5 ms·

The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. Paying attention to current events and bearing witness to so

by knz 10y ago

The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. Paying attention to current events and bearing witness to some of the darkest aspects of human history is important at a societal level and if you don't think it is important to you personally then consider yourself lucky to live a life where the real world doesn't creep in often. Understanding topics such as why refugees are fleeing conflict, the societal changes due to automation etc, and the consequences of climate change are critical to a healthy and functional nation. Personally I can't stand the breathless hysteria/sensationalism of most mainstream American media organizations (particularly television) and prefer organizations that favour accuracy and historical context over clickbait.

equalarrow 10y ago
> Paying attention to current events and bearing witness to some of the darkest aspects of human history is important at a societal level and if you don't think it is important to you personally then consider yourself lucky to live a life where the real world doesn't creep in often. But, how do you even know what really happens? Mainstream news is ridiculous in its intent because it literally is "if it thinks it stinks, if it bleeds it leads". There is nothing good to get from mainstream news. Nothing. Sliced and diced to the most emotional snippets you could conceive of. I feel bad for people that just get trampled on from all over the world, but that's as far as I let it go. During the 2nd Bush election I went all out, I was into trying to 'make a difference'. I protested, traveled, got involved with local and national groups, was surveilled, and literally was putting my safety on the line to try to make the world a better place. In the end, he still got re-elected and some of the most corrupt people in U.S. history continued their rampage. It was bad enough the first time, but the second time completely just blew away my foundation of what I thought was just in the world. I never trusted the news or politicians after that. They are not here for 'us'. They ALL have an agenda whether you like it or not. There is such a disconnect between 'content' and real people - it's pathetic and there's no where that that comes out more than from tv. After all of this, I've decided to just act locally and contribute to causes that want to fight the good fight but, in my mind, are in for a lot of suffering and struggle (eff, aclu, center for human rights, amnesty, etc). It takes a toll on one when you are struggling and it's nonstop uphill. My wife and friends are always coming up to me with the latest tragedy that has surfaced on facebook. family members, the latest shooting or crash, or death or whatever. I choose to remove myself from all of this because it does _no good_ to me and for me. Unless I actually go to those places and involve myself with those struggles (see point 5 in op), then I'm just fooling myself by being 'concerned'. Tv and news is a waste of precious time and there are much better ways to affect and change the world than being sedentary and 'informed' yet doing nothing.
- knz 10y ago
  > But, how do you even know what really happens? Mainstream news is ridiculous in its intent because it literally is "if it thinks it stinks, if it bleeds it leads". There is nothing good to get from mainstream news. Nothing. Sliced and diced to the most emotional snippets you could conceive of. The only ways to mitigate this is to use a healthy amount of skepticism, to educate yourself on the historical context of ongoing current events, and to be aware of the slant that even the most impartial news source may have. I don't disagree in regards to acting rather than just being informed and that acting locally is probably the best way we can make a difference. Likewise with burning out on media!
  - ywecur 10y ago
    Or subscribe to slow journalism http://www.slow-journalism.com/ http://www.slow-journalism.com/
  - XJOKOLAT 10y ago
    > But, how do you even know what really happens? Mainstream news is ridiculous in its intent because it literally is "if it thinks it stinks, if it bleeds it leads". There is nothing good to get from mainstream news. Nothing. Sliced and diced to the most emotional snippets you could conceive of. Our education system was supposed to deliver critical thinkers. Either the system failed you (and possibly a generation), or you have forgotten its lessons.
  - Forlien 10y ago
    Interestingly, I took this quote to mean both that reported news is biased, but the decision of what events to report upon is biased too. Being a skeptic solves the first issue. For the second, filtering what you read doesn't help if you aren't reading stories that are valuable to you but aren't tragic / scary / interesting enough for the rest of the news source's readers. Since news sources are biased, how can you know what you aren't seeing?
lucaspiller 10y ago
I'd argue that mainstream news sources promote a false understanding of these topics. If you truly want to understand then you are going to need to do your own research. For example, The Sun is one of the most popular newspapers in the U.K.: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+sun+sensationalist+headlines&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+sun+sensationalist+hea...
dingaling 10y ago
> The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. I can't fix the World or the dark aspects of the human soul, but hopefully made my local area a better place since I dropped-out of the news-cycle a few years ago. I use my former news 'time-budget' to become invoved in Council business, to follow the activities of my local politicians and to just go and do stuff that benefits people around the town. I feel better informed as a result and I'm no longer surprised and enraged by 'unexpected' changes in my local environment. I helped to fix a pothole in a local road last week. Utterly irrelevant on a global scale, but then so is a plane crash in Colombia.
sextus_prop 10y ago
> The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. Or not, maybe it would be better. Imagine country where people are mindful about their immediate surrounding and don't buy into ideological bullshit sold by mass media. Want to send young men to some war? Well tough luck, if there is no conflict at the doorstep then this move is probably to benefit someone else, not you. Refugees overflowing streets? Common sense tells you to take a look at what kind of people they are and if they are good and acknowledge their situation and want to better it, then help them. But if they act like arrogant invaders then common sense would be to tell them to bugger off. Yet media adhering to its ideology would tell you that you are wrong to use common sense. That somehow WYSIWYG is not right here and that some abstract oppression these people are fleeting from is more important. >and the consequences of climate change are critical to a healthy and functional nation Lets see how in future china deals with climate change as opposed to societies with 'well informed' citizens.
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
> Paying attention to current events and bearing witness to some of the darkest aspects of human history is important at a societal level You are confusing reading/watching the news with being informed. Trusting superficial and biased news is disinformation. Being a witness, a citizen journalist, an activist, and reading books thoroughly is another thing.
thenomad 10y ago
Counterpoint: it's been shown again and again that continued exposure to outlets deliberately cherry-picking the worst aspects of humanity (commercial news outlets) has a pretty negative effect on worldviews. And that in turn leads to negative outcomes. More authoritarianism, more withdrawal into closed communities, more willingness to vote for leaders who will solve the "terrible state" of the country / world by any means necessary, more enthusiasm for punishment over empathy, more othering of whichever ethic/social group that's currently being blamed for Everything Being Bad. If you're trying to gain an accurate understanding of the world, starting with sources with an extremely strong incentive to bias the hell out of your worldview is probably not the best way to do it. And if you're just trying to understand and mentally experience the worst humanity has to offer, then history books have plenty of really horrible shit in them, generally far worse than the 21st century so far (thankfully).
lucb1e 10y ago
> The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. I think on the way to that happening, the world would become a much better place before it gets worse. Only a very tiny percentage of us needs to try to understand events around the world and repeat to peers what they think is worth repeating, then those peers repeat to their peers what they thought was important to hear, and so on. It's already kind of happening since journalists aren't a big percentage of the population, but instead of filtering out the important stuff, it's what we call the "media circus" and big business.

