When you realize all the news outlets are owned by billionaires it kind of makes sense
They really are, I went through a lot of them to find out who owns them. I maybe stopped too early, but it was getting depressing. Reuters? Owned by a billionaire Canadian family. NYT? A huge portion controlled by the same family since the 1800’s even though it’s publicly traded. Our news needs to be sanitized and brought back to old timey journalism.
“Old timey journalism” was usually when someone with a political axe to grind started a local newspaper to try and counter the other guy who had started a newspaper. That’s when you get editorialism and a particular slant on your news.
You probably want something like large public-funded-but-relatively-neutral news agencies, who have the resources, time, and budget to allow proper investigative journalism to take it’s full course, and are large enough that they don’t have to pander to the politicians of the day or big business.
So we’re talking at this point about BBC, ABC (Australia), Al-Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, and other similar organisations.
None are without bias - it’s very difficult to actually be bias-free, most will have a home country bias, for example. But they’re better than the billionaire’s media circus.
You’re absolutely correct, we need a form of the fairness doctrine back and a break up of all media conglomerates.
The appeal of state media is that the bias is obvious.
We know who’s paying the bills at the CBC or Xinhua, but it’s gonna be a lot more subtle for the local broadcaster who mysteriously drops their investigative series right after the target buys a premium ad package.
It also means you can triangulate. If the BBC and TASS both report the same details on a story, those are probably legit.
I find callouts like this ironic considering the all feed for Lemmy is exactly the same thing minus the ads.
At least there are memes. Star Trek, D&D and Linux memes, but still. Also the angry pundentry is in the comments.
Listen here, FOOL, there’s also fossilesque single handedly keeping sciencememes alive.
I use my own curated feed most of the time. Not saying there aren’t other things, but the all feed is easily 75% doom scroll usually.
That’s what the blocklists are for.
Nah, just sub to the decent communities and avoid all. That’s what I did on Reddit, and it works pretty well here.
Most of that is just copying headlines and posting links to news sites though… Lazy posting but it is more a symptom of the disease that would most likely be cured if the root problem was cured.
Monkey see, monkey do
Generally agree, but the “news” isn’t meant to offer solutions, or fix anything.
They are only supposed to highlight or reveal facts and situations.
In some cases, reporting on a topic can result in solutions, as in the case of previously unknown corruption, but that’s an edge case
Generally agree, but the “news” isn’t meant to offer solutions, or fix anything.
Is it meant to be a fear firehose and present only discord and strife?
My point being - says who? The “news” is meant to keep people informed and that includes solutions. And it doesn’t dictate everything be a goddamned shitshow 98% of the time. Which is what local news inevitably is, no matter where “local” is.
“who what where when how”, etc. that’s the point of news. Tell the people that. Save the rest for the opinion pages, and don’t muddy the two.
Detail pieces from experts are awesome content, and a happy home for solutions. The news is the retelling of events and situations, as appropriate for the scope of the news org. (Local news vs global news)
I’m not saying opinion articles or solution discussions shouldn’t exist. I’m saying they should be separate.
“who what where when how”, etc. that’s the point of news. Tell the people that. Save the rest for the opinion pages, and don’t muddy the two.
Are you suggesting opinion can be removed completely from news stories? Are the story choices themselves outside of opinion?
Well, no and no. The real reason local news is a horror story fiesta every night is because good news is boring. It doesn’t sell.
I’m not saying one entity can’t do both, but “news” should be cold information about happenings.
“Opinion/editorial” is the follow up analysis about facts.
Yeah. News has to be especially bad, or especially good, or especially unusual. I think there is a bit of a bad bias though. when I watch traffic and weather, while im thrilled if they are good, im mainly looking for bad. do I need to change my travel plans or wear heavier clothing or different shoes or have an umbrella. Similarly I would want to know immediately if there was a bank robbery or escaped criminal or mass shooting happening anywhere I might be going.
Nostalgia doesn’t usually have a purpose but it does help spread some oral history, so here’s a blast from the past. You sound young, born from a time before the news stopped being useful. There was a time, before 1994, when the news would call out the situation and cite experts who would call out alternatives or provide clarity of what the path forward could be.
Take a look at this broadcast from 1980, before Reagan could molest the hell out of the FCC.
Literally giving out news in the format of “here’s the thing, here’s what it means for you.” Now the news is all about blasting “information” without caring about the consequences - or worse, only broadcasting one sided info with an intent on affecting the consequences.
Thanks for the assumption.
You didn’t refute anything in my comment and just took a pass to write some stuff. Nostalgia? I never mentioned it.
Edit the shared broadcast does nothing to discount my comment.
I’m not describing how news is today, but what it’s ideal state should be.
Ideal: Here are the facts, impartiality.
There are certainly problems with the state of journalism, but anyone who tries to “view the news as a person” will be as woefully uninformed as those who try to “run government like a business.”
The “state of journalism” is that it’s many miles down the mineshaft of capitalism and the only way out is to try to monetize crowdfunding.
BBC is (was) the opposite and have their own issues, but in general I think we can agree they’re ahead of the US journalism framework.
They got so much worse under the Tories in recent years though.
True. But then everything did.
Sometimes the news stations are ragebaiting you and that sucks.
Unpopular opinion:
Sometimes there are multiple, newsworthy bad things happening at once. More and more often, THIS is the reality. Rights are under attack, people are dying, the climate is getting buggered, your privacy is up for sale, etc, etc. Maybe if we all got up off our sad, fragile asses once in awhile to vote/protest/act we could do something about it? If you’re under 40 I specifically and directly mean you, especially if you read this and you feel your jimmies rustling. Shit is bad, and WE gotta fix it. Gen X+ ain’t gonna get it done.
