press precisely because the media's grasp is so pervasive.

I would elaborate on this by saying that 'terrorist attack in X' isn't 'news' that can be known in the sense of an objectively existing event, but is an interpretation. The news media will mediate an event as terrorism, but that's by no means a given. A series of actions is not something which can inherently be a 'terrorist attack'.

This approach becomes more problematic, though, when you consider whether there are any objectively existing events in that sense. Can there actually be 'news' in the idealised sense? I get the impression you're suggesting that the news media has deviated from its intended purpose, which could theoretically be fulfilled. But the news media must select and interpret. It can't be a complete database of every discrete action in the world, but rather must package those actions into 'events' and place them within a hierarchy of importance. Everything it presents by necessity involves selection and interpretation, and is located within various pre-existing discourses shaping the bounds of what can be said. More broadly, this extends to all 'knowledge'. If accepted, your argument then suggests that we should completely shut ourselves off from any input or knowledge, because it might have an agenda. Surely it'd be better to just approach knowledge in an appropriately sceptical manner.

Well, thanks for the input. Though again, as Zelig put it, wasting too much time on the news is part of the problem as well, not just problems with interpretation - though that is highly problematic as well.

Kaiserguard I know exactly who reads the papers:

Link to video.

 

[gay_Aleks]

invest in Enron today!~

I already put all my money in Exxon Mobile. My next investment would be British Petroleum.

 

[dusters]

I don't read the news, 'cos i read CFC instead of news. I still see dead people everywhere /facepalm

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

If not for mass media coverage there would be no terrorism against population except direct conflicts such as in Palestine. Nor those stupid school shootouts.

 

[Tahuti]

If not for mass media coverage there would be no terrorism against population except direct conflicts such as in Palestine. Nor those stupid school shootouts.

Well this.

Coming to think of it, I think it would be justified to limit mass media coverage of school schootings. Unlike video games and movies, these are events that actually happen and people may believe can be emulated.

EDIT: Terrorism also becomes less viable; without media coverage, terrorism loses its psychological effect.

 

[Mise]

I agree with Kaiserguard and Zelig. I very rarely read the news, although I do read articles in newspapers/online media.

I agree, in short, that most news is pointless and depressing, and actually counterproductive.

Of additional interest: http://thephilosophersmail.com/utopia/utopia-series-the-news-in-the-future/

Utopia series: the news of the future

Calling an idea ‘utopian’ is normally a way of saying it’s pie-in-the-sky and not worth paying attention to. Far from it. Throughout the ages, a number of philosophers have put forward some highly provocative and interesting utopias, describing ideal arrangements of everything from schools to religion, government to holidays.

Utopian ideas aren’t meant to be immediately practical. That’s precisely why they are so useful: they take our minds off the problems of the here and now and offer us a grander vision of what there is to aim for.

...

One thing is for sure: we don’t yet have the news we deserve. The news of our times is predominantly an agent of confusion, envy, purposeless excitement and needless terror.

In a wiser, more mature society we’d still engage with the news on a daily basis. But we’d have clearer and more ambitious ideas about what we needed it for.

News would not simply have the job of keeping us up to speed about anything unusual (or horrific) that happened since the last bulletin. It wouldn’t occasionally claim it was trying to keep the powerful in check (however important this aim). Instead the grand purpose of news would be stated clearly: to help the individual and the nation to flourish – and to bring whatever information to the fore that helped with these twin goals.

To carry out this epochal task, the ideal news organisation would bring us some of the following:

...

(rest of article is long and I don't agree with significant chunks of it, but it's great food for thought IMO and well worth reading. Tangentially, it might appeal to your newfound conservative/reactionary values, Kaiserguard.)


Oh, incidentally, one of the best articles I ever read in a news media was a 4,600 word article on bowling: http://www.dmagazine.com/publicatio...amazing-bowling-story-ever-bill-fong?single=1

This one is up there too, and it's not even "news": Joe Arridy was the happiest man on death row

 

[Quintillus]

And why is this forum so prudish that it must censor the other word everyone knows means the same thing as crap? Young men (and women) who are supposed to be protected by this policy, in the unlikely chance that you know how to use the Internet and still do not know the forbidden word, go find the fine dictionary your parents have and inform yourselves!

IMO it's preferable to what happened at another Civ fansite that you may have heard of. Go take a look at their off topic, but only if you aren't at work. It's a mess, and it's no wonder it's nearly all long-timers there. Essentially no moderation. Maybe it's normal if you're used to 3+1 chan, but if you're used to more civil discourse, I can very well see why people might join, post in a Civ forum, see the Off Topic, and decide may that isn't the fansite they want to stay at.

Foul language has its place, but it can be a slippery slope where allowing some of it can lead to allowing more, and eventually becoming like that other Civ fansite. The current policy seems to have worked quite well for CFC over the years.

I gave up watching the 24 hour cable news and all sports news.

Stress went down and happiness went up.
And not missing anything really.

Yeah, not watching televised news has been a good thing for me as well. Way too much "child missing in Aruba" that has no effect on my life, way too little actual in-depth reporting. Newspapers and magazines tend to be much better for in-depth, informative reporting. But even when I still got a newspaper, I never read the Metro (local) section, because it was all depressing stuff about shootings and how the city school system was terrible and stuff like that which made you think the city was a really dangerous place to live. The local TV stations did the same thing. Turns out it's not actually that bad when you don't hear 100% of the bad news and 10% of the good news.

