A Thought On News - Making Every Problem Your Problem (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

 

[BeTheMatch]

No question. I love how NBC Nightly News now incorporates some type of "Breaking News" weather report every single night. And always, they love to scream how "40 million Americans are under threat."

For rain.

Used to be reserved for hurricanes and tornadoes and floods. Not anymore.

 

[AAABatteries]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Honestly, this is one of my arguments for wanting the PSF. I refuse to watch the news and rage bait. Coming here to get my news was great. I still say if you would have brought the ban hammer to the trolls early on it would have worked. But as I said in the thread - I agree with not bringing it back since that heavy handed moderation is tough. Still think you need to make some exceptions for election night, SC thread, etc.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

if it bleeds, it leads. this is not new.

i rarely watch the news. if it's important enough, i'll hear about it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Honestly, this is one of my arguments for wanting the PSF. I refuse to watch the news and rage bait. Coming here to get my news was great. I still say if you would have brought the ban hammer to the trolls early on it would have worked. But as I said in the thread - I agree with not bringing it back since that heavy handed moderation is tough. Still think you need to make some exceptions for election night, SC thread, etc.

It's not worth all the drama that comes with the forum and for sure not coming back.

Not every site is this way. 1440 has done a good job trying to carve out a spot for people looking for just information.

I'd suggest this as a source for folks that want to be informed. https://join1440.com/ It's light years better for staying informed from an objective viewpoint than the PSF ever was in my opinion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Morning Brew does a good job too. It's not as unbiased as 1440 in my opinion but still an excellent way to stay informed. https://www.morningbrew.com/daily

 

[AAABatteries]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Honestly, this is one of my arguments for wanting the PSF. I refuse to watch the news and rage bait. Coming here to get my news was great. I still say if you would have brought the ban hammer to the trolls early on it would have worked. But as I said in the thread - I agree with not bringing it back since that heavy handed moderation is tough. Still think you need to make some exceptions for election night, SC thread, etc.

It's not worth all the drama that comes with the forum.

Not every site is this way. 1440 has done a good job trying to carve out a spot for people looking for just information.

I'd suggest this as a source for folks that want to be informed. https://join1440.com/ It's light years better for staying informed from an objective viewpoint than the PSF ever was in my opinion.

Understood and I’m answering the question from the other thread (admittedly in the wrong thread) and if all I wanted was a news aggregators that’s great. I’ll take that conversation back over there - just pointing out that the PSF and this topic are very much intertwined for me personally.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I think a sizeable portion of the general populations wants to make every problem their own.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

No question. I love how NBC Nightly News now incorporates some type of "Breaking News" weather report every single night. And always, they love to scream how "40 million Americans are under threat."

For rain.

Used to be reserved for hurricanes and tornadoes and floods. Not anymore.

This

It’s out of control

 

[Snoopy]

1980s - Dirty Laundry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwgJgTL5JmE

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think a sizeable portion of the general populations wants to make every problem their own.

No doubt. Many of the media's customers/viewers/readers are more than willing participants in personalizing problems that don't affect them.

 

[rockaction]

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

Yeah, I consider myself a savvy news consumer, and I think you’re 100% wrong but you’ve (and I almost never do this to you personally) shut all discussion about it down by not allowing us to say why.

You know I don’t want to say that, but you have to see how making a claim and removing all evidentiary rebuttals is really tremendously short-sighted.

If I didn’t know you better I’d say it was a bad faith ploy, but I know you better. I just say that so that you know how impossible the point you just made is to prove or disprove without specifics relating to a potentially urgent situation. I’m deferring to experts in the field calling the current situation an extremely urgent sui generis one. I can’t find a person (please find more than five for me) in the world of political theory or practice who agrees with your postulate that the news shouldn’t be framed as personal right now.

Your mileage may vary.

And no, I’m not back door lobbying for the PSF. Your site, no ********.

