Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

How and Why do you consume the News?

Page: (1)2 3

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

08:06 / 02.11.05

OK, so based on this post over in the Temple, I thought I'd start a thread about all this wonderful information that is so readily available and brightly packaged for our consumption as 'news'.

As mentioned in that thread, I have completely stopped reading nnewspapers and watching television news, because, after a pperiod of careful and deliberate examination of my methods, mmotivations, and the overall effect and results it was producing in my life, I realised that itt was of absolutely no benefit to me at all. I am self employed, usually extremely busy trying to support my family, and not, in any fair definition of the term, an 'activist', so my principle use of 'news' was a conversation piece to complain about the state of the wider world while doing absolutely sweet fuck all to change anything beyond my immediate community and really obvious in-your-face shit like the DEC Tsunami appeal, which was easy enough to encounter without wallowing in ITV / BBC / Sky etc...

Funny enough, if I ask other people about their reasons for watching / reading the news, they get shirty amd look at me like I'm crazy. 'It's important to be informed!' they say. But is it? To what end? What does it benefit you? Or, more to the point, unless you are prepared to really make a difference, initiate change, help, what does it benefit the wider world you are being informed about?

We seem, to me, to have a whole planet full of well informed, concerned, soap box mounting, complaining, news consuming people who, when all is said and done, just go about their own business much as they always have done...

Maybe I'm completely wrong, though. It's just in my experience, in spite of protestations to the contrary, many of the poeple I know who religiously watch / read the news actually are just entertaining themselves in a unique fashion with the added thrill of a 'moral' or 'ethical' gravity to the entertainment, which is 'real'...

I hope that doesn't sound holier than thou, or disparaging, which it really isn't intended to...But over to you...why do you consume the news?

08:48 / 02.11.05

Funny enough, if I ask other people about their reasons for watching / reading the news, they get shirty amd look at me like I'm crazy. 'It's important to be informed!' they say. But is it? To what end? What does it benefit you? Or, more to the point, unless you are prepared to really make a difference, initiate change, help, what does it benefit the wider world you are being informed about?

It's a ridiculous jump to assume the only aim of knowledge is immediate affirmative action.

You may as well say "what's the point in reading about astronomy if you're not going to build a rocket?", "what's the point of reading about Egyptology if you're not going to bury yourself in a sarcophagus?" etc.

But leaving that aside, one wholly practical reason for keeping up with the news; Preparation. Like it or not, 'The News' takes place in the same world we live in and everything featured in it has the potential to explode into a personal, societal or global crisis and knock us off our feet. And if or when that happens, it'll be something of an advantage if we have at least some idea what the fuck is going on.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

09:08 / 02.11.05

OK, I don't really think I was making that assumption, and maybe you're not saying I am...

So, is that it? You say 'One reason' as if there aren't any others...Mybe I'm wrong though...You keep up with the news to prepare for the revolution / whatever?

The race riots in Birmingham which left someone dead - it benefits you to have this in your living room, so that if a similar riot breaks out where you live, you'll...what?

Sorry, I'm not being facetious, it's just not clear what you mean by 'preparation'. Could you give me some concrete examples? Are we talking nuclear fallout shelter in the back garden, here?

Also, I am specifically, if it isn't clear, referring to the television and distributed newspaper formats, here, and looking for a fairly broad discussion about what is actually being sold and consumed, and why, and whether the reaons may actually, on examination, differ from the given or self identified reasons...

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

09:11 / 02.11.05

it'll be something of an advantage if we have at least some idea what the fuck is going on.

Example? Let's use, as a completely random one, a school teacher in Baghdad. She keeps up with the news. She knows what's going on. She's shit scared. Then the bombs start falling. In what way is she at 'something of an advantage' than the the illiterate tramp who doesn't really know why or when?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

09:13 / 02.11.05

You may as well say "what's the point in reading about astronomy if you're not going to build a rocket?"

