"Americans' Complicated Relationship With News"

[kane_magus]

"In an era when many say the news finds them, there is no consensus about the importance of following the news"

(Just to note, this thing is nine pagesscreens long, some much longer than others, and I didn't bother to carefully read the whole thing. I did read most of the first pagescreen, and when I saw that "next" button at the bottom, with an indicator of eight more screens after the first... I did at least skim over the rest of it, but I could already feel my eyes glazing over.)

Prior to getting into the article itself...

I think that being informed is important. I don't think that "being informed" is so important that one must pay for dozens of subscriptions (or even just one) to any and all sources of news (because fuck paywalls, and that's all I'll say about that here, as I've said more than enough about that in previous posts, found in that tag).

I'm old enough to remember when "the news" consisted entirely of 1) whatever news shows you had available to you via whichever free TV networks you had access to (e.g. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc.), which consisted of an hour or two of morning news, an hour of two of evening news and 2) maybe a subscription to a local newspaper (the Greensboro News & Record, in the case of my family).

And that was it.

Now, though, there's 24/7 "news" cable channels/streaming services and roughly a billion different apps on one's smartphone that one can use to perpetually doomscroll, if one chooses. Oh, and I guess social media shit like Facebook and Bluesky and 卐-formerly-known-as-Twitter and TikTok, if one is braindead enough to trust those as """""news""""" sources.

I consume far more news now than I ever did as a kid/young adult/prior to 5-10 years ago or so. I don't feel like I'm better off for it, to be honest. Partly because I think that news culture is a big part, possibly the biggest part of why the United States is as fucked up today as it is, in the first place.

---

As for the article itself...

I'm probably around 40/60 when it comes to the "seeking it out"/"it finds me" dichotomy (so... pretty much in line with my age bracket, I guess), as mentioned in the headline article. Sometimes, when I'm in a certain kind of morbid mood, I actively seek it out. But more often than I'd like, it finds me, whether I want it or not (usually not). I've certainly stopped using several specific sources, that's for sure (see above about paywalls), and I've tried to reduce my intake in general (e.g. I stopped watching Some More News and its spinoff podcast altogether about four months ago, not because I stopped liking/trusting them, but because it's just. Too. Fucking. Much.)

As far as the usual suspect is concerned, I'm not really sure that I need to see any news about him (though I certainly do still see news about him, whether I want to or not). There is no amount of news that will change my opinion about him for the better, and any news I do happen to see about him just edges the needle ever farther downward every time I see it. And, by extension, I don't really need to see any news about everything and everyone else connected to him (e.g. his shitty Cabinet, Congress, SCOTUS, etc.) because they're just as mired in the La Brea Tar Pits of political diarrhea as he is. My point being, regardless of whether I read the news or not, I will be voting against anything and everything Trumpublican-related as often as possible. For what little good that has done lately.

The only other news that I give much of a shit about is "modern video game industry bullshit"-related news, which is only marginally better/less depressing than the Trump-related shit is. And that's also more of an "it finds me" thing than it is an "I seek it out" thing, these days. (Unless simply scrolling through Google News app counts as "seeking it out," I guess.)

For me "do your own research" means find more than just whatever first source I just happened to see reporting on a thing. I'll try to see if the "major" news sources (and for me, "major" news sources are things like NPR, PBS, and the like, not shit like MSNBC or extreme leftwing shit like Huffpo or Daily Kos or wahtever). I might even at least glance at a Faux Noise or similarly sourced RWNJ headline about the subject (even if you couldn't pay me enough to actually read their worse-than-worthless bullshit), if only because if Faux Noise and its ilk are for/against whatever news item, that's a pretty good indicator that I should be against/for it (i.e. the opposite of whatever Faux Noise and its ilk might be saying about a given thing). "Do your own research" does not mean (or at least shouldn't mean) merely "find a news '''''source''''' that aligns better with your already preconceived notions about a thing."

The only place I discuss news is right here. I've tried discussing news with family members and the end result has always been that they either just didn't give a shit or else it turned into some big brouhaha, after which I learned to simply never talk about current events with family members. (And on the extremely rare instances of them bringing up something with me, I simply respond noncommittally and attempt to extricate myself from the situation as soon as is polite.)

And yeah, again, I've already expressed my opinion about paying for news. Enough said on that.

Lastly, heh, yeah, I already mentioned above that I feel like I'm consuming far more news than I ever did (whether I want to or not), which coincides with the last (real) section of the article (as the last two pagesscreens are just acknowledgements and methodology).

Comments

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>I hink that being informed is important. <<

Agreed.

>> I don't think that "being informed" is so important that one must pay for dozens of subscriptions (or even just one) to any and all sources of news (because fuck paywalls, <<

So much this. Journalism is a public good and information should be freely available to everyone. It's okay to charge for extra services, and journalists certainly need to be paid a fair wage, but if getting information is difficult and expensive then you will not have an informed populace.

>>I'm old enough to remember when "the news" consisted entirely of 1) whatever news shows you had available to you via whichever free TV networks you had access to (e.g. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc.), which consisted of an hour or two of morning news, an hour of two of evening news <<

It was much better when you only had to purchase a TV once and then the content was all free. Back when cable was introduced, I warned people tha they'd wind up paying for everything and STILL have commercials. Nobody believed me.

I gave up watching standard news years ago when I realized that I no longer had anything to say about it other than "Panem et circenses" or "Da, eto Pravda." 0_o It's depressing, and the quality control is terrible, which makes it also not very useful.

Nowadays I usually watch for science news online. It is still useful and reliable enough to be worth reading. Political news is just such a chore. I have to hunt around multiple places to try and divine whether a given event really happened and then find a description that is at least somewhat factual rather than squealing like a drunk college student at a rave.

Offline, I read magazines. We subscribe to a lot of them. Science, nature, homesteading, activism, etc. So I learn a lot that way. Most of it is pretty well researched, although admittedly the BBC Science one is popular to the point of iffy. But I can look up anything that seems to need more detail.

>> I'm not really sure that I need to see any news about him <<

I can't put out the garbage fire, but I can certainly deny it my attention.

>>For me "do your own research" means find more than just whatever first source I just happened to see reporting on a thing.<<

A limitation is that, as search engines decline and quality slides -- not to mention AI splattering hallucinations everywhere -- it takes more and more time and work to research things, even as it becomes more important to research before believing anything. Too much time, so I have to pick and choose.

Re: Thoughts

[kane_magus]

So much this. Journalism is a public good and information should be freely available to everyone. It's okay to charge for extra services, and journalists certainly need to be paid a fair wage, but if getting information is difficult and expensive then you will not have an informed populace.

What's worse is that when all the good quality journalism websites are finally hidden safely away behind paywalls (and more and more of them seem to be going that route these days), all that'll be left will just be the deliberately disinformational AI slopfests. People won't just have less access to good journalism, they'll have way too much access to its actively terrible counterpart.

I gave up watching standard news years ago when I realized that I no longer had anything to say about it other than "Panem et circenses" or "Da, eto Pravda." 0_o It's depressing, and the quality control is terrible, which makes it also not very useful.

It doesn't help that so many local channels are now owned by the likes of Sinclair or Nexstar and must kowtow to their backwards RWNJ ideologies, which sadly makes them intentionally worse-than-worthless in a lot of ways.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>People won't just have less access to good journalism, they'll have way too much access to its actively terrible counterpart.<<

I agree that's another very serious problem -- and an example why public goods should not be run exclusively as businesses. Many vital things are not profitable.

>>which sadly makes them intentionally worse-than-worthless in a lot of ways.<<

Also true. Finding useful and reliable information has become very difficult.