5 ms·

"We cover planes that crash, not planes that take off." It always fascinates me how much my world view and the world view of those around me is based on the ex

by mninm 11y ago

"We cover planes that crash, not planes that take off." It always fascinates me how much my world view and the world view of those around me is based on the exceptional and not the mundane. The news outlets report the news assuming that the audience knows what's normal. When the news is used to become informed about the world many people come away with a skewed impression of reality. I am of the opinion that people would be better served by news reports that provide context to explain why the news is in fact news. Here's some context I find interesting: According to the CDC: Americans murdered per year: 16,121 Americans killed in car accidents per year: 33,804 Americans killed by smoking related diseases per year: 480,000 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_...

InclinedPlane 11y ago
This is very important to realize about "the news". The conceit is that consuming the news will make you informed about the state of the world in the present, that is utterly false. It's a tiny soda straw view of some of the more exceptional things happening around the world at any given time. Actually educating people about the overall state of what's going on around the world is a much more difficult task which most news media organizations more or less avoid doing.
clarkmoody 11y ago
Context is dangerous to news & politics. Numbers are even more dangerous. So the likelihood of your wish coming true is almost nothing, at least in the mainstream news outlets. You'll get tons of context in long-format blogs and podcasts, where the purpose of the content is to educate. The primary purpose of media news is to make money, hence the bent toward entertainment more than anything. Data from the FBI[1] lists information about murders, including weapon types, circumstances of the murder, relationship to the victim, etc. (2013 numbers) Going through those numbers is enlightening and will augment your CDC data, which gives great context to overall death rates. [1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense/expandedoffensemain_final https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  There are generational changes happening that are pretty profound. Younger generations don't trust the traditional media the same way older generations did, and are increasingly skeptical of the narratives being peddled by the media. There's nothing inherently wrong with being profit driven (although it's not without its problems), the bigger problem is, I think, being advertising driven. Which sets up an incentive of maximizing viewership with the least costly content, irrespective of quality.
- nfoz 11y ago
  > The primary purpose of media news is to make money My main news sources are: - CBC (Canadian crown corporation), - BBC (UK Royal Charter), - TVOntario (Ontario crown corporation), - Democracy Now! (independent non-profit), - PBS (independent non-profit), - crowd-sourced for-profit sites (HN, reddit) I live in NYC, and it's always really strange to see how prevalent for-profit media is here when there are so many better options.
  - refurb 11y ago
    You think that the CBC isn't trying to make money? What are all the advertisements for then?
  - Litost 11y ago
    I'd have to agree with the other commentator on this, the BBC is hardly unbiased, it's under huge pressure to tow the conservative party line via threats to its funding and it's coverage is often populist (a lot of stuff about the royal family) and shallow, I gave up watching it years ago. Channel 4 news is better, but still i despair at some of the trolling for soundbites that goes on, it's still about the best of the mainstream UK news channels. Recently The UK Guardian, which i used to have a very high opinion of, got into quite a bit of trouble (with the readers) about it's biased coverage against Jeremy Corbyn's labour leadership campaign. I imagine the US media is way worse, but in todays horribly co-opted world, sometimes the best you can hope for it to take a cross-sample of biased sources and somehow average it out in your head :(.
_gopz 11y ago
I disagree. I think that qualifying every single news report with statement about how it fits into larger global/national trends would be annoying at best. It's assumed that journalists report on things that are out of the ordinary. Of course this creates a generally macabre view of reality, but on the other hand do you want everything to sound like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8FB6k8jik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8FB6k8jik
notNow 11y ago
You never heard of the "Man bites dog" rule in news reporting?
interpol_p 11y ago
Can putting those numbers side-by-side in such a way mislead people on the social impact of those events? Murder is rare, but it has a very high impact on society and the surrounding people. It creates an environment of stress and fear. Car accidents do the same to a much lesser extent. Smoking related diseases are somewhat more expected, they aren't so sudden. People have time to adjust, receive medical attention, and so on. When you put the numbers together it feels like we should tackle the causes of the largest number of deaths first, then work our way to the fewest. But I don't think that is beneficial, or even a rational approach to improving our society. You could use those numbers argue for ignoring mass shootings: i.e., there are so few related to other causes of death. But it fails to take into account just how many people they effect and how much it twists society (e.g., having schools perform lockdown drills with 5-year-olds who don't understand why they have to hide in a closet [1]). I don't think we have a good measure to use to compare murders, to car accidents, to death by disease. As raw quantities they skew our perception and priorities. As pure numbers they fail to indicate to us the impact they could have on our society. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rehearsing-for-death-a-pre-k-teacher-on-the-trouble-with-lockdown-drills/2014/10/28/4ab456ea-5eb2-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rehearsing-for-death...
- Asbostos 11y ago
  The negative effects of mass shootings are largely because people don't understand the risks. So I think they'd go away if we realized they didn't matter. You're right though that smoking shouldn't be top. Everbody dies of something but we can't save all old people from old age diseases forever.
  - interpol_p 11y ago
    That's right, but the negatives are presently having a large impact on society. There is a balance to be struck, but it's something that viewing the raw numbers can obscure. Non-domestic terrorism seems like a good counter-example, where we have gone too far in an attempt to eliminate it: a huge financial and societal undertaking (e.g., the TSA, the justified mass-surveillance, the increase in public fear) for relatively few deaths.