OK...what is the point? I think the 'rocket' example may be a bit extreme, but I see what you are getting at...but you don't actually offer an answer...perhaps it should be more obvious to me, but it isn't. Can you expound a bit?

Sjaak at the Shoe Shop

09:47 / 02.11.05

Of course one can always decide not to have opinions, and to limit interaction in daily life. but..

There are enough situations where knowledge (information) will affect your behaviour/actions. A simple example is elections. (of course you can decide not to vote).

Another example is if the UK would decide to change traffic rules and people would start driving on the other side of the road. You might want to be aware of this thing before you cross any road..

I do agree that closely following day-to-day news (in particular TV) is not always relevant. However, if you are aware of backgrounds (for example through newspapers, internet, or Barbelith) you can often see patterns. Should an occasion arise where one would actually prefer to have an opinion, such understanding may possibly be useful.

09:52 / 02.11.05

Dude - the news is the ultimate soap-opera where the storylines actually effect your life.

Without decent news prgrammes how are you supposed to get any of the jokes in Private Eye or Have I Got News for You?

Tryphena Absent

10:08 / 02.11.05

the news is the ultimate soap-opera

As proven by Blunkett's second resignation at 11am today.

10:24 / 02.11.05

they only brought him back to boost flagging ratings...

Tryphena Absent

10:46 / 02.11.05

He's the Dennis Watts of politics!

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

10:49 / 02.11.05

So far so inane.

I can't take very seriously the suggestion that unless you watch the television news or read daily newspapers, you are at risk of being run over if the traffic laws are changed.

The question is : how does watching the news / reading the newspaper really benefit you?

It's a fair enough question, surely? I ask it because I have found that the answer for me is : it doesn't. If your answer is different, maybe you could share it, but preferably without (what look to me like, correct me if I'm out of order) specious hypotheticals.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

10:52 / 02.11.05

I mean, look : Jub popped into the Temple forum for an explanation and got 70 or so fairly detailed responses.

Same basic question : Newspaper / TV News watchers - Explain Yourselves!

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

10:58 / 02.11.05

Sorry for the many posts, l'esprit d'escalier.

Reasons given so far, which are actually tickling me:

1. - To be prepared. What for is not clear. But anyway, when it comes, whatever it is, you'd be waiting.

2. - To have an opinion. (By far the most convincing argument at the moment). So you can dazzle in the office / down the pub / round the dinner table. 'Hey, that dude is informed! Man, ze must read a lot of newspapers. Talk about knowledge!

3. - So you don't get run over...More seriously, to stay abreast of changes to the law / legislation...

Are these the main reasons, then? Any more compelling ones?

11:07 / 02.11.05

You've missed out the only half glib answer that it's the ultimate reality-based soap-opera.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

11:11 / 02.11.05

Je suis desolé...

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

11:13 / 02.11.05

And, actually, I think I flagged it in my opening post:

It's just in my experience, in spite of protestations to the contrary, many of the poeple I know who religiously watch / read the news actually are just entertaining themselves in a unique fashion with the added thrill of a 'moral' or 'ethical' gravity to the entertainment, which is 'real'...

11:24 / 02.11.05

unique fashion with the added thrill of a 'moral' or 'ethical' gravity to the entertainment, which is 'real'...

I don't think I ever claimed the news was unique as a soap-opera or reality TV show, nor did i claim it was more 'real', merely that it the storylines actually effect your life. Now I agree that many people feel a strong link to the events of big brother, and really feel the events that unfold in the house and in the tabloids afterwards effect their lives, but I'd argue that changes in the law have more of an impact on lives that are lived.

It is certainly the family of reality TV that enjoy the most.

11:39 / 02.11.05

But, yeah, outside of that, I'm not sure I'm really disagreeing that watching/reading the news is akin to consuming any other entertainment formats with a degree of audience participation.

