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

[steady saver]

We stopped watching the nightly news when our oldest son was 2. We quickly realized by watching it through the lens of a 2 year old how negative and violent it was. He's 24 now and we never watched the evening news again.
That said, I've always liked listening to NPR and in recent years, the BBC when I'm driving. I'd typically turn on NPR when I was making dinner and first thing in the morning. I don't regularly do that now. While I do still like and support NPR very much, I find the national news in general just so depressing these days and I often have to turn it off. A steady diet of politics and violence just wasn't making my life better and I wasn't doing anything to effect change as it was.
I still listen, just not near as much. I get news from others (for example, I didn't know until last night about Kennedy's upcoming retirement from the bench. Normally I'd know that the second it leaked out.)
I had to reconcile with myself that not listening to the news didn't mean I didn't care what happened. It just meant I wasn't going to spend my time getting depressed while I could do something about it. So now my way of doing something about it is to more actively engage in respectful dialogue with others with opposing views. I really value when someone is willing to talk with me (respectfully) about why they believe what they do and how they came to that viewpoint and are willing to try to understand my views, even if in the end neither of us changes our stance. It brings humanity back into my world. People are more alike and have way more in common than the louder differences would have us think.

 

[athena53]

I got rid of cable after DH died- no need for the network news. When I'm subjected to it in the breakfast room of some hotel where I'm staying it's so depressing I want to slit my wrists.

Like many here, I use alternate sources. I love BBC documentaries and their "Business Daily". I get another documentary in French and a news podcast in German, so both cover things that might not get attention in the US. I do skim headlines on the Internet news sites, mostly MSN.com, to see if there's anything more pressing than celebrity baby bump pictures and "Bride Dumps Fiance on Wedding Day Due to Unpaid Bills" (the latter taken from today's "news").

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

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.).

Speaking as a retired newspaper line editor: On any given day a newspaper is likely to contain incomplete reports and inaccuracies, especially when developing stories are involved. News sometimes comes out in dribs and drabs. And yes, unidentified sources who leak information to news media can have an agenda that plays out in the information they provide.

Nowhere is that more widespread than in Washington, where, over generations, government operations have become increasingly opaque. Meaningful news out of DC often comes from a small circle of "insider" journalists who have confidential sources in government.

That system is great for the reporters "in the club," but it's even better for the politicians who can shape messages to their liking anonymously. News media have little choice to go along, since many of the official power brokers sometimes go for months without holding a press conference.

I'll give Donald Trump credit for breaking out of that mold with his daily tweets, for good or ill. Mods, feel free to take that out if you feel it necessary.

Years ago there was a reporter named I.F. Stone who wrote an investigative newsletter solely based on public records. As an unabashed leftist, he had few friends in any branch of government. Instead, he used documentary evidence to report, as an example, that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a sham.

His newsletter never attained widespread circulation, but had broader influence than his 70,000 paying customers might suggest. Often more mainstream journalists mined his columns for news stories they could present to their broader audiences.

Today, Stone is regarded as an icon of 20th-century journalism, but the path he blazed professionally has few followers. Too much risk, too little reward.

 

[MichaelB]

Hopefully, no need to take it out, also hopefully, the discussion stays on topic, which is media viewing habits.

 

[ERD50]

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. ...

Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, I listen to hear what is being talked about, and largely ignore what is said about it. I need to look up the source information to see if there is anything to takeaway from it.

Some mention trusting NPR (or their local version) - I find them to be the most insidious in a way, because they are subtle about it, and a lot of people do trust them. Some other sources are pretty clearly biased, so our guard is up. I recall listening to NPR in the car about a year ago, and my jaw dropped at the bias they injected into a 'report'. When I got home, I looked for a transcript, so I could make sure I heard it right (couldn't find one unfortunately).

I can't go into detail w/o attracting Porky, but it was almost like a subliminal message, but not really all that subliminal, it's obvious if you have your critical listening ears on.