 

[El Floppo]

Lets not forget the role algorithms play now too... Massively swaying what you see online to be stuff it thinks you want to see because you clicked on a subject once.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

Yeah, I consider myself a savvy news consumer, and I think you’re 100% wrong but you’ve (and I almost never do this to you personally) shut all discussion about it down by not allowing us to say why.

You know I don’t want to say that, but you have to see how making a claim and removing all evidentiary rebuttals is really tremendously short-sighted.

If I didn’t know you better I’d say it was a bad faith ploy, but I know you better. I just say that so that you know how impossible the point you just made is to prove or disprove without specifics relating to a potentially urgent situation. I’m deferring to experts in the field calling the current situation an extremely urgent sui generis one. I can’t find a person (please find more than five for me) in the world of political theory or practice who agrees with your postulate that the news shouldn’t be framed as personal right now.

Your mileage may vary.

And no, I’m not back door lobbying for the PSF. Your site, no ********.

Sorry but I have no idea what your post has to do with mine that you quoted.

That shutting down the PSF might even be considered possibly bad faith is discouraging. But I understand that's just how it goes sometimes.

I don't think anyone is saying the news isn't personal. That's very different from saying "the goal of the media is to make every problem your problem." Which is what Ravikant said and I said I agree with.

 

[rockaction]

That shutting down the PSF might even be considered possibly bad faith is discouraging. But I understand that's just how it goes sometimes.

I wasn’t saying shutting down the PSF is bad faith. That’s awful on my end. I did not mean to imply that.

Maybe I was unclear. You introducing an argument about the news and then saying don’t support your position with politics is a terrible way to address the issue.

I thought I made it painstakingly clear you weren’t acting in bad faith but rather that you didn’t realize how you had unintentionally shut down any dissent from your position.

As to the second point, perhaps I’m rebutting the statement’s implied conclusion, which is since the media’s job is to personalize the news, one should ignore the news as presented when the news is presented as potentially personally affecting you. That’s the implication one naturally takes, though it is not explicitly stated.

So I hope that clears up what I was saying. I want to be extra clear so that there are no hard feelings.

The blowback you got about the PSF is not ever going to come from me. That’s why I said no “bullcrap” about it from me.

Peace, Joe. You know how I feel, I hope.

Forget that I ever said the words "bad faith" about anything. It was an illustrative point.

 

[rockaction]

I’m also typing on my phone so I can totally see how this might not be too clearly stated on my end.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe I was unclear. You introducing an argument about the news and then saying don’t support your position with politics is a terrible way to address the issue.

We just disagree. I think my point about the news I introduced about how it's the media's goal to make all problems your problems is not a political thing. And not a terrible way to address the issue. But I do and say plenty of things that other people think are terrible. That's life. I'll drop it there but I don't agree at all. No worries. All good.

 

[rockaction]

That's life. I'll drop it there but I don't agree at all.

Terrible doesn't mean with any ill intent, by the way. We agree to disagree. I certainly won't have any hard feelings. I just looked up Naval. These are little apothegms and aphorisms, the truth of which are assured by the inherent vagueness of the sayings.

I'm not nearly as impressed as you, but differing minds will take away differing things.

Nietzsche was a wonderful aphorist. This guy's a ven cap. I'm sure he's very bright, but he'd do better to put his thoughts into an essay so that it can be rebutted and critiqued. That's if he has anything concrete to say. Otherwise, apothegm away.

 

[Terminalxylem]

if it's important enough, i'll hear about it.

This can’t be overstated. Unless you live under a rock, just being a member of society exposes you to the “big” news.

And it may be selfish, but I’m content to deal with just my own problems, and those of my loved ones. With the rest of my time, I’d rather focus on edifying, or fun stuff.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I feel like there is definitely some truth to this. I don’t think that it’s just about the way the news spins it—I think the news goes out of its way to find the most disturbing, the most troubling, the most shocking stories—and expose as many people to them regardless of location. The fundamental motivation of most news sources is to generate $$$$ through viewership/engagement which leads to more money from advertisers. Unfortunately, most people in this country tend to notice and are more vocal about negative things than they are positive things. I remember that in a business class that I took in college, the professor said something like “if you go to a business and experience bad customer service, you are likely to tell 25x more people about your negative experience than if you go somewhere and experience good customer service”.

