Today's News "Reporting"

[ExFlyBoy5]

About a month ago, I read a blog about how news reporting has really gone downhill. Now, I don't really know that it's any better or worse than it used to be, but it seems as though it is.

Anyway, I used to make habit of watching the local news a couple times of day as well as look at what was "trending" on the internet. After reading the blog, I started to take note of what REALLY applies to me and most of it (about 98% of it) is really inconsequential to my life. So, over the period of two weeks, I went on a "news free" sabbatical. Of course, there's no good way to avoid ALL news (which I wouldn't want to do anyway), but I did notice that by not watching the local news or seeking out "trends" on the internet, I find a little bit of inner peace. It's difficult to explain, but getting away from the constant news cycle of stories that have NO BEARING on my life has been good for the soul.

I think a lot of it really is that the news folks are just trying to sell advertising. I get it. They are making money...I have no problem with that. But everything is SO sensationalized! I see it ALL OVER Facebook (which I have about decided to dump because it too doesn't really add anything to my life anymore) with teaser "stories" that want you to click through 15 pages to realize that there isn't a story at all.

The latest example is this non-sense about the TSA SPOT program. This program (been around since 2010) uses officers to scrutinize the behavior of travelers in airport screening areas in an attempt to identify anyone who may pose a security risk. If they identify someone exhibiting a "cluster" of behaviors from a list of over 90 indicators that the TSA associates with stress, fear, or deception, they refer that person for secondary inspection or questioning.

Now, it seems as though a list of some of these behaviors has been "revealed" and the ones that have been picked up by the press are VERY sensational. I won't post the specifics, but I attached what Google news is showing. All sensationalized to get more eyes on the "story". I picked up on this "story" from another forum and it's like wildfire over there. People are all up in arms about how the TSA is profiling them and if you cough too much, you might be a terrorist and I think it's ridiculous. The media is to blame for this phenomenon and I wish it would just stop already.

Sorry about the rant, but my DW is probably tired of me complaining about the "news" so I thought I'd share with all you lovely people!

 

[Midpack]

Between the 24/7 partisan networks that put out what looks like news but it's not, and almost all networks constantly reporting "news" that hasn't yet been fact checked, I don't have much use for TV news any more. There are few news programs left that even try to provide accurate unbiased news. YMMV

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

Between the 24/7 partisan networks that put out what looks like news but it's not, and almost all networks constantly reporting "news" that hasn't yet been fact checked, I don't have much use for TV news any more. There are few news programs left that even try to provide accurate unbiased news. YMMV

You hit the nail on the head. I found that when I actively avoid watching/reading the "news" I will still hear about things that are going on in the world. Certainly if another 9/11 happened, I would know about it pretty darn quick. But just to see another house burn down, a thug carjacking someone, or sensational stories that isn't news at all...well, it's just a big drag that I just as soon not have on my life.

I have figured out in my VERY early months of retirement that the days seem EVEN SHORTER than when I was w*rking, so I have to make the best of them!

 

[ITTN]

The news, 90% of it is “events”. And the people in the news, most of them are “celebrities” which is just another way of saying, hey this guy really doesn’t do anything that we can describe as a job, so he must be a “celebrity”. So we end up with celebrities in events, that's 90% of the news today. Most of the last 10% of the news is when the celebrity screws up, and then you see them at a charity event with other celebrities.

 

[HFWR]

It's still possible to find thoughtful analysis, but one has to look for it.

As far as the "OMG, look at this" crap on Facebook, I ruthlessly hide it, and it has made the experience somewhat more pleasurable.

 

[HFWR]

...which is just another way of saying, hey this guy really doesn’t do anything that we can describe as a job, so he must be a “celebrity”...

I must be a "celebrity" then...

 

[steelyman]

It's still possible to find thoughtful analysis, but one has to look for it.

As far as the "OMG, look at this" crap on Facebook, I ruthlessly hide it, and it has made the experience somewhat more pleasurable.

I've never had any desire to be on Facebook. As far as "social media" goes, e-r.org is about it. When I quit here, I'll go down to the coffee shop and hang with the good ol' boys. I think the proportion of curmudgeons and Cliff Clavins will be about the same.

 

[jimbee]

Hyperbole sells.

 

[Chuckanut]

Part of the problem is that the 'reporters' know very little about what they are reporting on. This is especially true in the areas of science, religion and economics, IMHO.

The days of having a science reporter like Jules Bergman are long gone.

 

[samclem]

It's still possible to find thoughtful analysis, but one has to look for it.

I've found much more of it in print than online/TV/radio. The stories can be longer and, if I want to read something again to "get it", I can do so. I can stop reading whenever I want and skip to something more interesting.

As far as important real-world events that impact me, if it is important somebody will usually mention it right here.

I need to look into podcasts/downloads a bit more. It might be a good way to get thoughtful reporting/analysis when I can't be reading.

 

[bbbamI]

About two months ago we changed our home page from current 'news' to the daily comics, financial news, scientific discoveries and house remodeling tips.

