News Alternatives

[imoldernu]

DW has forbidden me to turn on any of the major National US News TV stations, for reasons you might guess. Thus, no National News in our house for ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN until further notice.

My alternatives are channels from PLEX, so in no particular order...BBC, PBS, The New York Times, USA, CBC, RT America, Al Jazeera English and (not TV... NPR.)

I think it's only reasonable to want to know what is going on in the world, since most of it eventually affects us in one way or another, but as of today, I see virtually no reportage of events from any of the majors.

While I admit to being a news junkie, I was totally amazed when my family visited for Mothers' Day and I found that they had not the faintest idea of what was happening in the world. These are well educated people, but who are involved in living their normal working and busy lives. Until recently, they were involved in being informed citizens. Now, they have turned a deaf ear to the psychobabble.

I could name 20 countries that are in the throes of making landmark decisions involving governments, economics, wars, and life and death crises of starvation, natural disasters and even genocide... not one of which has seen a minute of exposure on our Natiional "NEWS".

Am I parnoid and alone in this concern?

 

[W2R]

Nope, you're not paranoid or alone in this concern.

But you know what? You and I are old enough that we have been through a lot of astounding changes in the world around us and in our country and our surroundings. Just think of what things were like 60 years ago. This is just more changes. I feel like we can't really stop anything, but pass the popcorn - - I'm ready to watch this show as it unfolds.

Meanwhile, I'm relying more on the internet and radio, and less on the TV or newspapers for my news.

 

[braumeister]

Believe me, I feel for you. Having traveled very widely during my military career, one of the first things I noticed (while still in my 20s) was the incredibly high percentage of people who have never been out of the state (in many cases, the county) they were born in.

And since they do in fact represent a sizable demographic, their lack of interest in the rest of the world counts in the eyes of the news networks.

My local newspaper is one of the worst (IMHO) in the country, offering hardly anything farther afield than 100 miles away, and that's for a metropolitan area of well over 2 million people.

If not for my online subscriptions to the WSJ and Economist, I don't know what I'd do.

 

[MichaelB]

DW has forbidden me to turn on any of the major National US News TV stations, for reasons you might guess. Thus, no National News in our house for ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN until further notice.
./.
Am I paranoid and alone in this concern?

I'd say you both have a point. Like W2R and Braumeister, my news sources are print and online. I think TV news is an oxymoron, there's nothing newsworthy about it.

Find a half dozen news sources, read them, then get on with your life.

 

[Sarah in SC]

I'd say you both have a point. Like W2R and Braumeister, my news sources are print and online. I think TV news is an oxymoron, there's nothing newsworthy about it.

Find a half dozen news sources, read them, then get on with your life.

This times 1,000!
I can't even remember the last time I saw TV "news".
You'll be happier for reading your news than watching it, and be better informed, to boot.

 

[JohnnyBGoode]

I have to admit that both DW and I enjoy watching the evening news (9PM) from our local ABC affiliate here in the SF Bay Area. I actually find it pretty well done and I get headlines, weather, and the occasional human interest story. But I also read the WSJ daily, listen to NPR, and love the Economist. So I look at it as one more news "channel".

 

[Nemo2]

Childless myself, but, through virtual osmosis, now the proud part owner of a herd of granddaughters, I'm obliged, on their behalf, to concern myself with what's happening, (or at least, as they get older, (if I'm still around), attempt to provide some direction/historical input).

Otherwise, I'd just sit back and watch.......I wouldn't say "Pass the popcorn" though, because I hate the stuff.

 

[Car-Guy]

In the past few months I have quit listening to the network and cable news channels. Most of what I get now is VIA Yahoo news headlines or a few other web sites I frequent. Sometimes I'll still "watch" FOX news but it's best viewed with the sound off.

 

[clobber]

"The News" is just a subset of information. People are now bombarded with information all day long. In the past 5 minutes I have learned more information, faster than ever before. Gordon Ramsay taught me how to cook a Ribeye, ugeauxgirl (in this forum) made be think about how much I should tell my kids about family finances, lifehacker explained binary and hex, Redon just stole his 3 base of the year, etc. All that takes priority over pay attention to this whole election nonsense, or brexit, or the 20 other topics you allude to. Do I REALLY care about the Philippine elections or whatever is happening down in South America? Tell me when it is over, I don't need the play by play.

By definition, the kind of news we are talking about should be "noteworthy." The link here can quickly show you what people think is noteworthy. I frequently use it to find out what the big topics are. That being said, the biggest blocks right now are about Paul Ryan and something about an actor who is optimistic about the extridition of El Chapo. I don't care, I don't care, I don't care.

 

[Focus]

I'd say you both have a point. Like W2R and Braumeister, my news sources are print and online. I think TV news is an oxymoron, there's nothing newsworthy about it.

Find a half dozen news sources, read them, then get on with your life.

This.

TV news is simply a business focused on entertainment, mostly of the negative kind. Nowadays, it's all about pushing the viewers' basest buttons (e.g., anger, fear and indignation).

I generally stick to websites that are more concerned with news analysis -- that is, placing things in a larger context -- or information that has a direct impact on my life. I subscribe to the sites' e-mail summaries so I don't have to go seeking them out.

 

[dixonge]

I generally try to *restrict* the amount of 'news' I am exposed to. There are very few traditional news sources I intentionally expose myself to. Google's Finance headlines is one. When bored I may browse Google's News headlines. Things bubble up on Facebook and Twitter. Otherwise, no.

My primary objection is that 99% of the 'news' does not represent actual facts. It is barely disguised opinion and propaganda. This is magnified by a factor of 100 during America's never-ending election campaign bs.

 

[Jack_Pine]

News junkie and love tons of different points of view. Watch many different sources and view many sources from the internet. Love talk radio, especially shows with opposite points of view, know the enemy and all. Always like local news when traveling for the local point of view.

 

[Totoro]

No TV, no radio for me. The level of depth and information density is just not there, and heavily skewed to sports, culture and the weather. None of which I care about.

The Economist for a wide international view. One local newspaper with a business orientation, for local stuff. Non-localized reddit worldnews for headline skimming.

The filter bubble is real, and getting harder to break out of unless you really go out of your way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

If I detect a topic that interests me, wikipedia is a suprisingly decent news source to start from. If you want the latest on the Congo civil wars for example.

For US popular topics I sometimes watch Last Week Tonight. That's more entertainment though.