I also remember watching a Joe Rogan podcast (I cant remember who the guest was)—but they were talking about how people are not really designed to deal with a globe full of problems. Joe was talking about a premise called Dunbars number—which effectively is the theory that humans are basically designed to know and deal with the issues of a maximum of 150 people. With us being exposed to people’s troubles around the world (most of which don’t apply to us at all)—we are unnecessarily overwhelming our psyche and attention with negative worrisome stuff that doesn’t really apply to us.

There is something about a lot of humans (myself included to a certain extent) that seems to be weirdly attracted and interested to know about the pain and struggles of others. I try to be introspective to why certain things interest me—but I am still not sure why I have an interest in struggles of others that have nothing to do with me. The band Tool actually sings a song about this topic called Vicarious. Not only is the subject of the song thought provoking, but it’s just a killer song in general. Here is a reaction video of a therapist that hears the song for the first time and analyzes it. Of course the interpretation of any song can vary listener to listener—but I find that her analysis does seem to connect with what is being discussed here.

Therapist reacts to Vicarious by Tool

Therapist analyzes the lyrics to Vicarious by Tool to discuss the ways in which people often find enjoyment from the pain and suffering of others. The song d...

www.youtube.com

 

[ChiefD]

Gave up reading or watching the news about 4 years ago. Life changing.

Best decision I ever made.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I feel like there is definitely some truth to this. I don’t think that it’s just about the way the news spins it—I think the news goes out of its way to find the most disturbing, the most troubling, the most shocking stories—and expose as many people to them regardless of location. The fundamental motivation of most news sources is to generate $$$$ through viewership/engagement which leads to more money from advertisers. Unfortunately, most people in this country tend to notice and are more vocal about negative things than they are positive things. I remember that in a business class that I took in college, the professor said something like “if you go to a business and experience bad customer service, you are likely to tell 25x more people about your negative experience than if you go somewhere and experience good customer service”.

I also remember watching a Joe Rogan podcast (I cant remember who the guest was)—but they were talking about how people are not really designed to deal with a globe full of problems. Joe was talking about a premise called Dunbars number—which effectively is the theory that humans are basically designed to know and deal with the issues of a maximum of 150 people. With us being exposed to people’s troubles around the world (most of which don’t apply to us at all)—we are unnecessarily overwhelming our psyche and attention with negative worrisome stuff that doesn’t really apply to us.

There is something about a lot of humans (myself included to a certain extent) that seems to be weirdly attracted and interested to know about the pain and struggles of others. I try to be introspective to why certain things interest me—but I am still not sure why I have an interest in struggles of others that have nothing to do with me. The band Tool actually sings a song about this topic called Vicarious. Not only is the subject of the song thought provoking, but it’s just a killer song in general. Here is a reaction video of a therapist that hears the song for the first time and analyzes it. Of course the interpretation of any song can vary listener to listener—but I find that her analysis does seem to connect with what is being discussed here.

Therapist reacts to Vicarious by Tool

Therapist analyzes the lyrics to Vicarious by Tool to discuss the ways in which people often find enjoyment from the pain and suffering of others. The song d...

www.youtube.com

Agreed. Our brains were wired to recognize danger or trouble. It's how we survived. But 100 years ago, for many people, the signs of danger or trouble were pretty infrequent for most of us. We simply didn't hear about all the rest of the danger happening in the world non stop.

Today, media and social media companies provide us with signs of danger and trouble 24/7. And in many cases, our brains are able to handle the inputs.

 

[bigbottom]

Maybe I was unclear. You introducing an argument about the news and then saying don’t support your position with politics is a terrible way to address the issue.

