Nauseating ‘News’
I’m sick of the “news.” For one, there isn’t a whole lot of newness about it. In many ways it is old, tired, and deeply disenchanting. It isn’t that the “news” is mostly bad “news,” it’s that the “news” is constant, loud, and sensationalistic. In the midst of it all, I feel informed at best. But the information it occasionally feeds me is rarely fodder for knowledge and much less for wisdom. I see suffering objectified and hear commentary that miseducates people (like me) to believe all kinds of oversimplifications and platitudes. I even suspect that the reason we often lack substance in the blogosphere is because we—myself, first and foremost—cannot help but try to be something like the “news.” Sure, there are better and worse “news” outlets and we shouldn’t opt to live under a rock, but, in the end, the effect is the same for me today: nausea. How about you?
I’ve felt the quality of the news has just gone downhill over the years. Yes it was sensational, distracting, blah blah. But there was “data.” You learned things. You had background and context. Now we only have advocacy.
My parents had a stack of Time magazines from the impeachment hearings of Nixon. Sure the magazine was biased, but you got a lot of information to draw your own conclusions.
Overall the media as we know it is dying because it simply isn’t worth using anymore. “Nauesa” is the perfect word.
What does it signify that reportage concerning events in “the news” is immediately susceptible to such a variety of slants, spins, analyses, and interpretations, both at the source (the media) and by its consumers (you and me)?
Is this because “the news” contains no Truth upon which you and I can agree? or is it because you and I make use of the information conveyed to us through the media as raw materials, in order to construct the subjective pseudo-truths which serve to scratch our personal (and/or group) itches?
As a for instance, is President Obama taking heat over his response to the BP oil spill from many people because he is pro-choice, rather than because of his response to the BP oil spill itself?
As another, is organized labor in this country being systematically demonized and dismantled (despite its long history of struggle and sacrifice and its huge historical effect on raising EVERYONE’S stand of living) because it is somehow “evil”; or is it primarily envy causing the rancor?
In short, do we now use news items primarily as brickbats to throw at the head of “the Other,” rather than as reports on happenings in the world that may demand our attention as problem-solvers, and as agents of goodwill toward our fellow man?
Do we use “the news” primarily “against,” rather than “for?”
Do we seek out voices whose constant refrains are “con-,” rather than “pro-?”
All that negativity! No wonder we feel lousy!
Back while I was learning about computers, there was a big thing over the difference between data and information. The informational content of news is very low. Some of this has to do with making so-called objectivity the greatest good. A lot of it has to do with the process of turning data into information requires work. Story telling is a lot easier.
Yes – profound nausea ….to the point that I no longer own a TV….I look in on the news via Google and the radio during the week, and there is always someone desiring to discuss the latest “AWFULNESS” in the world. But I am no longer bombarded by continual media via the squawk box..Less nausea is the result though my disgust with mainstream news remains solid,
Samuel Langhorne Clemens once said, “If you don’t read the papers, you are uninformed. If you read the papers, you are misinformed.” And Mark Twain didn’t even have the 24-hour cable news.
I, like Melinda, do not have a tv. I can not stomach television “news”. I think it is destructive to our society.
So this begs another interesting question. What sources do you all use to stay informed of goings-on in the world?
I haven’t watched TV news in years. The short time for coverage and reporting gives us “oversimplifications and platitudes.”
At least with radio and print, one can come across more in-depth interviews, analysis, and discussion. And with the internet, news from all around the world is accessible.
Also, the media in general does a poor job in covering science/technology and religious issues. Combined the two and we get the simplistic “science vs. religion” baloney. ugh.