11:52 / 02.11.05

I consider the acquisition of information a pleasure, but I realise that is a personal opinion.
It is also useful to be able to participate in the political process and keep an eye on what the government is up to: without being aware of the news I wouldn't have been able to register my opposition to the ID bill or the Iraq war. If nothing else I would argue to be able to cast your vote, you must at least be vaguely aware of current affairs.
You could also argue that without the press, the government would have far more power, or at least wriggle room, to carry out their schemes without opposition.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

12:12 / 02.11.05

Heheh, 'register my opposition', I like that. That's a classic.

The beauty of freedom, eh? Democracy! It's just great, isn't it?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:21 / 02.11.05

The question is : how does watching the news / reading the newspaper really benefit you?

Well, let's run with the entertainment thing for a moment. You said that you gave up watching TV news, yes? But you didn't give up watching TV generally. So, what do you watch on TV, and how does it benefit you?

Psi-L is working in hell

12:27 / 02.11.05

I agree with several of the points made above. I read quite a lot of news coverage for a number of reasons. Firstly, I enjoy the acquisition of information for its own sake, and use the time spent consuming newsmedia often as 'downtime', to relax and enjoy.

Related to this I suppose, I also have a huge interest in politics, partly because I quite enjoy the cut and thrust of debate and negotiation that goes on be it in Westminster or across the pond in Washington, so in that sense my consumption is akin to the entertainment argument used above.

But secondly, my own work overlaps and is effected by political decisions, and my own research is sometimes concerned with media representation of certain issues, so keeping up-to-date with political movements, and consuming lots of media is a necessity in some senses.

The media, as an idealised view, was conceived as a 'fourth estate' which should hold up the workings of government and parliament to the public, so we as the voters can then hold them to account. So as Phox says consuming the media therefore becomes a way of knowing what political decisions we agree or disagree with, so we can choose (or not) to take some form of action. Now obviously this is an idealised model, and the corporate takeover of a lot of media means that it does not serve this function very well. As a result I have found that this has meant I actually consume more newsmedia, from a wider variety of sources, to get more sides to every story before making up my mind.

Interestingly I find that I prefer consuming news through print, internet or radio predominantly....I do find the often very graphic depictions of news items on tv to be distracting and unecessary for the purposes of getting information...but that is a purely personal reaction and one that I think was formed after living without a television for quite a while, so maybe I just became less de-sensitised to it.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

12:27 / 02.11.05

Actually, I did. Got rid of the TV.

The internet might be a better example. How does being here, on this site, benefit me?

I'll have a thinkle and get back to you.

12:29 / 02.11.05

What does it benefit you?

Having just watched the breaking story about David Blunkett's resignation, I can confirm that the TV news occasionally gives me an enormous sense of personal well-being.

Sjaak at the Shoe Shop

12:49 / 02.11.05

No issues with the TV can be rubbish entertainment discussion, but..

To come back to your example of the woman in Baghdad: No, it would not have benefited here much had she been able to watch herself being bombed on TV.
On the other hand, if more people in the west had taken a bit more effort to inform themselves on the situation they (and you) could have saved that woman's life. And this is something that I can still get very upset about.

Agree that not much is lost without TV (actually, life can be a lot better, seems to do miracles for your relationship) just as long as one uses other (and often more thorough) channels of information.

Finally, you ARE expressing an opinion here (which apparently is based on your own experience). Using the internet (this board) to get information on other peoples view on the subject. It may benefit you in some way.. In that case QED

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

12:58 / 02.11.05

Some interesting and considered answers, here...without derailing the thread too much, I would like to take up the point above that if 'more people' had been 'better informed' then we could have saved lives in Iraq....Hmmmmmm....the biggest direct action protest in history was a fairly broad attempt to do just that, and it failed spectacularly to make a shred of difference....are you suggesting that if it had been even bigger it might have have done the job? You may be right, but I doubt that if more people had been watching the news or reading the papers this would have happened...I think most people did / were...

Before engaging with the 'me on the internet' angle, which I need to consider, I am interested by your assertion above that ignoring TV and physical print is OK, 'so long as you get news from other sources'...why the caveat? Is being informed so unquestionably, fundamentally 'good'? Important? Beneficial?