Sometimes bad shit happens again and again and instead of actually talking about why this happens again and again, the news media pretends to be “unbiased” so they ignore the racism, misogyny, bigotry, and just general rage and hatred that fuels most of it.
instead of actually focusing any time on that, and their role in it, the news media will blame the left for being “too extreme”.
It’s not a new phenomenon. The New York Times famously didn’t report on the fucking Holocaust except in the broadest strokes.
In fact their coverage at the time was almost identical to the way they’re covering the genocide in well, there are actually half a dozen in progress around the world right now.
It is basically always worth having the conversation. My gripe is with people who think the news should just be happier or who check out and want a pat on the back for it.
It is everyone’s job to be informed. As fully as is reasonably possible. At least that’s my perspective.
It would be nice if the news actually provided more of the background information though and not the least amount they can get away with and then repeat ad nauseam.
I appreciate that you remembered there’s a Gen X, even if you’re applying ageist stereotypes to entire generations of diverse individuals.
Negative news has a greater impact on people than positive: https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71516.pdf
Media sites know this, and use it to drive engagement:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01538-4
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/social-media-facebook-twitter-politics-b1870628.html
And so, negative headlines are getting worse: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276367
But negative news is addictive and psychologically damaging: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-worry/202009/the-psychological-impact-negative-news
So it’s important to try and stay positive:
https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/benefits-of-good-news
If you want a break from the constant negativity, here are some sites that report specifically on positive news:
Remember, realistic optimism is important and, unlike what some might have you believe, is not the same as blissful ignorance or ‘burying your head in the sand’: https://www.learning-mind.com/realistic-optimism-blind-positivity/
https://www.centreforoptimism.com/realisticoptimism
And doesn’t mean you must stay uninformed on current affairs: https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/how-to-stop-doom-scrolling
https://goodable.co/blog/tips-for-balancing-positive-and-negative-news/
This is awesome and could be its own post!
Thanks! 👍
Again, kind of a point for NPR given at least they do have an expert talk for like, 3 to 15 (or longer for some specially podcasts) and never angry. Less or no ads, although they still have sponsors. Plus if it’s really grim, they give a content warning (although it’s not like they show snuff videos like cable news does).
Also local news affiliates, they fill time with silly fluff like how a bake off is going or local pet adoptions. But that still has the ads.
This has a Ryan George (Pitch Meeting) written all over it
News: here are STARTLING MORTALITY RATES that you definitely did NOT ask for while you wait for the weather that we definitely promise is coming! But first a word from our sponsor
User: you’re right I really didn’t ask for th—
Ad: “HI HELLO THERE I’m the pharma ad – THIS COULD (possibly) KILL YOU!”
User: oh god why would I want that? –
Ad: So you won’t be depressed ya silly goose!"
User: [Gestures to “News”] these people give you… Money?..-
News: Yeeah yeeah yeah yeah!
News: enjoy watching it every break until you actually feel depressed! *ARE YOU SAD YET??
User: when are you going to get to that segment that you keep teasing over and over which is very effectively keeping me in engaged on your platform?
News: heyshutup HERE’S THE SAME AD AGAIN!
Yeah, I automatically read the whole post in his voice. Exactly the same energy.
HELLO I’M AN ANGRY PUNDIT AND I’M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE YOUR FARTS SMELL
HELLO I’M ALSO AN ANGRY PUNDIT AND WILL NOT LET YOU GET A SINGLE WORD IN BECAUSE I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE A POOPY HEAD
news: absolute perfection!
Oh, my god!
Holy shit he did
Capitalists flip flop between motivating with fear, and scaring the working class into paralysis with fear as well. Fear of losing your job; fear of your neighbor; fear of other countries; it’s all just fear. Bad news also draws people in and gets clicks and views.
deleted by creator
You … DO realize the news CHOOSES to cover things like this… don’t you?
Not so - let’s pretend Anthropology 101 is a person.
It . . . it sounds like a teacher.
Okay, let’s pretend a grassroots advocacy group is a person
It sounds like someone really concerned about [homelessness, food insecurity, etc.]
Only news is so untouchable and overwhelmingly depressive.
me: picking imaginary fights with made up enemies is toxic
some jerk: no it doesn’t!
There’s plenty of news out there that is rational and factual. It’s boring however and you refuse to go find it. So keep only taking in the major mainstream outlets and complaining about it.
Please, let me know where? I am a terrible googler and I need the help. Please help me find the rational, factual news.
This question is direct to op. Of course, if you have suggestions, okay, but I am specifically interested in which ones op meant.
you forgot to say what it is
It’s just more of the regular biased shit, but it agrees with their pre-existing biases so it’s all good.
There is no one. I always find it when I read stories and notice there’s no added commentary or fluff. Usually it comes from news sources based in other countries that I think don’t have a horse in the race of the country being reported. Other times going straight to things like PBS or AP bypasses the added flair or missing context more mainstream sources would push.
If nothing else, The Onion is pretty damn good.
/s
there is such s thing as solutions journalism, but it is rather rare
yeah, people think that feeding into our reactionary side for views is something new, but television has been corrupting us since long before the internet.
i remember these stickers in the 90’s… they used to be everywhere, especially in the subcultures like the punk/rave/hippie/skater scene:
“KILL YOUR TV”
i’m glad someone was looking out for me. killing that thing definitely made me a better person.
I absolutely agree with the “news” person until half way.
Reporting what has happened isn’t toxic it’s news. That’s their entire job.
Getting stuck on repeat about the same thing, might be toxic though. Since it’s no longer news.
Another thing is the “experts on both sides”. This is a poison of the mind, to believe that right and left wing politics are both equally valid and correct. Most of the time the science agrees with the left.
