6 ms·

I felt even better when I quit news media as well. Now I read the print newspapers, just to see whether there is any change in legislation that I need to know

by sn41 4y ago

I felt even better when I quit news media as well. Now I read the print newspapers, just to see whether there is any change in legislation that I need to know about. My blood does boil even there, with the subtle editorializing tell us what to feel about what is essentially a neutral news item, but it's much easier to control than the online media.

fullstackchris 4y ago
I used to listen to NPR news now EVERY morning, mulled over nearly every post on /r/worldnews and then I slowly realized it's mostly fluff and media outlets trying to squeeze discussion out of things that a really just a one and done event. Nowadays, there is just so much drama and noise surrounding every single thing that happens in the world. It's of no value actually. So I've quit news consumption altogether as well, it's super liberating. This is like the Tim Ferriss approach: if some news is really that huge, you'll hear about it from a friend or coworker eventually. And if it's news like globalthermonuclear war, you won't benefit from hearing about it 5 minutes earlier anyway ;)
DrBazza 4y ago
> My blood does boil even there, with the subtle editorializing tell us what to feel about what is essentially a neutral news item, but it's much easier to control than the online media. The article is on the BBC news site. As someone that's a bit older than the average on here, I can remember when the BBC news site was just that - news. Now, it's changed subtly. Some articles now have 'by John Smith', the author, underneath it, whereas some do not. Way back in the mists of time, almost all articles seemed to be anonymous. The other change, and your point, is that select articles now have commentary or opinion by one of the BBC journalists, which it never previously had. Still, if the BBC are paying big salaries for 'big' name journos they have to promote them.
- afandian 4y ago
  I've not paid attention to that detail of the news website. We but we've always had named correspondents on BBC Radio news. And newsreaders for that matter.
  - DrBazza 4y ago
    Frankly, the change in the way the stories are written is probably more to do with the evolution of the internet as another form of media. I can remember when the BBC website launched, and it was clear that they, and everyone else, had no idea how things would evolve. At least the BBC hasn't gone down the route of "Boris ate cake. You won't believe what happened next!" style headlines. I still wish they'd lay off the op-ed pieces.
- thelittleone 4y ago
  My folks are around 70 now. I just flew back home to visit them. Every day in the evening the news goes on, and they sit together and watch (muting only the advertisements). Years ago I would watch to, but this time I was observing my folks and wondering about the origins of this pattern / habit. During WW2, the AM radio informed the population, no doubt saving lives. Families would gather around the radio for BBC news, compelled by uncertainty and fear. The war finished, the years went by, radio became a TV. When I suggest maybe skipping the news, it's met with shock and something along the lines of "not watch the news? we need to be informed".
- flakeoil 4y ago
  I mostly agree with you. > Still, if the BBC are paying big salaries for 'big' name journos they have to promote them. But maybe they could let the content speak for itself.
- breput 4y ago
  I listened to the BBC World Service (and VOA and Radio Moscow and many others) via shortwave "back in the day" and the reporter was always introduced by name, and even if they hadn't, they were identifiable by the sound of their voice.
- x55j33 4y ago
  Not sure if you're from the UK but if you're not then you should be aware that the BBC has become a lot more politicised as the government appointed a major donor as the director in 2021 [1] and have previously threatened the company, for example by changing the license fee to starve them of funding[2]. In addition, the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg is not without controversy and accusations of pro-government bias[3]. Unfortunately both sides of the political spectrum now mistrust the BBC's impartiality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharp_(BBC_chairman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharp_(BBC_chairman) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kuenssberg#BBC_political_editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kuenssberg#BBC_political...
  - DrBazza 4y ago
    Yes, I'm in the UK. BBC used to be my "news of last resort", in the sense that it was the least worst of all the UK reporting. But with things that you mentioned and recently Martine Croxall [1], I've pretty much switched to Reuters and Bloomberg quite some time ago without realising. You only have to look at the BBC news site front page, versus their 'most read' section to see what the BBC editorial staff think we should be reading (relentless politics, doom and gloom) versus what people are actually reading (today, right now, Peter Kay's comeback! :) ). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63500745 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63500745
thrown_22 4y ago
>My blood does boil even there, with the subtle editorializing tell us what to feel about what is essentially a neutral news item, but it's much easier to control than the online media. Dear god yes. Give me the facts without trying to insert your politics there. Even the AP does this constantly. I'd pay gold for a news organization which prints something to the effect of: >The current situation in XYZ in unknown. We have heard from partisan sources that A happened, we have heard from other partisan sources that B happened and the state department has told us C would happen. Please check back in three weeks for an update.
- rrwo 4y ago
  It's gotten to the point where simply reporting information that is unpleasant for one group of people is treated as biased and political. Report about the cost of housing driving people to homelessness? That's the "left-wing media". Report about people grifting off of BLM protects? It's the "right wing corporate media". And those stories can very well be in the same newspaper or news show.
thelittleone 4y ago
+1 on news. My life was filled with unnecessary external inputs / noise (such as news) that often dictated the mood and output of my day. Example, waking, unconsciously unlocking my phone and scrolling news or socials. It was like gambling my day away but with no upside. These days I start with things I can control (make bed, tidy up) to build positive momentum to plow through the inevitable challenges of the day. News was one of my worst... along with sugar :) Now I beat both (kinda).
instagraham 4y ago
It is very likely that there is a lot more cause to make one's blood boil today, especially with the growing radicalisation of those who enjoy being contrarian for the sake of it. One can't blame the news for being a mirror. Especially where I live (India), it is almost a joke to suggest (as so many here do) that the media should focus on "positive" stories - when doing so would be Goebbelsian.

