Anyone else NOT watch the news?

[Rianne]

I watch the news but mostly read my online subscriptions to WSJ, NYT, the Guardian, The Atlantic, AP, Politico, and a few others. I like articles and opinions. It's hard to watch the constant barrage of talking heads repeating themselves, clearly making things worse than what they are because that is what increases ratings. Ratings are key and negativity makes good ratings.

I also try to keep in mind our history and the history of other countries or from what I know. A mixed bag of gray area in all of it. This is where I learned so much and realized what power means in this world. Misinformation is as old as time.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81614129#:~:text=With firsthand accounts and access,Watch all you want.

 

[Midpack]

It’s a very serious sad situation, we’ve never had more misinformed, divided citizens than we have today - and more militant minded people. If viewers really wanted more fair and balanced news, we’d have more of it - most people want to hear their tribes spin on the news, to be told what to think, to have what they already believe reinforced. They never seek out other points of view, or they’d know better…

I agree with what you say except the bolded. We (the viewers) can't demand accurate, unbiased reporting. Well, we can but who is going to listen. I don't want to hear what "my tribe" is saying. I want to hear the unbiased truth and then I'll form my opinion. We are divided because the news outlets are divided and like to keep us divided. There is $ in division.

Oh yes “we” can, we’re not “victims.” All the broadcast news outlets are for profit (they weren’t decades ago, once considered a public service). If most people stopped tuning into their respective tribes news, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the like would change very quickly. They will broadcast whatever most people will tune into - period. It’s not a matter of “listening,” when you tune in to them in greater numbers than other sources, you reinforce the biased info they broadcast. We are not divided because of news outlets, they’re just giving us what most people actually tune into.

The fact that the clearly biased Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are the most popular TV news sources shows most people prefer to listen to their tribe and be told what to believe (realize no one would admit that).

We get what (the collective) we deserve…

 

[Midpack]

I figured out that the news was biased 35 years ago when I was a teenager but it wasn't until the last few years that I realized that some of them outright lie. Media "fact checkers" didn't come along until independent people started posting the truth online and ruined their narrative.

While true with some networks, the most pervasive and harder to combat bias is lying by omission, a more common practice in biased mainstream broadcast news. They gather up all the actual facts that reinforce their agenda, and deliberately omit counterpoint. Many of them are doing it deliberately, some are just so blindly partisan they won’t look at the while picture objectively. Even if “your facts” are weaker, if you’re completely unaware of other facts, it’s easy to believe you’re right. It’s more common than not today, because so many watch news in silos. Unfortunately that’s what their viewers want, they just want to be armed with only the facts that support their established views - to win debates at the water cooler. It’s pretty easy to spot them, they can be quickly derailed with facts to the contrary, as they’ve never heard them…

 

[TheWizard]

...The fact that the clearly biased Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are the most popular TV news sources shows most people prefer to listen to their tribe and be told what to believe (realize no one would admit that).

If those three outlets are indeed biased, then why would someone choose to watch each of the three from time to time rather than just the one that most closely aligns to his/her views (tribe)?

 

[Toast]

No news for us. I grew up in a home where the TV news was always on and multiple newspapers were delivered daily. I actually believe we’re pretty well informed about what’s happening in the world because I hear other people discussing current issues. It’s pretty easy to recognize bias/personal spin by how worked up some folks seem to get when certain topics are discussed.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

A lot of folks these days choose to "Bury their heads in the sand", I am not one of them though. If one filters out the bias and Cr@p, there are some snippets of good info worth knowing. One also has to select their news viewing sources as some are not very factual, truthful or reputable, some less than others. But most with very few exceptions are biased. Mosty cater to what they "think" their audience wants to hear, not what they should hear. May as well just watch a game show.

 

[Chuckanut]

I gave up on most news when I realized that most reporters don't know that much.

Something my dad once said, “I thought you were smart until you spoke on a subject I knew about.”