Basically, it was about why/how people in high positions lie, and when talking about one particular group, they injected the word "lie" into the conversation at every turn. Even when there was no "lie". They would say things like "thought to be lying", "was accused of lying", "widely considered to be lying", "may have been lying". But when talking about another group that had documented lies, they said (and I am not making this up!), "not always so forthcoming with the truth".

Hmmm, associate "lie" over and over again with one group, but throw in the word "truth", and avoid the word "lie" with the other group? If someone was casually listening, they would not have picked up on that. I don't think it was a coincidence. It was bias, maybe not even intended.

Be careful out there.

-ERD50

 

[pjigar]

Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, I listen to hear what is being talked about, and largely ignore what is said about it. I need to look up the source information to see if there is anything to takeaway from it.

Some mention trusting NPR (or their local version) - I find them to be the most insidious in a way, because they are subtle about it, and a lot of people do trust them. Some other sources are pretty clearly biased, so our guard is up. I recall listening to NPR in the car about a year ago, and my jaw dropped at the bias they injected into a 'report'. When I got home, I looked for a transcript, so I could make sure I heard it right (couldn't find one unfortunately).

I can't go into detail w/o attracting Porky, but it was almost like a subliminal message, but not really all that subliminal, it's obvious if you have your critical listening ears on.

Basically, it was about why/how people in high positions lie, and when talking about one particular group, they injected the word "lie" into the conversation at every turn. Even when there was no "lie". They would say things like "thought to be lying", "was accused of lying", "widely considered to be lying", "may have been lying". But when talking about another group that had documented lies, they said (and I am not making this up!), "not always so forthcoming with the truth".

Hmmm, associate "lie" over and over again with one group, but throw in the word "truth", and avoid the word "lie" with the other group? If someone was casually listening, they would not have picked up on that. I don't think it was a coincidence. It was bias, maybe not even intended.

Be careful out there.

-ERD50

My observations match up with your's so I have my guards up even when I listen to public radio. Unfortunate but I have to do that to keep my fact gathering balanced.

 

[Marita40]

Erd,
I agree with you are NPR. I've stopped listening to it--except for some of the Saturday programs like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me (my favorite)--because of this. Pretty obvious to me the slant that is going on there. Like CNN I don't recall this before the last election.

I enjoyed the quotes by Jefferson above. Puts things in perspective about media, whatever generation it is.

 

[Katiek]

I do a quick scan of a few news websites for headlines and watch a bit of the local news for weather reports in the morning, but I avoid any extended news shows. I will tune in for certain live news events if there is something relevant (like hurricanes) or other breaking news where they're really reporting news and not hours of commentary.

My Mom lives alone and often keeps cable news on all day. She likes "the company" but I think it really gets her worked up over things she can't control . For the holidays I got her an extended cable package with Hallmark and other feel good channels, and I'll try to call her with suggestions of other shows she might enjoy that will help her attitude. Better to spend an hour wondering which lakeside house the couple on HGTV will pick than another political debate.

 

[Bir48die]

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.

I think most people understand the way of the world and aren't the "ill informed" that they are portrayed to be. Some have hard lives and live them from sun up to sun down. Is there percentage of the population that vote entirely based on their tough personal situations? Yes, on both sides. Many haven't had the opportunity to "educate" to the level of others and get out of their rut.

I think "fake news" could be changed to inaccurate news. There are more an more retractions and a whole lot of speculation to fill up air time. I am one of those who for the most part tunes out television news due to their horrible bent one way. On the other hand, I am engaged hourly and daily on the important subjects.

I love the daily Business Report on PBS. Outside of that I listen, read and observe while forming an educated opinion.

 

[Chuckanut]

I think John Dickerson formerly the host of Face the Nation and now a part of the CBS Morning news show got it right when he commented on why people no longer trust the press:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cbs-anchor-john-dickerson-press-ruined-its-reputation-on-its-own

(emphasis added)

The press did all that good work ruining its reputation on its own, and we can have a long conversation about what created that," Dickerson said.