Life for us is much better.

...and I don't have to look at Kim Kardashian's butt everyday. Thank gawd.

 

[HFWR]

...and I don't have to look at Kim Kardashian's butt everyday. Thank gawd.

Kanye?

 

[bbbamI]

Kanye?

Heh...a match made in [-]heaven[/-] Hollywood. Ain't love grand?

 

[audreyh1]

Between the 24/7 partisan networks that put out what looks like news but it's not, and almost all networks constantly reporting "news" that hasn't yet been fact checked, I don't have much use for TV news any more. There are few news programs left that even try to provide accurate unbiased news. YMMV

Totally agree. When CNN decided that what Joe Blow on the street had to say about any issue was "news", that was the last straw.

 

[audreyh1]

We went to a "no news" policy at home a couple of years ago, and we couldn't be happier for it. It is not necessary. "News" no longer informs. It seems more likely to misinform.

If I want to know about something, I can find out all I want to know quickly via the Internet. I'm delighted to not know about a bunch of trivial things.

I have my Facebook feed pretty well cleaned up. I mark "I don't want to see this" on items that appear in my feed that I want to go away. I remove people from my feed who post too much on political issues or news or other things I don't find interesting. As a result my feed does seem to match my interests reasonably well and I am rarely annoyed.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I have my Facebook feed pretty well cleaned up. I mark "I don't want to see this" on items that appear in my feed that I want to go away. I remove people from my feed who post too much on political issues or news or other things I don't find interesting. As a result my feed does seem to match my interests reasonably well and I am rarely annoyed.

I have tried to clean up FB as best as I can (I have right at 98 friends, and really, that's about 85 too many) but it's still a mess of sharing crap I don't care about...lots of articles that are nothing more than clickbait. And then I find out that FB really only shows you what IT wants to show you in the feed. I noticed that some people that I WANT to follow I don't get shown. Apparently, this is by design and I find this also quite annoying. Here's a good video from a YouTube channel that is entertaining as well.

 

[ls99]

THere was a time when news consisted of Who, what, when, where. Fact checked.

Now it seems like those became questions for speculation. Who? was with what? What happened where? Why did it happen? We will spend hours speculating, until some new mayhem happens then we will forget what we were talking about. Next up .....

 

[Midpack]

THere was a time when news consisted of Who, what, when, where. Fact checked.

Now it seems like those became questions for speculation. Who? was with what? What happened where? Why did it happen? We will spend hours speculating, until some new mayhem happens then we will forget what we were talking about. Next up .....

We should be able to phase out our judicial system except for sentencing I guess. Our newscasters are able to arrive at a verdict long before the courts are as they're not encumbered by facts or evidence or all that bothersome stuff...

 

[athena53]

I need to look into podcasts/downloads a bit more. It might be a good way to get thoughtful reporting/analysis when I can't be reading.

My two favorite sources (in addition to the hard copy of our local paper) are the BBC and taggeschau.de. The latter is in German, which provides the bonus of allowing me to retain some fluency. I get "Business Daily" and "Documentaries" as well as "In Our Time" in which a very smart man (Melvin Bragg) interviews 3 academic types on the covered subject- anything from Plate Tectonics to the Curies, Beowulf or some philosopher I never heard of. "Fresh Air" on NPR is also good; sometimes they cover the latest jazz album, which isn't my thing, or a book that's not all that interesting, but you can always delete things.

Probably any source will have its own right or left-wing bias, but I find these to be a good spectrum of viewpoints. I don't watch the news on TV. Useless.

 

[Tailgate]

I spent a number of years in the local news business (television).. now that I'm retired, my interests are anywhere else but watching local news. I get weather from the National Weather Service online.

General observations on local news in small and medium size markets (link to Nielsen TV Market ranking with TV household numbers)
1. some markets are hard news markets , like San Antonio is a hard crime market with every station leading with the bleeding headline. Some are not. Cities like Cincinnati & San Fransisco and markets with state capitals or major colleges usually are more sophisticated. Every station does research to try to keep up with what viewers want. It's weird to see the same branding slogans being used in multiple markets.
2. small markets have to hire rookie reporters... baby faced kids who don't have a clue (they just want to be on TV).. news management must keep them on a short leash, fact check everything and just when the light bulbs start coming on, the reporter jumps to the next market size
3. economics drives local news (ratings).. the #1 station in the market tends to be more credible than the #3 or #4 station... resources, size of staff, experience, news management savvy, etc come into play
4. the #3 & #4 stations tend to be more sensationalistic with local news (they need to scream to get attention)
5. most media bias on the local level is when the well being of a major advertiser trumps the negative news story they might be named in.. I never saw or heard of an instance of political bias locally, but can't say it doesn't happen. Most newsrooms try hard to not be biased. Sometimes the General Manager has an agenda... I have seen that trickle down to a news product. I worked with an extremely liberal news manager...maybe the most liberal person I've known, but he went miles out of his way to not let his personal beliefs affect the story by demanding factual, balanced reporting. That is being professional and I respected that very much.
6. most local news anchors are prima donnas...huge egos and generally a screwed up personal life..they are usually great guys and girls, just heavy on the egos... reporters all want to be news anchors.

