Am I alone? Or do others find themselves trying to actively disengage from the news?

[Dranoel]

I've tuned out most TV as well. Occasionally BBC/PBS is tuned in. But, negativity sells, positive stories don't. Getting a broader perspective has helped me realize that we don't live in the worst of times (not that they couldn't be better). Far from it. Stephen Pinker puts it in historical perspective in Enlightenment Now! By almost every measure, the human condition is better than it's ever been. But, you'd never get that impression from the daily news.

 

[Marita40]

I consciously disengaged after the presidential election. I just couldn’t stand the vileness and negativity from all sides. Cut cable. I used to like MPR on the radio but now hate that too. Constant identity politics and same outrage du jour over and over and over beat to a dead horse until the next outrage du jour.
I skim headlines of a couple news sources online and get pretty much all I need to know.

You know, as to the question about living in the worst of times, I’m an avid reader of all things about Lincoln and the Civil War. It was much worse then, no question.

 

[harllee]

I get most of my news on the radio--NPR. Intelligent, in depth reporting.

 

[jjflyman]

I get all the information I need from Rush Limbaugh

 

[audreyh1]

It's called the "low information diet." I cancelled cable several years ago and never got around to installing an antenna. I can get the news that's important to me in less than 30 seconds from the internet. It's no better or worse than what's on TV.

The "low information diet" has produced health benefits for me - less stress and worrying about things I can't control and for the most part don't directly affect me.

I have a high information diet. It just doesn’t happen to include much current news - and certainly not as served up by the news broadcast channels.

 

[audreyh1]

I'm as depressed by the news as anyone, but I try not to tune out too much. Not to get all preachy, but I kind of think it's our civic duty to be reasonably well informed. I think the endless drumbeat of "Fake News!" and the desire of many to tune out both serve those who would take advantage of an ill informed citizenry.

Watching broadcast new does not mean you are well informed. Those sources apply all sorts of filters in addition to pushing through a bunch of waste time crap. It is possible to be well informed by actively seeking information rather than have a bunch of junk spoonfed to you.

 

[HadEnuff]

I stopped watching long ago. Now, I consciously disengage myself from nearly all political conversations. From bashing of the libs, or the conservatives, and from comments about NFL players kneeling during the anthem....I have my opinions but I have no desire to try to convince anyone of anything. Been there, done that...just a waste of good breath.

My mom's favorite prayer was "God, if you can't fix it from there, I sure can't fix it from here."

 

[audreyh1]

I agree we should be informed. But that is why I avoid the news. IMHO, they are not keeping us informed. They are keeping us engaged to sell ads. Good news and the real world don't hold our attention. IMO, the world view they present distorts our perception of reality in a decidedly negative fashion.

Exactly!

 

[jollystomper]

I watch local news (but never the entire broadcast) and skim the headlines on allsides.com where I might look at items that interest me.


One of my problems is that I tend to focus more on logic than emotion (the "Joe Friday" approach, which is not necessarily a virtue)... and I try to discern a true emotional story vs a story where the intent is to provoke emotion above all else. Which can be difficult.

I remember back in grade school being taught that news was the 5 "W's" - Who, What, When, Where, and Why. It seems that 95% of the focus is on "Why"... and that is always a biased perspective based on the source. I think it is easier to fill air time with "Why" that with the other 4.

 

[carnivalday]

I used to watch the news every evening, sorta felt it was my civic duty to know and understand what was going on in my world. I cant remember when I felt a bias creeping into newscasts...probably mostly going on during the last election. I used to enjoy CNN, but theirs was the first extreme bias in reporting that was impossible to ignore. I went thru channel after newscast after channel trying to find a station that just reported the news, without injecting their own snide opinions. Ive finally turned everything off, except for a single local (Orlando) newscast at 5 am. Thats it. Thats all I can stomach. No bias, just simply reporting the news. If they ever go off the rails, Ill just be done with it.

 

[Ronstar]

I haven't watched the tv news in a long time. The news programs just don't report the news anymore. They like to add their agenda as well. I do catch a little news online, and I will watch tv news when there is something news worthy going on - like 911, the Boston Marathon bombing, hurricane Katrina, the flooding in Houston, etc.

 

[Grigori]

My wife likes to have Fox News on. I prefer to ignore it and instead read a high quality classic novel or non fiction book. Quiet seems good in retirement. The news is noise - trying to grab my attention with the disaster or political mistake du jour.

It’s a time waster and too much leaves a bad hangover of fear and negativity.

 

[Marita40]

Kind of sad. I used to really like CNN. I find it terribly biased now.
A lot has changed in the media it seems. I think network news is on its last gasp.

 

[marko]

I strongly believe that the only place left for truth is in sport statistics and the market numbers. After that.......it's all agenda spin. Tired of having to listen so closely.

 

[stepford]

Watching broadcast new does not mean you are well informed. Those sources apply all sorts of filters in addition to pushing through a bunch of waste time crap. It is possible to be well informed by actively seeking information rather than have a bunch of junk spoonfed to you.

FWIW I don't watch TV news either, but read NYT and WSJ daily (to hopefully cancel out ideological bias). The problem with "actively seeking" news sources is that we tend to gravitate to those sources we agree with. By reading mainstream newspapers from both sides of the ideological spectrum I hope to avoid this. Of course some believe one cannot be well informed by the NYT and WSJ as both are tools of the deep state designed to spoon feed us propaganda. If that is true, however, I fear our capacity to agree on any "objective" facts has been lost.