Part of it, though, is what you mentioned about the local weather report, which is to say a lot of hysterical coverage about every little last thing that doesn't warrant it," he added.

That's about all I want to quote as it helps explain a big reason many people don't follow the news media anymore.

 

[Chuckanut]

Some mention trusting NPR (or their local version) - I find them to be the most insidious in a way, because they are subtle about it, and a lot of people do trust them. Some other sources are pretty clearly biased, so our guard is up. I recall listening to NPR in the car about a year ago, and my jaw dropped at the bias they injected into a 'report'. When I got home, I looked for a transcript, so I could make sure I heard it right (couldn't find one unfortunately).

I must agree with you. This is exactly the kind of thing that I believe Mr. Dickerson - in my previous post - was referring to.

One of the NPR morning guys does something I don't care for at all. He will be interviewing an expert about something Mr. Jones said or did, ask him/her three or four pointed questions (very good!) and then proceed to put words in the experts mouth by saying "So that means Mr. Jones thinks it's OK to **insert terrible thing here**. In reality the expert never said that. People hear that a few times and the reporter's credibility goes down the tubes. Please, Mr. Interviewer, let us draw our own conclusions. We don't need to be told what to think.

 

[Dash man]

Better to spend an hour wondering which lakeside house the couple on HGTV will pick than another political debate.

You can’t even trust HGTV. The couples have to have already bought a house before they appear on most of their shows.

 

[easysurfer]

I think John Dickerson formerly the host of Face the Nation and now a part of the CBS Morning news show got it right when he commented on why people no longer trust the press:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cbs-anchor-john-dickerson-press-ruined-its-reputation-on-its-own

(emphasis added)



That's about all I want to quote as it helps explain a big reason many people don't follow the news media anymore.

Used to be there was only 3 networks where we got news coverage on TV. Now we can get "news" on lots of different channels or mediums and anyhow/anytime. So, is network news like the past obsolete?

That's a big challenge, having to decide what is real news and what is slanted a certain way.

 

[ERD50]

Regretfully, I must agree with you. This is exactly the kind of thing that I believe Mr. Dickerson - in my previous post - was referring to.

One of the NPR morning guys does something I don't care for at all. He will be interviewing an expert, ask him/her three or four pointed questions (very good!) and then proceed to put words in the experts mouth by saying "So that means Mr. Gasbag thinks it's OK to **insert terrible thing here**. ....

Another tactic I've seen - the host has his/her list of 'gotcha' questions prepared, and starts firing away with Q#1. Well, it's apparent the guest was well prepared for that, and starts off with an excellent defense, the host senses this after just a few words are out, interrupts them, and goes to question #2!

If the guest starts with a good response for #2, the host interrupts again. If the guest fumbles a bit on #3, the host probes that one, and ends the interview on a 'win'.

Of course some of the people watching are fans of the biased host, so they are all cheering in support. It's depressing.

-ERD50

 

[Koogie]

Used to be there was only 3 networks where we got news coverage on TV. Now we can get "news" on lots of different channels or mediums and anyhow/anytime. So, is network news like the past obsolete?

I think this is very much the problem. Back in the day, only the Best of the Best of the Best got to be Walter Cronkite or one of his chums. There were only a few news outlets in each country and naturally the cream rose to the top. Journalistic standards were high on television and print had real reporters and real editors, not just HEADLINE CLICKBAIT WRITERS !!!

Nowadays, in the 500 channel universe and and the [-]cesspool[/-] Internet, any lightweight with an opinion and a fluffy haircut can pontificate 24/7.

 

[Amethyst]

Readers seem to like clickbait because they don't have to think about it before they react.

In my observation, people seem to have an awful lot of fun, and waste huge amounts of time, reading all the clickbait and telling each other what they think. Debating actual news stories takes more thought, and is less popular.

