I do not follow or watch news anymore....(no politics discussion please)

[Westerly Wood]

I too have ditched myself from Facebook, NOT because FB is bad or wrong. I just know it's bad for me. I do no good on it. My friends are better off with me not on it, is what I am saying. I am not taking a dig at the platform...ok.

And several months after that, (LTG is the only social media platform I am on today...) I have ditched myself from news. Seriously, I don't even go to any sites anymore and I do not watch it on YT or TV. I am just not paying attention...

It's not that I don't care what is going on locally or in the US or globally....well, maybe I do not really care or I care less, but really it is....oh never mind. I just don't care anymore .

I got other things going on and my focus had changed a great deal. And I think it was making me paranoid and as some of you know, it was not helpful for my OCD either.

It's been nice, let me just say that, not wondering what's been going on in the world...

anyone else just sort of "tuning out"?

 

[dreadnut]

I'm right there with you, Woody. "News" has become "Opinion and conjecture."

The journalistic formula used to be the 5 W's ' Who, What, Why Where, and When. And with the added caveat: "No value judgments."

That all went out the window somewhere down the line...

 

[GAD]

I used to be a news junkie. Gave it up along with most TV about 20 years ago.

News went south when the FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[richardp69]

I don't watch or listen to the news much anymore. I long for the days of David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite. It was always my sense they they were actually relating the news, not offering up their own bias and slant on things.

 

[Westerly Wood]

I don't watch or listen to the news much anymore. I long for the days of David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite. It was always my sense they they were actually relating the news, not offering up their own bias and slant on things.

i remember Kronkite as a kid, my folks be watching him nightly...i remember liking his voice and he always came across like an authority but humble. humility is a lost art today among journalism at large.

 

[HeyMikey]

Same here. Gave it up. Too overtly biased and no longer “news”.

 

[Guildedagain]

Everybody reads the news, we can't get enough.

 

[Opsimath]

Ditto. I stopped watching all TV 20+ years ago. It was not an aversion to content, although poor content was apparent, but was more because I was too busy to spend hours every day staring at a glowing tube (however plunk me down in front of twinkling Christmas tree lights and I'm happy to stare for way too long). I found I did not miss TV in the least. Yes, I'm uninformed but I think I am managing fairly well, and probably have a significantly lower blood pressure/stress level than people who turn on the news every evening. I'll use my worry time figuring out what to fix for supper.

 

[dreadnut]

Ah yes, the good old "Huntley-Brinkley Report," and Walter Cronkite. You just trusted these guys.

 

[dreadnut]

Ditto. I stopped watching all TV 20+ years ago. It was not an aversion to content, although poor content was apparent, but was more because I was too busy to spend hours every day staring at a glowing tube (however plunk me down in front of twinkling Christmas tree lights and I'm happy to stare for way too long). I found I did not miss TV in the least. Yes, I'm uninformed but I think I am managing fairly well, and probably have a significantly lower blood pressure/stress level than people who turn on the news every evening. I'll use my worry time figuring out what to fix for supper.

TV - the plug-in drug.

 

[geoguy]

I can't imagine writing off all news sources . . . I would feel terribly uninformed, and I like to know what is going on in the world around me (including the natural world, as well as political or other "news").

It isn't too hard to identify sources of factual info, imo. Although it might have been easier when that so-called Fairness Doctrine was in place.

 

[Westerly Wood]

Everybody reads the news, we can't get enough.

"well I could have been an actor, but I wound up here,
I just have to look good I don't have to be clear..."

 

[dreadnut]

Also, they used to have to commit their stories to ink and paper.

I'm not posting this photo as a political statement, but rather as the classic case of "get your facts straight prior to publication."

 

[Opsimath]

Maybe I should make a small correction. I'm not totally uninformed since there are family members and friends only too happy to discuss current events with anyone they can immobilize long enough to listen so I guess I get some info.

ADDENDUM: Some are even more than happy to give me their opinions, too, so I don't even have to come up with any of my own!

