The "one week News challenge"

[Ashful]

Pulling this subject from another thread:

What all of these threads highlight is that we cannot even agree on the facts. If you can't agree on the facts, it's impossible to debate or argue our various interpretations of them. With biased media falsely billed as "News" on both sides, both spewing out half-truths and distortions, one really has to do their own research to even begin to offer a sane perspective in any such argument.

Here's the challenge, folks. I encourage you to take it:

Find a "news" source that is as opposite to your preferred consumption, within the same media type, as possible. Continue watching your CNN, but now split your time equally with Fox or OAN, or vice versa. Keep reading your Epoch Times, but add AlterNet or the NY Times. If you're reading something moderately left-leaning, find something moderately-right leaning. Don't go from moderate on one side of the aisle to extreme on the other, there are numerous references to help you choose accordingly. (here's one: https://www.businessinsider.com/mos...-in-america-cnn-fox-nytimes-2018-8#7-vox-12-7)

Do this for one week, and report back with how it did, or did not, change your perspective on the news you consume.

If you want to avoid this thread getting shut down, please keep your comments on the reporting, not the specific subjects of the reporting. Most here can engage in these types of discussions without enormous problem, but there are always a few (usually always the same few), who take things too far and get things shut down. Hopefully we can avoid that, or at least keep it to some moderate thread-pruning by the mod's.

I can post my own comments later, having already done this exercise continuously more than a year now, and intermittently for several years prior. In the meantime, click the "Watch" button at the top right now, to come back in a week when your assignment is complete!

 

[Ashful]

I'll start with my own quick back-story:

Grew up in a household watching ABC, then transitioned to Fox in the 1990's. Stayed with that, despite growing frustration with too little news and too much talk/perspective, until OAN hit the air. Felt OAN started off well, their advertising used to even boast "6x more headlines than other news networks", and it was true for their first few years. But they eventually drifted from that, with more and more time devoted to opinion and political crap.

So, I started channel flipping. All of our news channels were on consecutive channels, so I'd just go up one channel each time the one I was watching would go to commercial or waste more than a few seconds on giving opinions rather than news. When I'd hit the top of the range of news channels, I'd start over at the bottom of the range (which happened to be Fox Business). It brought me new perspective, and made me really hate ALL of them a little more than I did already.

 

[SpaceBus]

I find it worth taking a look around every once in a while to see what absurd opinions are being presented as fact on CNN, HLN, Fox, etc. These days I find independent journalists and researchers with social media/youtube accounts are probably the least biased, or at least biased in favor of labor/ordinary people compared to the "legacy" media which caters to the wealth holders. It's hard for me to take a news outlet seriously when they are actively campaigning against the viewers' best interests.

 

[Shank]

The bias and opinion is horrible. It is to the point where it truly feels like you cannot believe anything. I think doing as you suggest it will be evident both extremes will present the exact opposite of each other.

I know plenty of people that strictly watch a single source and their opinions (and regurgitation of stories) is quite ridiculous.

Interestingly enough I tend to read a lot from sources I completely disagree with, but typically I am not reading anything that is greatly opinionated in nature.

 

[Ashful]

These days I find independent journalists and researchers with social media/youtube accounts are probably the least biased, or at least biased in favor of labor/ordinary people compared to the "legacy" media which caters to the wealth holders. It's hard for me to take a news outlet seriously when they are actively campaigning against the viewers' best interests.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying Spacebus, but in an effort to keep things more positive for at least the first few responses, please edit that post down to your last paragraph. That's where the good meat is.

 

[SpaceBus]

Not that I disagree with what you're saying Spacebus, but in an effort to keep things more positive for at least the first few responses, please edit that post down to your last paragraph. That's where the good meat is.

I think your assessment is fair and I've revised my post. I think people can see the old post if they wish, but this should help your thread off to a more positive start. The idea of this thread is good, it's always worthwhile to break people out of their echo chamber.

 

[ABMax24]

I've found myself turning to European news agencies in some topics, even (gasp) AlJazeera has more accurate reporting than most of our domestic media outlets.

In Canada a person has to be particularly careful, many media companies receive government handouts measured in hundreds of millions. There is certainly scepticism surrounding how un-biased any of these outlets can be.

As others have mentioned there are YouTubers making honest content, and I have found many of them, but also a significant number that drive a hard line on either end of the spectrum. Issue is once you watch a couple videos from the later YouTube's algorithm spams you with even more of the same content, reinforcing already skewed viewpoints.

What's really changed my view is having watched live streams of live events on YouTube and then watching news later to see them cherry pick clips out of context to tell the story they want to tell.

Journalism used to be about telling the story, now it's about telling a story, and those 2 are not the same.

 

[Shank]

I've found myself turning to European news agencies in some topics, even (gasp) AlJazeera has more accurate reporting than most of our domestic media outlets.

In Canada a person has to be particularly careful, many media companies receive government handouts measured in hundreds of millions. There is certainly scepticism surrounding how un-biased any of these outlets can be.

As others have mentioned there are YouTubers making honest content, and I have found many of them, but also a significant number that drive a hard line on either end of the spectrum. Issue is once you watch a couple videos from the later YouTube's algorithm spams you with even more of the same content, reinforcing already skewed viewpoints.