Edit to add: In fairness there are several local reporters on a news and talk radio station that do a very good job regarding state and local news. They do balance news coverage. And if the morning news crew gets into a discussion, there is usually a good back and forth discussion.

The talk version of the station's programming is not so good, and I mostly ignore it. Most of the talk show hosts fit very well into my dad's comment mentioned above.

 

[Midpack]

If those three outlets are indeed biased, then why would someone choose to watch each of the three from time to time rather than just the one that most closely aligns to his/her views (tribe)?

Simple most people don’t… I’m afraid to post links, no way to avoid politics. I’d encourage you to search online to confirm for yourself, it’s not difficult.

 

[Golden Mean]

A lot of folks these days choose to "Bury their heads in the sand"

I disagree with this sentiment. You are not being informed by the news. You are being fed information about subjects that they pick to get an emotional response from you, to keep you watching. Knowing about the latest gossip about some politician or how someone did someone else wrong is not learning anything. It's being entertained (while being manipulated and of course exposed to many commercials).

 

[GrayHare]

Henley's Dirty Laundry song is over 40 years old, wow. "We can do the innuendo. We can dance and sing. When it's said and done, we haven't told you a thing."

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I disagree with this sentiment. You are not being informed by the news. You are being fed information about subjects that they pick to get an emotional response from you, to keep you watching. Knowing about the latest gossip about some politician or how someone did someone else wrong is not learning anything. It's being entertained (while being manipulated and of course exposed to many commercials).

There is plenty of useful info if one is smart enough to sift through the fluff. I think avoiding it altogether is a mistake. I agree the weak willed and gullible (of which there are a heck of a lot, probably around 45% of the population of any civilized country are directed in the way of the news provider. Fortunately, most here do not fall into that category.

 

[Dawg52]

I watch local news which also carries some national news. It’s mostly unbiased. I also watch some financial news and will turn on a NW news channel when there is a true breaking news event taking place. And I pick up news through various online sites.

 

[tulak]

Simple most people don’t… I’m afraid to post links, no way to avoid politics. I’d encourage you to search online to confirm for yourself, it’s not difficult.

I was going to post an article to a study that was done with regards to news and tribalism, but don't want to derail the thread.

I thought it was interesting. If you're curious, google 'experiment fox cnn' and find the article. Mods, feel free to edit as needed (don't want to break any rules here).

Tribalism has always been with us. There have been numerous, and very interesting (IMO), studies on this subject.

 

[Music Lover]

I'm more jaded than most and think it's gone way beyond trying to get clicks and viewers and giving people what they want. I see a very deliberate attempt to mislead.

 

[audreyh1]

I disagree with this sentiment. You are not being informed by the news. You are being fed information about subjects that they pick to get an emotional response from you, to keep you watching. Knowing about the latest gossip about some politician or how someone did someone else wrong is not learning anything. It's being entertained (while being manipulated and of course exposed to many commercials).

Exactly!

Overwhelmingly news is big business. They get paid by advertisers. They try their darndest to keep you hooked, not to inform you. They couldn’t care less about the latter, it’s all about $$$.

 

[GenXguy]

A lot of folks these days choose to "Bury their heads in the sand", I am not one of them though. If one filters out the bias and Cr@p, there are some snippets of good info worth knowing. One also has to select their news viewing sources as some are not very factual, truthful or reputable, some less than others. .

There is plenty of useful info if one is smart enough to sift through the fluff. I think avoiding it altogether is a mistake. I agree the weak willed and gullible (of which there are a heck of a lot, probably around 45% of the population of any civilized country are directed in the way of the news provider.

Agreed. Surprised to see so many avoiding the news and not knowing what's going on in the world. And as far as biased news, you will find plenty of that online that's even worse, not just in mainstream media. It seems like people just like to make up excuses not to follow the news.