by sn41 4y ago

fullstackchris 4y ago

I used to listen to NPR news now EVERY morning, mulled over nearly every post on /r/worldnews and then I slowly realized it's mostly fluff and media outlets trying to squeeze discussion out of things that a really just a one and done event. Nowadays, there is just so much drama and noise surrounding every single thing that happens in the world. It's of no value actually. So I've quit news consumption altogether as well, it's super liberating. This is like the Tim Ferriss approach: if some news is really that huge, you'll hear about it from a friend or coworker eventually. And if it's news like globalthermonuclear war, you won't benefit from hearing about it 5 minutes earlier anyway ;)

DrBazza 4y ago

> My blood does boil even there, with the subtle editorializing tell us what to feel about what is essentially a neutral news item, but it's much easier to control than the online media. The article is on the BBC news site. As someone that's a bit older than the average on here, I can remember when the BBC news site was just that - news. Now, it's changed subtly. Some articles now have 'by John Smith', the author, underneath it, whereas some do not. Way back in the mists of time, almost all articles seemed to be anonymous. The other change, and your point, is that select articles now have commentary or opinion by one of the BBC journalists, which it never previously had. Still, if the BBC are paying big salaries for 'big' name journos they have to promote them.

afandian 4y ago
I've not paid attention to that detail of the news website. We but we've always had named correspondents on BBC Radio news. And newsreaders for that matter.
- DrBazza 4y ago
  Frankly, the change in the way the stories are written is probably more to do with the evolution of the internet as another form of media. I can remember when the BBC website launched, and it was clear that they, and everyone else, had no idea how things would evolve. At least the BBC hasn't gone down the route of "Boris ate cake. You won't believe what happened next!" style headlines. I still wish they'd lay off the op-ed pieces.
thelittleone 4y ago
My folks are around 70 now. I just flew back home to visit them. Every day in the evening the news goes on, and they sit together and watch (muting only the advertisements). Years ago I would watch to, but this time I was observing my folks and wondering about the origins of this pattern / habit. During WW2, the AM radio informed the population, no doubt saving lives. Families would gather around the radio for BBC news, compelled by uncertainty and fear. The war finished, the years went by, radio became a TV. When I suggest maybe skipping the news, it's met with shock and something along the lines of "not watch the news? we need to be informed".
flakeoil 4y ago
I mostly agree with you. > Still, if the BBC are paying big salaries for 'big' name journos they have to promote them. But maybe they could let the content speak for itself.
breput 4y ago
I listened to the BBC World Service (and VOA and Radio Moscow and many others) via shortwave "back in the day" and the reporter was always introduced by name, and even if they hadn't, they were identifiable by the sound of their voice.
x55j33 4y ago
Not sure if you're from the UK but if you're not then you should be aware that the BBC has become a lot more politicised as the government appointed a major donor as the director in 2021 [1] and have previously threatened the company, for example by changing the license fee to starve them of funding[2]. In addition, the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg is not without controversy and accusations of pro-government bias[3]. Unfortunately both sides of the political spectrum now mistrust the BBC's impartiality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharp_(BBC_chairman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharp_(BBC_chairman) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kuenssberg#BBC_political_editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kuenssberg#BBC_political...
- DrBazza 4y ago
  Yes, I'm in the UK. BBC used to be my "news of last resort", in the sense that it was the least worst of all the UK reporting. But with things that you mentioned and recently Martine Croxall [1], I've pretty much switched to Reuters and Bloomberg quite some time ago without realising. You only have to look at the BBC news site front page, versus their 'most read' section to see what the BBC editorial staff think we should be reading (relentless politics, doom and gloom) versus what people are actually reading (today, right now, Peter Kay's comeback! :) ). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63500745 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63500745

thrown_22 4y ago

>My blood does boil even there, with the subtle editorializing tell us what to feel about what is essentially a neutral news item, but it's much easier to control than the online media. Dear god yes. Give me the facts without trying to insert your politics there. Even the AP does this constantly. I'd pay gold for a news organization which prints something to the effect of: >The current situation in XYZ in unknown. We have heard from partisan sources that A happened, we have heard from other partisan sources that B happened and the state department has told us C would happen. Please check back in three weeks for an update.

rrwo 4y ago
It's gotten to the point where simply reporting information that is unpleasant for one group of people is treated as biased and political. Report about the cost of housing driving people to homelessness? That's the "left-wing media". Report about people grifting off of BLM protects? It's the "right wing corporate media". And those stories can very well be in the same newspaper or news show.

thelittleone 4y ago

+1 on news. My life was filled with unnecessary external inputs / noise (such as news) that often dictated the mood and output of my day. Example, waking, unconsciously unlocking my phone and scrolling news or socials. It was like gambling my day away but with no upside. These days I start with things I can control (make bed, tidy up) to build positive momentum to plow through the inevitable challenges of the day. News was one of my worst... along with sugar :) Now I beat both (kinda).

instagraham 4y ago

It is very likely that there is a lot more cause to make one's blood boil today, especially with the growing radicalisation of those who enjoy being contrarian for the sake of it. One can't blame the news for being a mirror. Especially where I live (India), it is almost a joke to suggest (as so many here do) that the media should focus on "positive" stories - when doing so would be Goebbelsian.