We just disagree. I think my point about the news I introduced about how it's the media's goal to make all problems your problems is not a political thing. And not a terrible way to address the issue. But I do and say plenty of things that other people think are terrible. That's life. I'll drop it there but I don't agree at all. No worries. All good.

A topic involving the media will have political aspects for many people. So while your premise is not political, a robust discussion where people would debate that premise and offer arguments that either support or refute the premise would almost inevitably involve a discussion of political angles or topics for many people. So I sorta see what rock is saying.

On the topic at hand, I have many examples that I think support your premise. But nearly all of them touch on politics. So with your request that we not introduce politics into this topic, I will simply say that I wholeheartedly agree with your premise and leave it at that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe I was unclear. You introducing an argument about the news and then saying don’t support your position with politics is a terrible way to address the issue.

We just disagree. I think my point about the news I introduced about how it's the media's goal to make all problems your problems is not a political thing. And not a terrible way to address the issue. But I do and say plenty of things that other people think are terrible. That's life. I'll drop it there but I don't agree at all. No worries. All good.

A topic involving the media will have political aspects for many people. So while your premise is not political, a robust discussion where people would debate that premise and offer arguments that either support or refute the premise would almost inevitably involve a discussion of political angles or topics for many people. So I sorta see what rock is saying.

On the topic at hand, I have many examples that I think support your premise. But nearly all of them touch on politics. So with your request that we not introduce politics into this topic, I will simply say that I wholeheartedly agree with your premise and leave it at that.

Thanks. No worries.

I thought and had hoped we could keep it to a sociological / business angle in being more civil to one another and understanding media has the goal of pulling us in by making all problems our problems.

I had been reminded of the Naval quote listening to a podcast where the guys were talking about getting more done by not allowing yourself to be pulled into news stories. The podcaster was talking about resisting the pull from a totally non political angle and I thought it made sense and might be valuable here.

Surely won't be the last time I'm mistaken here. Thanks for the kind message and we can drop it there.

 

[AAABatteries]

I’ll put this here as it’s relevant than Rick’s thread. If people would use the same energy they have for other things to do good the world would be a better place - and I’m just as guilty as anyone. Instead of watching news or social media, get out and talk to your neighbors - help people, don’t just rage at the TV.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

News in this country is political. Trying to separate them anymore is a fool's errand. This place is pretty interesting though. Never seen so many who complain about the media they consume but continue to consume it. Why not go elsewhere? The OP is right that the US news tries to frame everything as our problem. Knowing that, why pay any attention at all?

 

[uwillbsoon]

One of my pet peeves is the use of "media" to describe everything from an opinion show on Fox News to a local newspaper.

That's lazy.

My rule of thumb: most things on TV purporting to be news aren't. I don't waste my time on them, unless I want to be entertained.

Good journalism can mostly be read and is based on sources. In many cases - like a new bill that was introduced - reading the source material helps. The journalist can summarize - using years of experience with such things - but the source material is key. Sometimes that's difficult because the source is a person with insider knowledge, and if that's an unnamed source, be wary.

I could go on at length, but to summarize: You're the problem if the only news you're reading/viewing turns everything into your problem. Stop reading/viewing those sources. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be produced.

In my state at least six local newspapers serving small to mid-sized communities announced they're shutting down, with some after century and a half runs. That's terrible for everyone because people have increasingly turned to these gigantic national organizations that do run the stories bemoaned herein.

 

[titusbramble]

Gave up reading or watching the news about 4 years ago. Life changing.

Best decision I ever made.

Indeed, if something is important I'll read it on X before the "news" gets it and adds their own agenda to whatever it is

 

[Dennis Castro]

Here’s my take. The ‘media’ is exactly what it sounds like—a peddler of mediated reality. Any semblance of purity is lost once any type of filter is applied. As long as I remember to keep that in mind, it helps me tune out most of the bull****.

 

[GenX fan]

Why should I break my head about the outside world....
.... let the outside world break its own head!