Anyway...enjoyed my time in the TV biz...like every other industry it is undergoing rapid change and challenges. Lots of good people trying hard to do good work and a few knuckleheads screwing it up regularly.

I can't speak to network news and I think most cable news is really just 'entertainment' packaged to look like news...3rd tier shows like Nancy Grace are a joke. Lots of drive-by watchers.. kind of like watching Judge Judy and thinking she's really being a Judge.

Personally, I hate the demise of the local print newspaper. At a point in time they were the organization that provided in-depth, investigative reporting that held local governments and public officials feet to the fire. TV news cannot provide that level of journalism because of the medium and because TV has multiple competitors whereas newspapers are generally one to a market, so they don't have to compete. Competition generally promotes sameness, less risk taking and a bland product.

So print newspaper days are pretty much over... who's going to promote transparency? Bloggers? I don't think so.

 

[mpeirce]

I think it's sad when people are driven to give up news. I can understand why they do so, but I personally take it as a challenge to stay fairly well informed.

I gravitate toward conservative sources, but try to spice it up with a little from the other side. I certainly don't expect news from any source to be "unbiased". Frankly I don't believe it ever was.

I still read the local morning paper with breakfast. We're in a decent market - being a state capital helps and there is some balance because while the state trends slightly Republican, the city is Democrat.

I used to read the WSJ every day at lunchtime. I still enjoy reading it sometimes, but there's just too much to keep up with and I'd find myself piling them up to read later. Of course I never did, so I decided to save the subscription cost. Sad but true.

We watch a little local news too. Honestly, the weather report is the main attraction, but we watch about 15 minutes of one station's six o'clock news (we turn it off when the sports comes on - not my thing) and a few minutes of another station's 10 o'clock news as we fall asleep. TiVo helps skip the local ads ;-)

Once or twice a week I like watching a national news report to see what the media thinks is important - I've been watching Bret Baier's Special Report lately and I think it's a pretty decent news program.

On the radio I like to dip into NPR's morning edition. There's some interesting stories, but after listening for a few days I usually get mad at the liberal slant (mostly their unstated assumptions) and turn them off for awhile. I also liked the The Wall Street Journal This Morning. It was kind of a quick survey of the newspaper's material. Recently it's no longer part of the WSJ (called "This Morning: America's First News") but seems to be about the same. We'll see how it develops.

And of course there is the internet - a vast expanse of 98% garbage, but lots of opportunity to drill into areas I'm interested in and also get international perspectives. I love that I can read news from so many different countries, though I do focus on the anglosphere since I only speak english. It helps keep going back to news sites on a regular basis so you can learn their biases.

And finally, I can't imagine getting news from a social network. It helps that I don't have a Facebook account. I always thought it was daft and am (probably unreasonably) proud to never have had a real Facebook account.

 

[audreyh1]

It's still possible to find thoughtful analysis, but one has to look for it.

As far as the "OMG, look at this" crap on Facebook, I ruthlessly hide it, and it has made the experience somewhat more pleasurable.

+10

I was looking at the feed today. And it's really just the stuff I care about - all the local nature happenings and sightings of bugs and birds by friends. Very tailored! Which was the whole point.

I can't say there is stuff I haven't missed. If I want to know what someone has been up to I go to their page.

 

[audreyh1]

I think it's sad when people are driven to give up news. I can understand why they do so, but I personally take it as a challenge to stay fairly well informed.

But that's the problem. Broadcast news today does not inform. Once upon a time it really did. You have to go out and seek the news now, not expect to have it presented to you. I don't mind taking a more active role and running down the "real" story for items of interest.

It's quite a relief to cut out all that noise. Just as much relief as avoiding commercials.

We stopped receiving newspapers well over a decade ago. My husband occasionally quickly glances at the local paper online.

 

[Walt34]

I rarely watch TV news (or any TV for that matter) just because of the incessant ads. But I do subscribe to the local paper because they do make an effort to report the local stuff and keep a more optimistic view of things. They'll have a couple of AP articles but the local stuff dominates unless it's something like 9/11.

But I only subscribe in six-month increments. I think they're on their last legs but I've thought that for the last 12 years, They nearly constantly have positions open which says they don't pay enough or it's a lousy place to work, or both.

 

[FIREd]

I never watch the news and yet always seem to be aware of what major event is going on around the world. Once a day, I quickly scan the titles on the front page of a few major world newspapers and done! Do I really need to know all the gory details about that aircraft that crashed in the French Alps? No. A skillful writer could sum up everything I need to know about this crash in a single paragraph, if only sticking to facts instead of going on and on about rumors, opinions, speculations, etc...

Sure, I won't be able to tell you what the Kardashians are up to, but the fact that I am expected to know that just shows how much of today's news is just stupid fluff.