 

[fronobulax]

Ever the contrarian, let me first say that repealing the Fairness Doctrine was the start of a downhill slide, IMO.

But in the days of my youth weekly news magazines were a thing. Somehow I was taught that Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World report all had their biases. I was furthermore taught that bias was not intrinsically bad. If I knew of the bias I could read and discern glimmers of unbiased "truth". I could also use multiple biased sources to come to an opinion about where the "truth" was. So I still find sources, print or video, where I can understand the bias, to be useful and informative.

I also understand the role of an editor. The decision to run a story, or not, was also a sign of bias even when the editor was trying to be objective,

So the existence of an unbiased source is a fantasy I do not subscribe to.

There are still things going on in the world that I am interested in and am willing to watch and read biased sources to find out.

 

[twocorgis]

I used to be a news junkie. Gave it up along with most TV about 20 years ago.

News went south when the FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine.

I agree completely Gary. The Fairness Doctrine is something that needs to be reinstated, but I don't see that happening unless Citizens United gets overturned, too. I'm a bit of a news junkie myself, but I try to get a well rounded view of what's going on out there, from both neutral, right, and left leaning sources. This graphic I find to be pretty accurate, and it you stick to sources at the top of the curve, you can come away with a pretty objective view of what's going on out there.

It sure beats social media, which is where most people seem to get their news from these days.

 

[beecee]

David Muir is a Syracuse native, near where I live. I'm embarrassed.

It's not reporting anymore to me, it's a "show".

I'll "read" numerous sources but outside of local weather at night or in the a.m. I don't watch anymore.

EDIT: RE Sandys graph. Didn't really think Vanity Fair was all that left leaning till recently. Boy they had some great reading about the financial meltdown 15 years ago!!

 

[GAD]

I can't imagine writing off all news sources . . . I would feel terribly uninformed, and I like to know what is going on in the world around me (including the natural world, as well as political or other "news").

It isn't too hard to identify sources of factual info, imo. Although it might have been easier when that so-called Fairness Doctrine was in place.

I didn't write off all news sources - just those on TV.

Much like Frono, I consume news with the knowledge that it's biased. I read a lot and read everything from left to right and then decide what is true instead of letting the source tell me what's true. Critical thought is the enemy of modern media, and it's even worse when media sources insist that the other side is wrong because they're not thinking, and every side does that. I call this "I'm right and you're stupid" and it's *everywhere*.

TV news is too antagonistic for me to watch any more. Their goal is to inflame because controversy = ratings. If you watch even local news you'll see the "newscaster" shake their head in disgust when they report on something they don't agree with. It was also an eye-opener for me when I realized that all documentaries are biased.

 

[fronobulax]

EDIT: RE Sandys graph. Didn't really think Vanity Fair was all that left leaning till recently. Boy they had some great reading about the financial meltdown 15 years ago!!

I deliberately did not post the same graphic @twocorgis did because everywhere else I have seen it posted, or posted it myself, has resulted in a discussion about how people disagree with something on the picture and that proves the picture is intrinsically biased and.... You get the idea. Let's not do that here.

The chart is from https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ so you can go there, read about methodology and meaning and make your own informed opinion which you don't need to share on LTG.

 

[gjmalcyon]

But in the days of my youth weekly news magazines were a thing. Somehow I was taught that Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World report all had their biases. I was furthermore taught that bias was not intrinsically bad. If I knew of the bias I could read and discern glimmers of unbiased "truth". I could also use multiple biased sources to come to an opinion about where the "truth" was. So I still find sources, print or video, where I can understand the bias, to be useful and informative.

This.

I spend a lot time teaching our kids to understand the "worldview" of the source they were choosing to follow and to balance that by using sources with a different worldview (aka, "agenda").

That's an interesting chart Sandy put up - and from it I can see I'm balancing my steady diet of NPR and BBC with The Economist and The Wall Street Journal.

That's an analogy I like: News consumption is like food consumption. A balanced diet is necessary for continued health.