Do people here believe, for example, that the electorate largely base their vote on supplied information gleaned from the major media regarding the policies of the differing Parties?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

13:03 / 02.11.05

If I could just nip back to Haus question, with regard to when I did watch TV (and even then, it's never really been much...) - it didn't 'benefit' me except in the sense that it was relaxing, and entertaining. So, it killed an hour or two without involving much effort or strain. That's it. I enjoyed it, it entertained me.

Psi-L is working in hell

13:09 / 02.11.05

Do people here believe, for example, that the electorate largely base their vote on supplied information gleaned from the major media regarding the policies of the differing Parties?

To answer this last question, though this strays slightly off topic. No-one really knows how people form their political (or any other views) based on the consumption of media. Most research in the last century was funded by people who were trying to prove that large public relations or advertising campaigns actually 'injected' the message into people, so oviously showed that the media had a large effect, but often they were simply showing a correlation between opinion and media coverage without showing which way the casuation necessarily happened. More recent reflexive research has failed to show that there is any strong and direct causal link between people consuming a message through the media and then having that opinion.

Common sense suggests that the media does obviously have some sort of effect, but a lot of media scholars believe that it merely serves to define the arena of debate, rather than actually telling people what to think. So in relation to voting in elections, it seems pretty clear that the immigration issue became a central topic of debate in the last election on the basis that all of the main media were talking about it and covering it day in day out. But how people actually formed their opinions on it is going to a lot more complex than simply consuming what is in the media and then using solely that as the basis. They will discuss it with other people, draw on their own experiences (e.g things which are less mediated by news corporations).

Sjaak at the Shoe Shop

13:19 / 02.11.05

a bit off-thread, but...

Before engaging with the 'me on the internet' angle, which I need to consider, I am interested by your assertion above that ignoring TV and physical print is OK, 'so long as you get news from other sources'...why the caveat? Is being informed so unquestionably, fundamentally 'good'? Important? Beneficial?

I see it as an obligation.
For example, in the sense that your country/government (= you by proxy) can take actions that may negatively affect other people's well being, or be so strongly contrary to your beliefs.

A case example is Guantanamo Bay. Saying one didn't know about that should never be an excuse.
My government has sent marines to Afghanistan, and when they make an arrest that person is handed over to the US and may end up there. When I explain this to countrymen they generally react shocked and surprised, and often state things like: if I had known I would have protested. Well, the information was available, they just didn't see.

On your last question, I cannot answer what people base their vote on, but I do believe that few people base their vote on active research into party policies.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

13:28 / 02.11.05

You see it as an obligation because, if I am reading this correctly, you see protest and action as an obligation also?

I mean, being informed about the Guantanamo situation just so as one can wring hands over Brie and Port at the next Jenkins' family Feast Together is in many ways more despicable than ignorance, surely?

13:45 / 02.11.05

Useful for pub quizzes?

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:41 / 02.11.05

I've been wondering why this thread has been feeling odd to me, and I think I've got it. Money, you keep asking "why do you follow the news", and then replying to the question of why you don't follow the news. So, If you have no interest in taking any action based on a knowledge of current events, and if a knowledge of current events causes you nothing other than anxiety, then it sounds as if it might be a very good idea _not_ to keep track of them. However, the fact that you seem to know who David Blunkett is and what the Guantanamo situationis suggests either that this fast is a fairly recent event, or that it is not really effective - you're still consuming the news, you just aren't doing it in a systematic fashion.

14:50 / 02.11.05

So, is that it? You say 'One reason' as if there aren't any others...Mybe I'm wrong though...You keep up with the news to prepare for the revolution / whatever?

The race riots in Birmingham which left someone dead - it benefits you to have this in your living room, so that if a similar riot breaks out where you live, you'll...what?

Sorry, I'm not being facetious, it's just not clear what you mean by 'preparation'. Could you give me some concrete examples?

