Reblogged:No (Network) News Is Good News

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Mike Licht at Raptitude writes of five things he noticed when he quit following newscasts, which he did eight years ago. As someone else who doesn't normally watch newscasts, I agree with much of what he says. In particular:

... There's a big difference between watching a half hour of CNN's refugee crisis coverage (not that they cover it anymore) versus spending that time reading a 5,000-word article on the same topic.

If you quit, even for just a month or so, the news-watching habit might start to look quite ugly and unnecessary to you, not unlike how a smoker only notices how bad tobacco makes things smell once he stops lighting up.

Any time I hear or see a newscast, be it in a restaurant or when a guest wants to watch the news, I usually notice both (a) I already know about the stories being presented, and at greater depth than they are being reported; and (b) the coverage is usually depressing, in part because of the reasons Licht presents:

The news isn't interested in creating an accurate sample. They select for what's 1) unusual, 2) awful, and 3) probably going to be popular. So the idea that you can get a meaningful sense of the "state of the world" by watching the news is absurd.

Their selections exploit our negativity bias. We've evolved to pay more attention to what's scary and infuriating, but that doesn't mean every instance of fear or anger is useful. Once you've quit watching, it becomes obvious that it is a primary aim of news reports -- not an incidental side-effect -- to agitate and dismay the viewer.

What appears on the news is not "The conscientious person's portfolio of concerns". What appears is whatever sells, and what sells is fear, and contempt for other groups of people.

Some of this is attributable to the nature of news itself (as the exceptional), and of the medium (which is highly perceptual). But much is due to the dominant malevolent-altruist-collectivist voices in our culture. What better way to "change the world", as many journalism students offer as the reason for their career aspirations, than to overwhelm everyone with a sense of personal impotence until they will take whatever apparent life-line is offered? I am sure news reporters run the gamut from being intentionally biased to being victims of their own Kool-Aid; but a non-stop diet of terrible things with no time for reflection or deep thought is, as Licht notes, both a horrible way to live and a poor way to truly know what's going on in the world. This doesn't make anyone depressed or fearful or ill-informed, but it makes it harder to be otherwise.

Apart from the ability -- if I've been away from a computer for a while -- to learn about a fast-breaking story one cares about, or get a quick summary of a few new things, I see little value in mainstream news coverage.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[dream_weaver]

In November of 1995, I traded a television set and a stereo system for a 386 computer system. I recall joking with someone in an internet-relay-chat room once that television contributed to developing a 3 to 5 second attention span. Mentioning that I had divested myself of the television set, I was asked if I missed it. I replied that I had missed it once, but I had gotten over it in about 5 seconds.

The big screen has been back since April 2010. Connected to a DVD player, it has only presented what has been placed into the player primarily for entertainment purposes. The news has been relegated to being collected via radio and internet. I can't claim to be up on all of the latest stories, but the ability to filter for relevant information on them is an ongoing process.

[MisterSwig]

On 12/14/2016 at 4:25 PM, dream_weaver said:

In November of 1995, I traded a television set and a stereo system for a 386 computer system. I recall joking with someone in an internet-relay-chat room once that television contributed to developing a 3 to 5 second attention span. Mentioning that I had divested myself of the television set, I was asked if I missed it. I replied that I had missed it once, but I had gotten over it in about 5 seconds.

That's hilarious.

When I was young, my family would sit for dinner each night and watch the local network news. It was a sort of ritual. Looking back on that behavior, I can see how it was a form of taking life and knowledge seriously. People read the newspaper each morning and watched the news on TV each evening. Because that's one way you take life seriously: by learning about newsworthy human events taking place around you.

Now we can get our news on the Internet and on dozens of cable channels devoted to specific news categories, like business or sports. You can watch almost whatever you want these days with the development of reality programming. You can watch Congress in session or people baking cakes.

I don't blame the network news for focusing too much on the violent, malevolent aspects of society. That's pretty much their job right now. It's not like modern America is a peaceful utopia. We are trending toward an oppressive, violent, socialist dictatorship, and that trend is perfectly reflected in the five o'clock news.

[dream_weaver]

When I click on a link that presents the information in video format, I generally exit as quickly as I enter. Off the cuff, it would be nice to have a "Drudge Report" style page setup with links to commentaries like Gus Van Horn has on current events, or direct links to some of the better articles he shares with us.

If such a page existed in today's culture, it would shed insight on how hungry people are for newsworthy human events that are taking place.

Baking cakes, machines that replace railroad ties and track, automated conveyor belts, and Congressional proceedings have their place. The network news is quickly approaching the relevancy of radio broadcasts. Wait for the day that channels 2, 4 and 7 start promoting "traffic and weather" on the eights, complete with a scroll thru the live camera feeds available in the area: zoom in and click on any camera. Two birds with one stone. See the snow fly as the traffic snarls in harmony with the falling flakes.

[Reidy]

RealClearPolitics has some of the features you describe, linking to op-ed pieces and brief news stories. It isn't partisan, but I notice that where they offer opposing views, they usually list the libertarian or conservative second, thus giving him the last word.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Reidy

[dream_weaver]

I do use Real Clear Politics as well, perhaps not as often. I see Alexia has DrudgeReport as the more frequented site, both globally and U.S. specifically.

Comparing the two layouts, Drudge tends to feature headlines across a greater cross section of topics, where Real Clear Politics divides the headlines up per areas of interest. One-stop shopping vs. going from department to department.

I'll have to check it out with your observation in mind.