No News Is Good News

I am thinking this is the best way to live. Don't watch any news, just live and be in your surroundings. I haven't watched tv in about four years now and a month now with no news. Definitely keeps me more focused on my goals.

Thoughts?

 

Ignorance of the world is not something to be either encouraged or proud of.

 

Of all the thousands of news stories you've read in the past year,
name one that- because you consumed it-allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business.

 

When I to moved the gulf, I turned down a posting in Cairo because of political instability.

 

You moved the gulf? Are you going to put it back?

 

I laugh at the people who associate watching the news with being informed.

 

A posting? What, you are in the military? Pretty amazing you moved an entire gulf btw, lol.

 

We can only aspire to your vast life experience.

 

Experience is all about your state of mind. Any dumbass can travel the world or work an array of jobs and still be clueless, which I guess you are if indeed you associate not watching corporate news with ignorance.

 

Choosing to ignore the news is ignorance. Literally.

Traditional journalism has a well-defined code of ethics, journalists (and therefore primary sources) embedded all over the world, and extremely low barriers to entry resulting in multiple competing viewpoints. Nothing else comes close to that.

Ignoring everything that doesn't fit your "alternative narrative" is ignorant. As in you are literally ignorant as fuck.

 

What the fuck is traditional journalism, and does such a thing exist today?

 

Done by trained journalists who are members of professional associations and published through "traditional" newspapers (rather than self-published online through social media).

 

Oh, you mean trained liars. People trained in newspeak, as Orwell referred to it.

 

They are expected to follow a code of ethics, and traditional publishing uses fact checkers. The whole process is transparent.

Is traditional journalism perfect? Of course not. But if you consistently read newspapers from multiple competing perspectives, you get a pretty good idea of what is going on.

But please explain your vastly superior alternative.

 

What code of ethics? There is no ethics when it comes to the corporate-owned alphabet networks. They serve only to mislead and propagandize.

I mean, this isn't the fucking 20s, before the media was completely co-opted and taken over by government and corporate interests.

The only perspectives the media presents are those which come from a false left/right paradigm, and both sides churn out bullshit to confuse the hell out of people while getting them to take sides.

 

There is a well developed system to maintain journalistic integrity, including press associations (re: Society of Professional Journalists, Canadian Association of Journalists, etc) that maintain memberships and codes of ethics, publishing companies maintain press ombudsmen to ensure honesty, press councils in western Europe, slander/libel laws, etc.

It isn't a perfect system, but it is far superior to any source of information we have (given time constraints).

Is traditional publishing controlled by the government? I'd argue not in the West. The vast majority of whistle blowers release their information through this means (from Deep Throat to Snowden). If newspaper companies had to follow the government line, they wouldn't publish these stories - which is the pattern you see in countries where the media is genuinely controlled by the media (China for example). You can see the very process happening in Hong Kong as we speak.

Is traditional publishing controlled by "corporations"? Corporations aren't some monolithic entity - it is a company structure with limited liability. But traditional media doesn't always follow their lead. Once again, the stories that exposed major corporations for their flaws (Enron and their accounting practices, Apple and their Foxconn suppliers) have all been published by traditional publishing houses.

Does it pass the "eye test"? Most events I have witnessed fall roughly in line with the way they were reported (given biases). You might figure this out if you ever left your basement.

 

I don't watch the news as a ritual like most people. Mostly for my own entertainment to spot the propaganda. Sometimes it's obvious and other times it's subtle.

Keeping focused on your goals is another good thing; there's plenty of distractions that get in the way like entertainment and sports. I've reduced the amount of TV I watch and video games I play and it's helped out quite a bit.

 

I listen to npr on the regular but mostly because they do a lot of positive stories.. I like their human interest stories.
I agree with the OP in that no one needs to hear 30 people died in an explosion in Baghdad today, tomorrow, and yesterday.

there is no reason for anyone to know most of the depressing stories on the news. If one really wanted to understand culture or political policy one should read a book on the subject by a reputable author.

I would actually argue that news junkies are often some of the more ignorant people because their sense of perception is so skewed by the negativity they take in on a daily basis.

 

Democracy depends on an informed electorate. The question would be "how can I best stay informed?"

 

Unless the news is new shoes.