 

[VanWinkle]

About 10 of us meet in the morning at the "Rusty Zipper" for coffee and news.
We find out about chicken dinners at various churches, fish fries at the VFW, and steak grills at the Moose lodge. This news is very important to us, but is likely the only news we listen for every day. Some news is too important to miss. Other news, not so much.

VW

 

[Marita40]

I've noted over and over that even the tone of voice is different when an NPR reporter interviews a "favored" person vs "not favored" person. There's a condescending tone and clear impatience from the get-go with the "not favored person," putting them in a bad light simply by these tactics alone.

 

[Chuckanut]

What really bothers me is people who get their news and analysis from the likes of entertainment shows and networks like Comedy Central. Really? I think many young people don't now what good journalism is having grown up in this age mass media excesses. That is a scary thought.

Me? I want Sgt. Friday as a journalist - "Just the facts, ma'am". I can make up my own mind. And keep opinions to a well labeled Editorial section and allow plenty of opposing ideas. Maybe that will change my mind.

 

[marko]

Here's how I view it: The media wants you to think it's more important to you than it is.

What the mayor of my little town does affects me a whole lot more than what goes on nationwide. I think we have it backwards in that respect. I ask "what's it got to do with me?"
I try to worry about things that I can do something about or that impact me, not these abstract outrages over which I have no ability to address.

I've gone through a whole slew of presidents since Ike and regardless of party or person I can't really think of something any one of them have done that affected me directly.

Ed Lattimore famously said: "I lived in the projects through four different administrations and my situation didn't change one bit"

 

[LARS]

Here's how I view it: The media wants you to think it's more important to you than it is.



What the mayor of my little town does affects me a whole lot more than what goes on nationwide. I think we have it backwards in that respect. I ask "what's it got to do with me?"

I try to worry about things that I can do something about or that impact me, not these abstract outrages over which I have no ability to address.



I've gone through a whole slew of presidents since Ike and regardless of party or person I can't really think of something any one of them have done that affected me directly.



Ed Lattimore famously said: "I lived in the projects through four different administrations and my situation didn't change one bit"

I can hold my own with cynics and curmudgeons, but you've got me beat!

Seems to me that if you're collecting SS (thank Reagan for putting on even keel back in 80's) and Medicare (thank LBJ for signing it into law) then you, and we, have a number of Presidents to be thankful to since Ike...

 

[GrayHare]

Even if many of us have tuned out of broadcast news there remain many that give it attention. That can be more concerning than the news itself.

 

[Red Badger]

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.

+1(000000)
I would offer that people who watch and accept the national (and local to some extent) news are a part of the ill-informed, low information folks. When I used to partake in the big social media platforms, this perception was often validated.

I also use the internet to very selectively seek out the news that is of value to me.

 

[frayne]

I like to be informed, watch the major cable news programs as well as read print news and internet news. As depressing as it may be at times, I believe there is a greater danger in tuning it out. As a demographic, our group votes and probably has as much or more impact on the direction of this country as any group. Ignore at your own peril. Just my two cents and YMMV.

 

[marko]

I can hold my own with cynics and curmudgeons, but you've got me beat!

Seems to me that if you're collecting SS (thank Reagan for putting on even keel back in 80's) and Medicare (thank LBJ for signing it into law) then you, and we, have a number of Presidents to be thankful to since Ike...

I'm not about to turn free stuff away, but if SS and Medicare didn't exist I'd still be exactly where I am today, doing exactly what I did today (out on my boat). Who knows...maybe if I wasn't taxed on SS and Medicare I might have RE'd sooner. Or the same time. Doesn't matter.

Just my opinion, but I just don't believe that 'who' is president matters all that much, at least in how it directly affects my day to day life; not as much as my mayor's choices anyway; LBJ was a half century ago.

In the context of this thread however, I think the media is constantly trying to stir outrage or hide shortcomings depending on who's in office and in the end, most of it really isn't all that important.