yeah, people think that feeding into our reactionary side for views is something new, but television has been corrupting us since long before the internet.
i remember these stickers in the 90’s… they used to be everywhere, especially in the subcultures like the punk/rave/hippie/skater scene:
“KILL YOUR TV”
i’m glad someone was looking out for me. killing that thing definitely made me a better person.
All news is corporate bullshit, manufactured consent was a warning and media used it to market themselves together government.
No news has the public as something to tell the truth to, only to sell to advertisers.
I didn’t realize it was the news’ job to provide proactive solutions to everything it reports.
Sometimes the news stations are ragebaiting you and that sucks.
Unpopular opinion:
Sometimes there are multiple, newsworthy bad things happening at once. More and more often, THIS is the reality. Rights are under attack, people are dying, the climate is getting buggered, your privacy is up for sale, etc, etc. Maybe if we all got up off our sad, fragile asses once in awhile to vote/protest/act we could do something about it? If you’re under 40 I specifically and directly mean you, especially if you read this and you feel your jimmies rustling. Shit is bad, and WE gotta fix it. Gen X+ ain’t gonna get it done.
Sometimes bad shit happens again and again and instead of actually talking about why this happens again and again, the news media pretends to be “unbiased” so they ignore the racism, misogyny, bigotry, and just general rage and hatred that fuels most of it.
instead of actually focusing any time on that, and their role in it, the news media will blame the left for being “too extreme”.
It’s not a new phenomenon. The New York Times famously didn’t report on the fucking Holocaust except in the broadest strokes.
In fact their coverage at the time was almost identical to the way they’re covering the genocide in well, there are actually half a dozen in progress around the world right now.
It is basically always worth having the conversation. My gripe is with people who think the news should just be happier or who check out and want a pat on the back for it.
It is everyone’s job to be informed. As fully as is reasonably possible. At least that’s my perspective.
I appreciate that you remembered there’s a Gen X, even if you’re applying ageist stereotypes to entire generations of diverse individuals.
There are certainly problems with the state of journalism, but anyone who tries to “view the news as a person” will be as woefully uninformed as those who try to “run government like a business.”
The “state of journalism” is that it’s many miles down the mineshaft of capitalism and the only way out is to try to monetize crowdfunding.
BBC is (was) the opposite and have their own issues, but in general I think we can agree they’re ahead of the US journalism framework.
They got so much worse under the Tories in recent years though.
True. But then everything did.
Capitalists flip flop between motivating with fear, and scaring the working class into paralysis with fear as well. Fear of losing your job; fear of your neighbor; fear of other countries; it’s all just fear. Bad news also draws people in and gets clicks and views.
Pretty sure most social constructs and all sounds morbid or toxic if you put them like this…
Not so - let’s pretend Anthropology 101 is a person.
It . . . it sounds like a teacher.
Okay, let’s pretend a grassroots advocacy group is a person
It sounds like someone really concerned about [homelessness, food insecurity, etc.]
Only news is so untouchable and overwhelmingly depressive.
You … DO realize the news CHOOSES to cover things like this… don’t you?
there is such s thing as solutions journalism, but it is rather rare
This has a Ryan George (Pitch Meeting) written all over it
News: here are STARTLING MORTALITY RATES that you definitely did NOT ask for while you wait for the weather that we definitely promise is coming! But first a word from our sponsor
User: your right I really didn’t ask for th—
Ad: “HI HELLO THERE I’m the pharma ad – THIS COULD (possibly) KILL YOU!”
User: oh god why would I want that? –
Ad: So you won’t be depressed ya silly goose!"
User: [Gestures to “News”] these people give you… Money?..-
News: Yeeah yeeah yeah yeah!
News: enjoy watching it every break until you actually feel depressed! *ARE YOU SAD YET??
User: when are you going to get to that segment that you keep teasing over and over which is very effectively keeping me in engaged on your platform?
News: heyshutup HERE’S THE SAME AD AGAIN!
Yeah, I automatically read the whole post in his voice. Exactly the same energy.