-- Fiddler on the Roof

 

[dgreen]

I wonder if the news also plays a role in so many people thinking they should have an opinion on every topic. In the past, I had all sorts of opinions that I had no business having. Not necessarily because they were the wrong opinion, although I'm sure many were, but because I simply wasn't qualified to have an opinion. I feel like it's pretty common for people to hold opinions on something that their level of exposure to the topic is one article or, worse, one tweet.

The older I've become the more I realize I don't know and the fewer opinions I have. Still, way too often I spout off a thought that really is quite uninformed. In theory, I think questions are better than answers. In practice, it is really hard to rewire my brain to avoid just giving an answer/opinion. I'm not sure the news encourages questions over answers.

 

[Gally]

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think this succinctly describes why everyone thinks that things are so much worse now than they use to be. The complete overload of crime, bad things, etc from all over being delivered to you on your phone, TV etc makes it seem like it is rampant. When you truly only got your local news there would be some bad things as they happen everywhere but you didn't get inundated with the worst things from everywhere instilling fear that the sky is falling.

I have never watched the news for this reason. It just doesn't provide anything of value to me. As others have said, if it is really important I will hear about it somehow. Otherwise why waste time with stories that made to make me worry about things that really aren't my problem.

 

[rockaction]

When you truly only got your local news there would be some bad things as they happen everywhere but you didn't get inundated with the worst things from everywhere instilling fear that the sky is falling.

I think your point is a correct one, but I quoted this to say that my local news is L.A. and it’s depressing to watch.

 

[Gally]

When you truly only got your local news there would be some bad things as they happen everywhere but you didn't get inundated with the worst things from everywhere instilling fear that the sky is falling.

I think your point is a correct one, but I quoted this to say that my local news is L.A. and it’s depressing to watch.

I am aware of the LA news. I grew up in Newbury Park/Thousand Oaks so that was our "local" news which is probably why I stopped/never really watch the news.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

At the national level they also spend a crazy amount of time on low frequency events. Missing kids, airline problems, animal attacks, etc. Stuff that people are already afraid of, but is extremely unlikely to ever impact them personally.

 

[Goldminer1]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

 

[beer 30]

I had the news epiphany about 10 years ago and started looking for alternate sources. As many as I would find, they would dry up or become biased one way or another and drop out of the rotation. Then it came to me and it's revolutionized the way I intake news. I took the Men in Black approach. I start my day scrolling through the Daily Mail. If there is something that catches my eye, I read the article. If I'm still interested I head to the internet and try to find 1 or 2 other more reputable sources to corroborate the story. If there isn't anything other than the Daily Mail, I dismiss it as clickbait and move on. If Reuters/AP/MSNBC/CBS are all reporting it then I know it's legit.

I've also recently signed up for 1440 & Morning Brew thanks to here. Both do a good job aggregating the news. Brew is a little more fun, 1440 is a little more no nonsense but both cover essentially the same stories.

 

[mr. furley]

One of my pet peeves is the use of "media" to describe everything from an opinion show on Fox News to a local newspaper.

That's lazy.

My rule of thumb: most things on TV purporting to be news aren't. I don't waste my time on them, unless I want to be entertained.

Good journalism can mostly be read and is based on sources. In many cases - like a new bill that was introduced - reading the source material helps. The journalist can summarize - using years of experience with such things - but the source material is key. Sometimes that's difficult because the source is a person with insider knowledge, and if that's an unnamed source, be wary.

I could go on at length, but to summarize: You're the problem if the only news you're reading/viewing turns everything into your problem. Stop reading/viewing those sources. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be produced.

In my state at least six local newspapers serving small to mid-sized communities announced they're shutting down, with some after century and a half runs. That's terrible for everyone because people have increasingly turned to these gigantic national organizations that do run the stories bemoaned herein.

it's not just the traditional news stations people are watching that make them feel like they are informed, it's the sites that present catchy looking headlines, cliff's notes versions of much larger stories, etc. that many people read and think "that 20 second read fully informed on (notable news story of the day)".

those people then share their opinions/thoughts with others, some of whom are even less informed.

if news were a basketball game, the starting 5 has fouled out. 4 of the 7 guys on your bench fouled out. 2 of the remaining have 1 foul left and the last guy only suited up because the team needed someone for emergencies. he's not on the team. they just found him walking campus wearing a Mariners jacket and figured he knew how to play. and now that guy is teaching the rules to people who have never seen a basketball before in their life.