by knz 10y ago

equalarrow 10y ago

> Paying attention to current events and bearing witness to some of the darkest aspects of human history is important at a societal level and if you don't think it is important to you personally then consider yourself lucky to live a life where the real world doesn't creep in often. But, how do you even know what really happens? Mainstream news is ridiculous in its intent because it literally is "if it thinks it stinks, if it bleeds it leads". There is nothing good to get from mainstream news. Nothing. Sliced and diced to the most emotional snippets you could conceive of. I feel bad for people that just get trampled on from all over the world, but that's as far as I let it go. During the 2nd Bush election I went all out, I was into trying to 'make a difference'. I protested, traveled, got involved with local and national groups, was surveilled, and literally was putting my safety on the line to try to make the world a better place. In the end, he still got re-elected and some of the most corrupt people in U.S. history continued their rampage. It was bad enough the first time, but the second time completely just blew away my foundation of what I thought was just in the world. I never trusted the news or politicians after that. They are not here for 'us'. They ALL have an agenda whether you like it or not. There is such a disconnect between 'content' and real people - it's pathetic and there's no where that that comes out more than from tv. After all of this, I've decided to just act locally and contribute to causes that want to fight the good fight but, in my mind, are in for a lot of suffering and struggle (eff, aclu, center for human rights, amnesty, etc). It takes a toll on one when you are struggling and it's nonstop uphill. My wife and friends are always coming up to me with the latest tragedy that has surfaced on facebook. family members, the latest shooting or crash, or death or whatever. I choose to remove myself from all of this because it does _no good_ to me and for me. Unless I actually go to those places and involve myself with those struggles (see point 5 in op), then I'm just fooling myself by being 'concerned'. Tv and news is a waste of precious time and there are much better ways to affect and change the world than being sedentary and 'informed' yet doing nothing.

