A rant about the "news"

[deacsoft]

I hate and never watch/read the news. I just can't seem to understand why anyone would want to watch/read the news. Better than 80% of it is bullshit anyway. There's never anything but bad news. It will rarely to next to never effect you personally or anyone you know. It's not nearly as entertaining as just about anything else on TV or other magazines/books. (for the record: i don't watch TV either but I have in the past) So why?

I came up with the following possibilities and consider them to be "most likely".

1) The US propaganda machine is just too good. It got the general public so hooked and brainwashed that they just can't get enough of what's happening. They really believe that "Clooney has 'spinal cap' surgery" (New York Post) is going to effect their lives. They think all the war stories from the Middle East are accurate. They think all the efforts over there are for "freedom" and to "preserve American" just like the news says. Why do you think there is a federal office overseeing everything that you read and see on TV?

2) The public just wouldn't know what to talk about if it wasn't for the news. The public needs to have a bunch of bullshit to gossip about or they wouldn't know what to do with themselves. They have to be informed just in case someone asks them so as not to appear dumb. They need to be able to discuss how "Chicago Sun-Times Top Editor Heads to Daily News" and wether or not it was a good move and how it will affect the lives of everyone over dinner or coffee.

3) Anyhting bad is worth hearing, because it's not typical. Therefore, the story, Second Kashmir 'ceasefire breach'"(LA Times) is appealing because maybe someone died. Because death and the subject of death is taboo but the public's curiosity is uncontrollable. And because the news is socially acceptable they can satisfy their morbid curiosities and not embarrass themselves at the same time. So they watch or read day after day night, after night because there's no news like bad news.


I'm no expert. These are just my thoughts. My rant.

[ilya]

I recommend The Economist. Aside from actually covering the WHOLE WORLD (wow!) and being generally sane and sophisticated, it's also surprisingly entertaining.

[deacsoft]

For what reason do you read it?

[deacsoft]

I also forgot to post my other possible reason.

4) The general public like to be informed as to whats happening in the world around them because it allows them to feel secure. This, of course, forces them to believe everything they see/read. If they don't swallow it whole they may not be able to sleep well because there is no security in knowing nothing about anything.

[whiskeytown]

a few observations...

1. Most News Organizations nowadays are owned by corporations who are worried about the bottom line, so ANYTHING controversal will be reduced or mininized to calm the fears of the lawyers and money crunchers.

2. The rest are owned by rich white guys - if you believe Rupurt Murdoch's or Sinclair's political leanings don't have anything to do with the way Fox or Sinclair portrays it's bias on the news, ferget it.

3. - Death and fear sell - so does any little sex ditty - so....that's the news the US newsgroups put out there. (I love the SNL skit with Jerry Seinfield as a newscaster doing teasers - "A common household substance so toxic it could be killing you now....right now....we'll tell you what is after this commercial break" - LOL

4. News organizations have been browbeaten recently into simply reporting what mouthpieces say. In the old days, Journalism tried to be impartial but it would also try to apply a critical ear to what it heard. Nowdays, they just repeat lies verbatim without actually doing the investigation.

this current Administration is the worst. A Bushite will tell a complete bullshit fabrication, and when questioned, states the press is showing partiality by questioning them and that they should simply report their bullshit over again. This has been easier to enforce since the Bushites started discriminating against journalists who ask "hardball" questions.

When Junior got questioned by an Irish Journalist a yr. ago, she didn't play so nice as to lob softball/pre-reviewed questions to the president. They responded by filing a complaint with the Irish Embassy....LOL [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

For serious news, I have begun approaching independant news sources. Salon.com, for all it's progressive leanings, actually did some great investigative research into a lot of stuff over the last couple yrs. They'll cover how protestors get beaten up in FL. when the Fox owned affilates pretend it didn't happen.

or for another great all around take in the world, the BBC has always been the standard of impartiality - ever since the Falkland's crisis - but the truth is a lot of foreign coverage (Deutche Welle, the BBC) is superior to US coverage in that it focuses on less fluff (Brad/Jen's breakup) and more on serious world issues - US journalism is so self-absorbed on America that it does a shitty job of covering world issues that affect millions of people.

RB

[eric5148]

For the most part, I agree with you. I never read newspapers or watch TV news.

But people who read only the celebrity gossip stories aren't reading it because they think it will affect thier lives. They read it because it's a form of entertainment for them.

The real idiots are the ones who read the papers believing that it's mostly objective, honest, and accurate. The real idiots think words in a newspaper are hard evidence that something is true.

[deacsoft]

Thanks for the opinions and information. It's good to know I'm not the only one with issues vs. the news. But I am still curious as to your motivation for watching/reading it.

[whiskeytown]

I have a vested interest in what happens in the country and the world.

On the real short term scale, I need to know if I'm driving in to work or taking the bus, because a snowstorm of 6 inches will make my drive much more difficult -

short term scale, I need to know what my stupid president intends to do next - so I can gather facts and determine if it's actually a good idea or another one of those "God told me to do this" ideas that get 1100 Americans killed - others who are thinking of travel may be concerned about activity overseas or news about new delays at the airport -

Long term, I can establish a pattern based on previous events and make judgements about future events. By reading the news, I know that GWB is a goddamned liar who will say anything to push his policies (War/medicare reform) through, and I know now to apply a more critical ear when listening to that ignorant [censored] spew more sewage about his new "plan" that Jesus told him to implement - like scribbling out equal rights in the constitution and writing "gays not allowed" in it's place.

RB

[PoBoy321]

I always felt that The News would have been nothing without Huey Lewis.

[IronDragon1]

1) Of course news about events involving the United States will be slanted in a way to make the American audience "feel good (at least as much as can be)". Nothing especially sinster about it; we're just a farily nationalistic place and would much rather hear good things about our polcies than the bad. It's akin to, but not as bad as, Japan downplaying it's atroicites during World War II; just comes with the territory of being a nation with strong beliefs

2) A majority, if not a vast majority, of people have neither the time nor the attention span to keep up with the news as much as they should so they turn to someone else to help them do it.

3) Many forms of journalism-cable and to a lesser extent broadcast news especially- have unfortuantely been forced to adopt a mentality towards more "people" driven stories as a result of the greater amount of choice that one. This is why news magazines tend to do stories that will have "real person appeal" such as something about drugs on college campuses and the like, you know, things which "regular" people deal with and can relate to
Though an hour-long special on the difficulties Mahmoud Abbas faces in bringing Palestine into the post-Arafat, (hopefully) post-intifada era are more germane to the world as a whole, they simply fail to hold the attention of most people as they view it as something which holds little to no relevance to their own life.

PS Sorry for the gross generalizations/possible mischaracterizations