 

[euro]

So, for those who do not follow news of any sort at all: how do you make an informed decision on who to vote for (local, county, state, federal) or how to vote on ballot initiatives, etc.? Is it all strictly based on party affiliation or do you consume the information provided by each candidate with flyers, newsletter, websites, etc? Or do you have other sources (which?)? Or do you simply no loner participate?
It's a hugely important topic and I'm truly curious about everyone's approaches.

 

[tulak]

I start with the voter pamphlet. Then I look at endorsements from two newspapers that are on opposite sides. In general, if they are in agreement, then that’s usually a reasonable choice. It also helps as a filter for candidates.

Depending on the issue, I’ll then dig in further, trying to understand both sides to see how I should vote.

I never vote on party affiliation and flyers, etc, go straight into the recycling bin.

I also skip voting on issues/candidates that I have no familiarity with. This doesn’t happen often, but if I can’t make an educated choice, then I’d rather pass.

 

[audreyh1]

So, for those who do not follow news of any sort at all: how do you make an informed decision on who to vote for (local, county, state, federal) or how to vote on ballot initiatives, etc.? Is it all strictly based on party affiliation or do you consume the information provided by each candidate with flyers, newsletter, websites, etc? Or do you have other sources (which?)? Or do you simply no loner participate?
It's a hugely important topic and I'm truly curious about everyone's approaches.

We go study the situation. I think you assume people who do not follow news are blind. We’re simply not following. It doesn’t mean we don’t go looking for information when we need/want it.

Active versus passive. I am an active consumer of information. I simply don’t tolerate being spoonfed information by any kind of “feed”.

 

[Music Lover]

Agreed. Surprised to see so many avoiding the news and not knowing what's going on in the world. And as far as biased news, you will find plenty of that online that's even worse, not just in mainstream media.

The question "Anyone else not watch the news" had me automatically assuming that they meant traditional mainstream media news. That I don't watch.

But we do get news from a few internet and Twitter accounts that have a proven track record for accuracy. And yes I know that bias is everywhere but there are unbiased or sources, or at least sources that while they may have a slight bias they do report the facts correctly.

So, we do watch the news, just not the traditional news.

 

[Gumby]

We go study the situation. I think you assume people who do not follow news are blind. We’re simply not following. It doesn’t mean we don’t go looking for information when we need/want it.

Active versus passive. I am an active consumer of information. I simply don’t tolerate being spoonfed information by any kind of “feed”.

Exactly so.

 

[Aerides]

So, for those who do not follow news of any sort at all: how do you make an informed decision on who to vote for (local, county, state, federal) or how to vote on ballot initiatives, etc.? Is it all strictly based on party affiliation or do you consume the information provided by each candidate with flyers, newsletter, websites, etc? Or do you have other sources (which?)? Or do you simply no loner participate?
It's a hugely important topic and I'm truly curious about everyone's approaches.

When it comes to ballot initiatives my approach is to find out who is funding the project. That usually tells me what I need to know. Quite often the initiative name is quite different from what it actually proposes to do, so you do have to do some homework on those.

But yeah I do think that folks who don't pay any attention and just show up and vote party line...big problem. I also don't really understand anyone who doesn't vote at all. It was a lot of work and money for me to get citizenship in the US, so I'm going to make sure I use it!

 

[N02L84ER]

I read the news. The only news I watch is the weather news during tornado watch/warnings.

 

[Amethyst]

At the gym, there are side-by-side TVs running CNN and Fox News channels. They are closed-caption, but it's still easy to see the massive difference in "spin." Having them next to each other is a public service - I figure the real news must be someplace in between what the TVs are saying.

 

[Music Lover]

At the gym, there are side-by-side TVs running CNN and Fox News channels. They are closed-caption, but it's still easy to see the massive difference in "spin." Having them next to each other is a public service - I figure the real news must be someplace in between what the TVs are saying.

Although what they report might lie somewhere between, if you're only watching them you're missing all the stuff they won't touch.