And by subscribing to select local mailing lists and occasionally visiting an independent local news website, I can get news about what's happening in the city that's more relevant to me, without hearing about every bad event.

Well this.

Coming to think of it, I think it would be justified to limit mass media coverage of school schootings. Unlike video games and movies, these are events that actually happen and people may believe can be emulated.

EDIT: Terrorism also becomes less viable; without media coverage, terrorism loses its psychological effect.

Not an entirely bad idea. It reminds me of D.B. Cooper. He committed air piracy in the '70s for $200,000 and a few parachutes. After receiving payment, he ordered the pilots to fly south from Seattle to Reno to Mexico City. Somewhere along the way, he parachuted out with the money, and was never heard from or seen again. While it's unknown if he managed to escape and remain hidden or died after the jump in an area so remote he was never found, it nonetheless inspired a high number of copycat situations and air piracy skyrocketed over the next year. That's a large part of the cause of the luggage bag searches today - by preventing people from brining guns on planes, it became significantly more difficult for them to commit air piracy.

But if Cooper's case hadn't been widely publicized? There probably wouldn't have been copycat incidences of piracy, luggage wouldn't have needed to be searched, and you would've been able to keep bringing whatever you wanted onto the plane (at least until the next significant incident).

That's not to say it's without issues. Authoritarian regimes such as Mubarak's in Egypt have also realized the effect of press on copycat incidents, and regulate the press to prevent copycat attacks that are against their regime. So... you have to exercise some caution, since it generally is in the benefit of society to have challenges to an oppressive government be well publicized. But nonetheless, I see the potential benefits of journalists at least stopping to consider, "Would it actually be a good idea to put this shooting on your front page in 72 point font?" rather than tending to publicize it in the most sensationalist way possible.

 

[Traitorfish]

Local community leaders, such as union leaders, local employers, churchmen, etc.. If you don't have them, you can never hope to have a community that is capable taking for itself on political matters, democracy or not.

I agree: listen to who bosses and priests tell you to vote for, and then vote for the other guy.

 

[Tahuti]

I agree: listen to who bosses and priests tell you to vote for, and then vote for the other guy.

Hell of a sense of community you're displaying here.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's capitalism for you.

 

[Borachio]

True.

Whenever did capitalists favour a sense of community? Where's the profit in it?

Paternalistic claptrap!

 

[Gori the Grey]

I agree: listen to who bosses and priests tell you to vote for, and then vote for the other guy . . .

. . . who serves the bosses and priests as well as the guy they were telling you to vote for.

 

[classical_hero]

Well this.

Coming to think of it, I think it would be justified to limit mass media coverage of school schootings. Unlike video games and movies, these are events that actually happen and people may believe can be emulated.

EDIT: Terrorism also becomes less viable; without media coverage, terrorism loses its psychological effect.

You are forgetting the effect of social media. It is now possible to get the events right to you as they happen. That is how we ar learning about things happen from ISIS, because they are using social media to get their message across and it is affecting those who read it and they are recruiting people as a result of their messages.

 

[Antilogic]

From what you said, I think you're doing it wrong. Yes, individual news media outlets tend to spew a fair amount of drivel and/or propaganda. But if you follow a variety of news sources with very different biases, you can learn a lot more than you'd ever know if you either didn't read the news or stuck with a narrow range of sources.

For instance, suppose you're interested in the goings-on in Ukraine. Read several Western sources, and then also read one or more Russian sites (e.g. RT) and one or more sites from places that don't have a dog in this fight (e.g. Al Jazeera). Finally, go to vice.com and watch their "Russian Roulette" series, which is by far the best (and ballsiest) journalism I've seen so far on the subject.

You'll probably come away with an opinion that is messy and that doesn't fit with either "side". This is not so great for winning online arguments (except by advocating one devil or the other), but you'll understand the situation far better.

I'll also offer a different plug for mainstream media (of the somewhat intelligent variety). The only news sites I actually pay to subscribe to are the New York Times and the Economist. They both have extremely obvious and fairly similar biases (although NYT usually pretends to be objective when no such thing is possible). I disagree substantially with both of them about as often as I agree with them on anything contentious, but I'm not reading them to have my opinions echoed back to me. Both of them do a pretty good job of boiling down the opinions (and the range of opinions, usually rather narrow) of the financial and political elites that run world affairs. I find that it's really important to keep a finger on the pulse of what those people are thinking.

As an example, the Economist often plugs the next speculative bubble around when they're starting to take off. Shale gas and oil are the first things to come to mind, although a number of other examples (including housing c. 2004) can be found. I wouldn't (even if I had money, which I don't) invest based on this information, because predicting the end of bubbles is a fool's errand, but it can help to show you the sorts of things that might happen in the near economic future.

Also, the NYT's "Room for Debate" is just like a more verbose version of The Onion's "American Voices". A third of the opinions are obvious statements of fact, a third are absurdly wrong, and the last third say little of any importance. For added entertainment, I like to keep the Onion and the NYT in adjacent tabs and flip back and forth. Often I'll find myself reading a "news" article and laughing heartily at the satire, only to look up and realize I'm on the NYT, not the Onion! That experience is priceless, or at least worth more than $7.50/mo.

I'm more in the Bootstoots camp here. I can't get over the idea that being intentionally uniformed is kinda like saying "We shouldn't worry our pretty little heads with The Big Issues and just let The People In Charge handle it." I think it makes yourself out to be a mark, and I consider it a civic duty to stay informed and sort out the good stuff from intentionally disseminated heaping piles of bad information.