knz 10y ago
> But, how do you even know what really happens? Mainstream news is ridiculous in its intent because it literally is "if it thinks it stinks, if it bleeds it leads". There is nothing good to get from mainstream news. Nothing. Sliced and diced to the most emotional snippets you could conceive of. The only ways to mitigate this is to use a healthy amount of skepticism, to educate yourself on the historical context of ongoing current events, and to be aware of the slant that even the most impartial news source may have. I don't disagree in regards to acting rather than just being informed and that acting locally is probably the best way we can make a difference. Likewise with burning out on media!
- ywecur 10y ago
  Or subscribe to slow journalism http://www.slow-journalism.com/ http://www.slow-journalism.com/
- XJOKOLAT 10y ago
  > But, how do you even know what really happens? Mainstream news is ridiculous in its intent because it literally is "if it thinks it stinks, if it bleeds it leads". There is nothing good to get from mainstream news. Nothing. Sliced and diced to the most emotional snippets you could conceive of. Our education system was supposed to deliver critical thinkers. Either the system failed you (and possibly a generation), or you have forgotten its lessons.
- Forlien 10y ago
  Interestingly, I took this quote to mean both that reported news is biased, but the decision of what events to report upon is biased too. Being a skeptic solves the first issue. For the second, filtering what you read doesn't help if you aren't reading stories that are valuable to you but aren't tragic / scary / interesting enough for the rest of the news source's readers. Since news sources are biased, how can you know what you aren't seeing?

lucaspiller 10y ago

I'd argue that mainstream news sources promote a false understanding of these topics. If you truly want to understand then you are going to need to do your own research. For example, The Sun is one of the most popular newspapers in the U.K.: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+sun+sensationalist+headlines&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+sun+sensationalist+hea...

dingaling 10y ago

> The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. I can't fix the World or the dark aspects of the human soul, but hopefully made my local area a better place since I dropped-out of the news-cycle a few years ago. I use my former news 'time-budget' to become invoved in Council business, to follow the activities of my local politicians and to just go and do stuff that benefits people around the town. I feel better informed as a result and I'm no longer surprised and enraged by 'unexpected' changes in my local environment. I helped to fix a pothole in a local road last week. Utterly irrelevant on a global scale, but then so is a plane crash in Colombia.

sextus_prop 10y ago

> The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. Or not, maybe it would be better. Imagine country where people are mindful about their immediate surrounding and don't buy into ideological bullshit sold by mass media. Want to send young men to some war? Well tough luck, if there is no conflict at the doorstep then this move is probably to benefit someone else, not you. Refugees overflowing streets? Common sense tells you to take a look at what kind of people they are and if they are good and acknowledge their situation and want to better it, then help them. But if they act like arrogant invaders then common sense would be to tell them to bugger off. Yet media adhering to its ideology would tell you that you are wrong to use common sense. That somehow WYSIWYG is not right here and that some abstract oppression these people are fleeting from is more important. >and the consequences of climate change are critical to a healthy and functional nation Lets see how in future china deals with climate change as opposed to societies with 'well informed' citizens.

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

> Paying attention to current events and bearing witness to some of the darkest aspects of human history is important at a societal level You are confusing reading/watching the news with being informed. Trusting superficial and biased news is disinformation. Being a witness, a citizen journalist, an activist, and reading books thoroughly is another thing.

thenomad 10y ago

Counterpoint: it's been shown again and again that continued exposure to outlets deliberately cherry-picking the worst aspects of humanity (commercial news outlets) has a pretty negative effect on worldviews. And that in turn leads to negative outcomes. More authoritarianism, more withdrawal into closed communities, more willingness to vote for leaders who will solve the "terrible state" of the country / world by any means necessary, more enthusiasm for punishment over empathy, more othering of whichever ethic/social group that's currently being blamed for Everything Being Bad. If you're trying to gain an accurate understanding of the world, starting with sources with an extremely strong incentive to bias the hell out of your worldview is probably not the best way to do it. And if you're just trying to understand and mentally experience the worst humanity has to offer, then history books have plenty of really horrible shit in them, generally far worse than the 21st century so far (thankfully).

lucb1e 10y ago

> The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. I think on the way to that happening, the world would become a much better place before it gets worse. Only a very tiny percentage of us needs to try to understand events around the world and repeat to peers what they think is worth repeating, then those peers repeat to their peers what they thought was important to hear, and so on. It's already kind of happening since journalists aren't a big percentage of the population, but instead of filtering out the important stuff, it's what we call the "media circus" and big business.