by mninm 11y ago

InclinedPlane 11y ago

This is very important to realize about "the news". The conceit is that consuming the news will make you informed about the state of the world in the present, that is utterly false. It's a tiny soda straw view of some of the more exceptional things happening around the world at any given time. Actually educating people about the overall state of what's going on around the world is a much more difficult task which most news media organizations more or less avoid doing.

clarkmoody 11y ago

Context is dangerous to news & politics. Numbers are even more dangerous. So the likelihood of your wish coming true is almost nothing, at least in the mainstream news outlets. You'll get tons of context in long-format blogs and podcasts, where the purpose of the content is to educate. The primary purpose of media news is to make money, hence the bent toward entertainment more than anything. Data from the FBI[1] lists information about murders, including weapon types, circumstances of the murder, relationship to the victim, etc. (2013 numbers) Going through those numbers is enlightening and will augment your CDC data, which gives great context to overall death rates. [1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense/expandedoffensemain_final https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...

InclinedPlane 11y ago
There are generational changes happening that are pretty profound. Younger generations don't trust the traditional media the same way older generations did, and are increasingly skeptical of the narratives being peddled by the media. There's nothing inherently wrong with being profit driven (although it's not without its problems), the bigger problem is, I think, being advertising driven. Which sets up an incentive of maximizing viewership with the least costly content, irrespective of quality.
nfoz 11y ago
> The primary purpose of media news is to make money My main news sources are: - CBC (Canadian crown corporation), - BBC (UK Royal Charter), - TVOntario (Ontario crown corporation), - Democracy Now! (independent non-profit), - PBS (independent non-profit), - crowd-sourced for-profit sites (HN, reddit) I live in NYC, and it's always really strange to see how prevalent for-profit media is here when there are so many better options.
- refurb 11y ago
  You think that the CBC isn't trying to make money? What are all the advertisements for then?
- Litost 11y ago
  I'd have to agree with the other commentator on this, the BBC is hardly unbiased, it's under huge pressure to tow the conservative party line via threats to its funding and it's coverage is often populist (a lot of stuff about the royal family) and shallow, I gave up watching it years ago. Channel 4 news is better, but still i despair at some of the trolling for soundbites that goes on, it's still about the best of the mainstream UK news channels. Recently The UK Guardian, which i used to have a very high opinion of, got into quite a bit of trouble (with the readers) about it's biased coverage against Jeremy Corbyn's labour leadership campaign. I imagine the US media is way worse, but in todays horribly co-opted world, sometimes the best you can hope for it to take a cross-sample of biased sources and somehow average it out in your head :(.

_gopz 11y ago

I disagree. I think that qualifying every single news report with statement about how it fits into larger global/national trends would be annoying at best. It's assumed that journalists report on things that are out of the ordinary. Of course this creates a generally macabre view of reality, but on the other hand do you want everything to sound like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8FB6k8jik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-8FB6k8jik

notNow 11y ago

You never heard of the "Man bites dog" rule in news reporting?

interpol_p 11y ago

Can putting those numbers side-by-side in such a way mislead people on the social impact of those events? Murder is rare, but it has a very high impact on society and the surrounding people. It creates an environment of stress and fear. Car accidents do the same to a much lesser extent. Smoking related diseases are somewhat more expected, they aren't so sudden. People have time to adjust, receive medical attention, and so on. When you put the numbers together it feels like we should tackle the causes of the largest number of deaths first, then work our way to the fewest. But I don't think that is beneficial, or even a rational approach to improving our society. You could use those numbers argue for ignoring mass shootings: i.e., there are so few related to other causes of death. But it fails to take into account just how many people they effect and how much it twists society (e.g., having schools perform lockdown drills with 5-year-olds who don't understand why they have to hide in a closet [1]). I don't think we have a good measure to use to compare murders, to car accidents, to death by disease. As raw quantities they skew our perception and priorities. As pure numbers they fail to indicate to us the impact they could have on our society. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rehearsing-for-death-a-pre-k-teacher-on-the-trouble-with-lockdown-drills/2014/10/28/4ab456ea-5eb2-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rehearsing-for-death...

Asbostos 11y ago
The negative effects of mass shootings are largely because people don't understand the risks. So I think they'd go away if we realized they didn't matter. You're right though that smoking shouldn't be top. Everbody dies of something but we can't save all old people from old age diseases forever.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  That's right, but the negatives are presently having a large impact on society. There is a balance to be struck, but it's something that viewing the raw numbers can obscure. Non-domestic terrorism seems like a good counter-example, where we have gone too far in an attempt to eliminate it: a huge financial and societal undertaking (e.g., the TSA, the justified mass-surveillance, the increase in public fear) for relatively few deaths.