 

[marko]

Kind of sad. I used to really like CNN. I find it terribly biased now.
A lot has changed in the media it seems. I think network news is on its last gasp.

Years ago we had a personal experience with CNN twisting information. Outright falsehoods.
Stopped watching right there and then.

 

[pjigar]

We made a conscious decision to not watch any (live) TV in our house when I was 35. Partly to avoid kids get bombarded with advertisement and hence growing a next generation of keeping up with the Joneses. Everyone except me watches shows and stuff but nothing live. I watch movies and get my balanced dose of news via public radio when I drive. If I don't drive then news worth knowing comes from my friends! I don't feel I miss anything by not watching TV. I have so many hobbies so I CAN'T watch TV which takes time away from fun stuff.

PS: My DD now stops me from buying unnecessary things sometimes and she is only 14. I am so proud that we trained her to know better!

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

When I was w*rking in the newsroom it was SOP to have all the cable news stations tuned in. I recall one of the networks occasionally made a thing of following any commercial flight that might have something untoward going on -- a landing gear problem, for instance. They'd cut to the plane every five minutes or so (LIVE!) to gin up the drama, and then ... the moment of truth would arrive, and the plane would land without incident. Whew! That was close!

 

[Brat]

I cannot stomach what is going on nationally. First I found it interesting, now it just too distressing. I will watch the local news. Local issues are something I can impact.

 

[Cessna152]

Then there is this:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day
...
I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

— Thomas Jefferson, 1807

Found those quotes at the following site, which inveatigates whether Mark Twain or someone else is the author of the famous quote “If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed”:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/03/misinformed/

 

[Scuba]

I used to never read ANY news except for business news that related to my former industry. A few years ago, I started skimming headlines online. I skip all the political stories and many of the business stories, and definitely skip the depressing stories about another pervert convicted of acts of pedophilia. However, I like reading the occasional “feel good” stories about someone saving an animal, or pictures of cute baby animals, or someone doing a good deed. If it’s not uplifting, I don’t read it and hence I don’t read much.

 

[6miths]

Yep. Wake me up in 2020.

 

[Midpack]

The problem with "actively seeking" news sources is that we tend to gravitate to those sources we agree with. By reading mainstream newspapers from both sides of the ideological spectrum I hope to avoid this.

We have completely different definitions then. To me “actively seeking” means deliberately reading what conservatives and liberals say (or whatever the opposing views are), and fact checking both on my own until I’m convinced I have the facts straight - has nothing to do with what I “agree with.”

While there is a lot of clever “fake news” today, sadly it’s not unique to one side or another.

I’d call those in your first sentence “passively seeking” to reinforce their established beliefs, the opposite of actively seeking. The rise of partisan news, and those who consume it exclusively (some here evidently), has been a horrible setback in the US - with no end in sight. I have conservative and liberal friends I simply can’t talk politics with anymore, even though they’d like to. Every once in a while they’ll insist, and it’s ridiculously easy to shoot down their POV (and I’m no news expert) - those conversations are very short.

Despite 24/7 “news” nowadays, there are fewer well informed citizens today, not more. And it’s not the news sources to blame, it’s the consumers who are gravitating to partisan news in greater and greater numbers. If Walter Cronkite was on today, few would even watch? That’s not a reflection on Walter...

 

[LARS]

Then there is this:



Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day

...

I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.



— Thomas Jefferson, 1807



Found those quotes at the following site, which inveatigates whether Mark Twain or someone else is the author of the famous quote “If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed”:



https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/03/misinformed/

I was on Wall Street in the 1980's and was an M&A Associate on the large oil mergers that were occurring (Conoco, Gulf Oil, Mobil). Because of that I was involved, and sat, in meetings that were front page news on the WSJ and NYT.

I would read the stories of what was "happening" in meetings/deals that I sat in, and worked on, and scratch my head thinking that was not what happened. What I concluded is that the journalists weren’t purposely trying to spin the facts, but instead were tasked with piecing them together from a number of sources which had their own agendas and this often led to inaccuracies.

Taught me a lesson very early on to be suspect of what I read in the news. Not because the news was trying to be deceptive, or manipulative, but simply because from the outside looking in it is tough to get it "right" with many sources spinning what they believe.

Fast forward to today. My sense today is that much of the news still runs afoul of what I experienced/learned in the '80's. However, there is a not insignificant percentage of news outlets/reporters that are (appear) to be purposely manipulating the "facts" for political gain.

That change has caused the rise of "Fake News" moniker, which is a significant problem for the Fourth Estate: and, if we don’t purge it is a significant risk to US Democracy.

And coming full circle is why in many instances I no longer want to read the "news" (sic.).

 

[easysurfer]

To answer the original poster's question, my answer is "yes". My best solution is using a DVR fast forward is my friend.

I enjoying watching news stories on stuff like medical breakthroughs, also like it or not, have to keep an eye on the state of things i the world, but don't have to watch all the blood and gore, another earth quake, mass shooting, people just being mean to others, and the propaganda machine (I'll let you draw your own conclusion on this ).

The least biased news website, I say is Reuters. IMO, I don't think is much in any spin there and that is my go to for website news when I want unbiased coverage. But I can only read so much as reading Reuters is like going to the library on a Friday night .