6 ms·

I never got on board with the news because of this. I can listen or read and article about it and never seem to grasp exactly what is being said. But! Whenever

by oehpr 6y ago

I never got on board with the news because of this. I can listen or read and article about it and never seem to grasp exactly what is being said. But! Whenever I see news agencies or publications write or talk about any subject on which I have a deep familiarity, all I see is either an idiotic mischaracterization of the facts, or blatantly manipulative spin. Every time I don't understand a subject, I don't learn anything, and when I do understand it, I'm appalled at what is being shown. To this day I scratch my head at how people can think watching prime time news or reading the newspaper is how you stay informed about the goings on of a society. And I'm not saying I have a better understanding of such, I don't. I just can't see how that information could be coming from the sources I'm told provide it.

pas 6y ago
Since everything is now observed/broadcasted/published in real-time, every development of any current event is BREAKING NEWS. But even if not breaking, certainly important. This boils down the current style of giving a long-form article (story!) to every new piece of information. And then to top it off sometimes a random smattering of these tidbits and factoids get crumpled together into a ball of front page articles, with "amazing production value". Big 4K pictures, a 3-4 paragraph intro, a personal touch, namedroppings. What's missing is "obviously" what social science is supposedly about. Models, hypotheses, data, and picking the best one. Sure, articles provide this in a very crude form, via stories, appeals to some authority (when they cite/interview a random Professor of X at University of Y, who of course happens to be the Random Dude Z Chair), sometimes there are even a few graphs too! However, it seems the main function of established media these days is to try to follow what's going on in the world and establish a record, ask questions, try to look/peer into the nasty machine of contemporary politics and power, scratch the surface, kick the tires, and so on. They are not really here to interpret and explain it.

by oehpr 6y ago

pas 6y ago

Since everything is now observed/broadcasted/published in real-time, every development of any current event is BREAKING NEWS. But even if not breaking, certainly important. This boils down the current style of giving a long-form article (story!) to every new piece of information. And then to top it off sometimes a random smattering of these tidbits and factoids get crumpled together into a ball of front page articles, with "amazing production value". Big 4K pictures, a 3-4 paragraph intro, a personal touch, namedroppings. What's missing is "obviously" what social science is supposedly about. Models, hypotheses, data, and picking the best one. Sure, articles provide this in a very crude form, via stories, appeals to some authority (when they cite/interview a random Professor of X at University of Y, who of course happens to be the Random Dude Z Chair), sometimes there are even a few graphs too! However, it seems the main function of established media these days is to try to follow what's going on in the world and establish a record, ask questions, try to look/peer into the nasty machine of contemporary politics and power, scratch the surface, kick the tires, and so on. They are not really here to interpret and explain it.