 

[wlwiles]

I quit watching "the news" years ago once someone told me "if it's telling you how to feel instead of telling you the story/what happened, it's not news". I'm often in the dark about what's going on with Trump, or what's happening in Ukraine, or why so and so world leader did whatever they did, but I'm also much more positive about life than the rest of my family who do nothing but watch the evening news and then complain about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. No news is good news, I say.

 

[JohnnyU]

I believe everyone would be happier if they didn’t watch the news or visit news websites. Yes, you would be less informed, but happier.

 

[Goldminer1]

I quit watching "the news" years ago once someone told me "if it's telling you how to feel instead of telling you the story/what happened, it's not news".

That is a great quote. I'm going to start using that.

 

[hagmania]

One of my pet peeves is the use of "media" to describe everything from an opinion show on Fox News to a local newspaper.

That's lazy.

My rule of thumb: most things on TV purporting to be news aren't. I don't waste my time on them, unless I want to be entertained.

Good journalism can mostly be read and is based on sources. In many cases - like a new bill that was introduced - reading the source material helps. The journalist can summarize - using years of experience with such things - but the source material is key. Sometimes that's difficult because the source is a person with insider knowledge, and if that's an unnamed source, be wary.

I could go on at length, but to summarize: You're the problem if the only news you're reading/viewing turns everything into your problem. Stop reading/viewing those sources. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be produced.

In my state at least six local newspapers serving small to mid-sized communities announced they're shutting down, with some after century and a half runs. That's terrible for everyone because people have increasingly turned to these gigantic national organizations that do run the stories bemoaned herein.

I have not lived in Hancock County since I left high school for college, but I have subscribed to the Hancock Clarion since I left my parents' house. I believe it is so important to have a local news source. If I were in just a slightly better financial situation I would help to keep it operational.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

 

[Goldminer1]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

 

[JohnnyU]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

Walter Cronkite was the best news man there ever was and there will never be another one like him. That's the way it is, Monday April 8th, 2024.

 

[TripItUp]

The media backlash is and has been taking place for several years. If Americans want "now-your problem" news in our capitalistic society, there will be an entrepreneur ready to capture that....to some extent that's what Elon Musk is trying to do with X(not exactly)

 

[rockaction]

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

Nice job. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote an essay in 1890 called “The Right To Privacy,” which Wikipedia will tell you is one of the most important legal essays in American history. It was designed to stop exactly the situation you describe.

Journalists targeted wealthy families and would go to lengths to report on their children. Warren and Brandeis argued against the invasiveness of this practice and in their arguments, rewrote privacy laws into practices we know of today.

Those laws have been a bit gutted with NYT v. Sullivan’s libel standard and the “newsworthiness” standard of reporting from the Ford assassination attempt, both of which have made many things fair game that weren’t in the mid-20th century.

Sullivan was ‘54, I think, and we’ve seen an ever-expanding coverage of events and people since. Ford was in the seventies. The new “yellow journalism” in cable television broadcast journalism also has to do with FCC regulation and its differing standards from what had been.

But nice post, man.

 

[JohnnyU]

All news is anymore is an editorial. I don't want to hear their opinions, i just want to hear the news. Now each news organization is guided by an agenda, which is sad. Now it's all about clicks rather than just the facts ma'am.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

 

[rockaction]

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press

Yeah, but I’m not sure that undercuts his point. It’s more of an addendum to it. He’s arguing about “yellow journalism” from that time period and not about what came before, which he is silent about.

So while I agree with you I don’t think he advanced any argument that one can refute. He just omitted the pre-“yellow” period.

I’m not correcting you either—just adding to the convo.