HELLO I’M AN ANGRY PUNDIT AND I’M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE YOUR FARTS SMELL
HELLO I’M ALSO AN ANGRY PUNDIT AND WILL NOT LET YOU GET A SINGLE WORD IN BECAUSE I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE A POOPY HEAD
news: absolute perfection!
Oh, my god!
Https://dw.com is the best one I found
Or https://bbc.com is still better than commercial news
The BBC tries to both sides of human rights issues.
“Do trans people deserve to use the bathtoom in peace? We’ve invited a trans woman from an NGO that has one several awards for human rights, and your racist Uncle from Facebook who no one invites to Thanksgiving willingly.”
The BBC can be good, but man do they hate any form of minorities that aren’t included in a status quo.
Again, kind of a point for NPR given at least they do have an expert talk for like, 3 to 15 (or longer for some specially podcasts) and never angry. Less or no ads, although they still have sponsors. Plus if it’s really grim, they give a content warning (although it’s not like they show snuff videos like cable news does).
Also local news affiliates, they fill time with silly fluff like how a bake off is going or local pet adoptions. But that still has the ads.
Generally agree, but the “news” isn’t meant to offer solutions, or fix anything.
They are only supposed to highlight or reveal facts and situations.
In some cases, reporting on a topic can result in solutions, as in the case of previously unknown corruption, but that’s an edge case
Generally agree, but the “news” isn’t meant to offer solutions, or fix anything.
Is it meant to be a fear firehose and present only discord and strife?
My point being - says who? The “news” is meant to keep people informed and that includes solutions. And it doesn’t dictate everything be a goddamned shitshow 98% of the time. Which is what local news inevitably is, no matter where “local” is.
“who what where when how”, etc. that’s the point of news. Tell the people that. Save the rest for the opinion pages, and don’t muddy the two.
Detail pieces from experts are awesome content, and a happy home for solutions. The news is the retelling of events and situations, as appropriate for the scope of the news org. (Local news vs global news)
I’m not saying opinion articles or solution discussions shouldn’t exist. I’m saying they should be separate.
“who what where when how”, etc. that’s the point of news. Tell the people that. Save the rest for the opinion pages, and don’t muddy the two.
Are you suggesting opinion can be removed completely from news stories? Are the story choices themselves outside of opinion?
Well, no and no. The real reason local news is a horror story fiesta every night is because good news is boring. It doesn’t sell.
I’m not saying one entity can’t do both, but “news” should be cold information about happenings.
“Opinion/editorial” is the follow up analysis about facts.
Nostalgia doesn’t usually have a purpose but it does help spread some oral history, so here’s a blast from the past. You sound young, born from a time before the news stopped being useful. There was a time, before 1994, when the news would call out the situation and cite experts who would call out alternatives or provide clarity of what the path forward could be.
Take a look at this broadcast from 1980, before Reagan could molest the hell out of the FCC.
Literally giving out news in the format of “here’s the thing, here’s what it means for you.” Now the news is all about blasting “information” without caring about the consequences - or worse, only broadcasting one sided info with an intent on affecting the consequences.
Thanks for the assumption.
You didn’t refute anything in my comment and just took a pass to write some stuff. Nostalgia? I never mentioned it.
Edit the shared broadcast does nothing to discount my comment.
I’m not describing how news is today, but what it’s ideal state should be.
Ideal: Here are the facts, impartiality.
Yeah. News has to be especially bad, or especially good, or especially unusual. I think there is a bit of a bad bias though. when I watch traffic and weather, while im thrilled if they are good, im mainly looking for bad. do I need to change my travel plans or wear heavier clothing or different shoes or have an umbrella. Similarly I would want to know immediately if there was a bank robbery or escaped criminal or mass shooting happening anywhere I might be going.
I absolutely agree with the “news” person until half way.
Reporting what has happened isn’t toxic it’s news. That’s their entire job.
Getting stuck on repeat about the same thing, might be toxic though. Since it’s no longer news.
Another thing is the “experts on both sides”. This is a poison of the mind, to believe that right and left wing politics are both equally valid and correct. Most of the time the science agrees with the left.
me: picking imaginary fights with made up enemies is toxic
some jerk: no it doesn’t!
