5 ms·
I'm pretty sure none of those particular "news" would have been of any relevance to me, for example. I'm also pretty sure that when people talk about "news" the
by davidivadavid 8y ago
I'm pretty sure none of those particular "news" would have been of any relevance to me, for example. I'm also pretty sure that when people talk about "news" they mean TV news bulletins or large press outlets — which wouldn't cover those things either.
However, a newsletter or a status update on social media seem like they would cover that type of information.
But they're not "news" in the common usage made of that word by any stretch of the imagination.
- reaperducer 8y agoMoving the goalposts doesn't help your argument. Local news is very much "news." Like politics, all news is local. It may not be local to you, but you're not the only person in the world. The reason it's called "journalism" is because newspapers started as daily journals of what ships were coming into port, and what cargo was expected. Boring, mundane, everyday, very local news.
- davidivadavid 8y agoYou can keep calling it "news" until you're blue in the face. The point was that people more and more disassociate these things with "news", and when they say they're not reading the news, that's not what they mean — regardless of the origin of the word "journalism". The fact they don't refer to that as news might however have to do with the fact that information comes to them through apps that are not news apps. (Weather app, social media apps, etc.). I'm also puzzled as to the statement that "all news is local." No, when you watch the news, most news is definitely remote and irrelevant to the life of the people who watch it. That's why they stop watching/reading it, usually.