…

Example? Let's use, as a completely random one, a school teacher in Baghdad. She keeps up with the news. She knows what's going on. She's shit scared. Then the bombs start falling. In what way is she at 'something of an advantage' than the the illiterate tramp who doesn't really know why or when?

...

Crikey.

OK, point I'm making is;

Your contention that your individual, private world is everything and that the world portrayed in the news is seperate and totally irrelevant to you doesn't hold up.

You're part of a human society, and events and changes within that society - from economic ups and downs, government policy etc. through to hypothetical mad shit like wars, plagues, whatever - affect you on some level whether you like it or not.

Since it's rather impractical to regularly talk to everybody in the world and ask them what's cookin' and whether they've got anything planned that might make an impact on your life, one can instead spend a few minutes keeping an eye on the edited highlights of stuff going on that we may or may not have a personal interest in, as kindly prepared by various media outlets and known as the news.

Because regardless of what you do or do not do upon recieving news, it's nice to be able to place events to some extent within a framework of cause and effect and to understand how they've come about, rather than living your life in confusion as weird and inexplicable things turn up out of nowhere to help or hinder you.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

14:55 / 02.11.05

Quite so on pretty much all counts, I think, Haus.

It is recent...last month or so...and, like I said, concerns newspapers and TV broadcasts, not placing my hands over my ears and wearing a blind fold and chanting 'LALALALALA!' any time somebody wishes to discuss current affairs, or a thread on here interests me enough to search it out on the web.

I was just interested, mainly, in the news-as-entertainment side of the packaged mass media deal. In fact, I think 'entertainment' isn't quite right either...it's more of a sales pitch with added spectacle, really (to my mind at least). And, as I said in the Temple thread that lead me over here, I'm not actually sure what it is I'm being sold, just that I don't really like it, and it certainly wasn't helping me in the ways I had, up until examining it, assumed it must be. I just assumed that being well informed was essential, I don't anymore. It interests me to see why others who do feel it is...

I'm not for a minute suggesting that 'head in the sand' is the best alternative, however. I think community is extremely important, and of course, delineating where that ends is not easy...but starting, at least, to try and establish what is useful 'news' and what isn't, what I can help with and what I can't, and can personally vouch for the fact that life has been significantly more fun, funny and free of darkness since I eschewed the Bloob Toob and the Rags.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

15:05 / 02.11.05

Your contention that your individual, private world is everything and that the world portrayed in the news is seperate and totally irrelevant to you doesn't hold up.

Where have I made this contention? That seems a bit of a dramatic extrapolation from what I've said, unless I've not communicated my point very well (perfectly possible!)

I'm involved in and with my immediate community. This is important. The local press - important. What's down the local streets - important. The global media telling me about bombs in Delhi - of course it's important, but it exists in my living room only to perpetutate the endless sales of the global media. A hundred years ago, I possibly would never have learned of it, 200 years ago I almost certainly wouldn't, at least not for many weeks or months. It doesn't help me, in my view, to know about it. So what? People are killing each other. Again.

I don't mean that to sound cold, but, out of actual, general interest, what are you doing about it? Much the same as me, I guess (??)

You're part of a human society, and events and changes within that society - from economic ups and downs, government policy etc. through to hypothetical mad shit like wars, plagues, whatever - affect you on some level whether you like it or not.

Of course.

Since it's rather impractical to regularly talk to everybody in the world and ask them what's cookin' and whether they've got anything planned that might make an impact on your life, one can instead spend a few minutes keeping an eye on the edited highlights of stuff going on that we may or may not have a personal interest in, as kindly prepared by various media outlets and known as the news.

So you can see the future coming? Or what?

Because regardless of what you do or do not do upon recieving news, it's nice to be able to place events to some extent within a framework of cause and effect and to understand how they've come about, rather than living your life in confusion as weird and inexplicable things turn up out of nowhere to help or hinder you.

Nice?

Anyway, each to their own, horses for courses. I'm not trying to dissuade anybody from doing whatever they want to do. Interesting to hear why people like what they like though.

News to me, haha.

Page: (1)2 3