What's really changed my view is having watched live streams of live events on YouTube and then watching news later to see them cherry pick clips out of context to tell the story they want to tell.

Journalism used to be about telling the story, now it's about telling a story, and those 2 are not the same.

I have read some ALJazeera articles as well.

News seems to be far more about entertainment than any actual facts. It is a joke.

 

[GrumpyDad]

Pulling this subject from another thread:



Here's the challenge, folks. I encourage you to take it:

Find a "news" source that is as opposite to your preferred consumption, within the same media type, as possible. Continue watching your CNN, but now split your time equally with Fox or OAN, or vice versa. Keep reading your Epoch Times, but add AlterNet or the NY Times. If you're reading something moderately left-leaning, find something moderately-right leaning. Don't go from moderate on one side of the aisle to extreme on the other, there are numerous references to help you choose accordingly. (here's one: https://www.businessinsider.com/mos...-in-america-cnn-fox-nytimes-2018-8#7-vox-12-7)

Do this for one week, and report back with how it did, or did not, change your perspective on the news you consume.

If you want to avoid this thread getting shut down, please keep your comments on the reporting, not the specific subjects of the reporting. Most here can engage in these types of discussions without enormous problem, but there are always a few (usually always the same few), who take things too far and get things shut down. Hopefully we can avoid that, or at least keep it to some moderate thread-pruning by the mod's.

I can post my own comments later, having already done this exercise continuously more than a year now, and intermittently for several years prior. In the meantime, click the "Watch" button at the top right now, to come back in a week when your assignment is complete!

I do this pretty much every day. It's how I know we are doomed. The truth always sits somewhere in the middle and the middle is very far from the two sides.
Once I saw doctors, politicians, government people and how they handled vaccines, shamed people for questioning the vaccine, or on the flip side you had people that came up with conspiracies or crazy methods to save yourself against the 'coof'. Idiots on both sides of the fence. Again, truth is somewhere in the middle....always has been....always will be.
The other thing I quickly learned in my years on this planet, formally educated does not mean smart or intelligent, and quite often it is the opposite. Ive had many years of education, and MOST of what I know and do professionally today I learned on my own through trial/error, experience, others that have been successful, having an open mind, questioning EVERYTHING.

 

[Ashful]

I've found myself turning to European news agencies in some topics, even (gasp) AlJazeera has more accurate reporting than most of our domestic media outlets.

Great post, ABMax24. I have also sought out Al Jazeera a few times, probably based on hearing it recommended before on this forum, and find them to be a nice fresh perspective. I also used to watch a lot of BBC, back before BBC America tainted that pool, now they're just another part of the daily rotation. The Euro outlets definitely skew more liberal than many in the USA, which is fine, it's just one of many inputs.

Issue is once you watch a couple videos from the later YouTube's algorithm spams you with even more of the same content, reinforcing already skewed viewpoints.

We are doomed!

Journalism used to be about telling the story, now it's about telling a story, and those 2 are not the same.

I used to think this, but not anymore. There was always bias. We just had less access to alternative views, making us question less. Even The World and The Journal, while most famously competing for readership, had the same slant on many political issues.

Idiots on both sides of the fence.

Good post, but I give much more credit to any writer or talking head who can influence the opinions of tens of millions of viewers. These people are not idiots, they just have a different agenda than you!

 

[Sawset]

Journalism used to be about telling the story, now it's about telling a story, and those 2 are not the same.

I've added several science publications to the biased cherrypick agenda category, same as the news entertainment group. Publications that I used to look forward to, Scientific American, Physics Today, National Geographic, 99% of scientists agreeing is not science. And I can now see why when the world has had enough that scientists are the first to be purged. Knowledge is power, and needs to be watched closely when agendas are involved.

 

[Ashful]

I've added several science publications to the biased cherrypick agenda category, same as the news entertainment group. Publications that I used to look forward to, Scientific American, Physics Today, National Geographic, 99% of scientists agreeing is not science. And I can now see why when the world has had enough that scientists are the first to be purged. Knowledge is power, and needs to be watched closely when agendas are involved.

These are consumer rags, but the same bias happens to some lesser degree, even in legitimate scientific journals. Known bad science rarely makes it into legitimate academic journals, but potentially-good science gets rejected based on bias against author, institution, or subject matter.

 

[SpaceBus]

As long as the news is selling ad space, it will be heavily biased towards entertainment and gaining viewership. While the BBC is basically state media, there's some good journalism to be found. It seems there's three poisons for news media: independent (youtube, social media, etc.), state media, and corporate media. Maybe sampling all three makes you more observant to the biases and better able to form opinions.

 

[Ashful]

It'll be interesting to hear the feedback as we get into next week, if anyone takes this challenge seriously.

 

[RockCastile]

The quasi miracle to me is that we actually do still have real journalism going on, WheresWaldo'd as it is in the sea of jazz hands. In the early minutes of the next shooting, MSNBC still has to tell the truth and admit what they still don't know yet about the shooter, how many killed, motive. For that they/we must wait to hear from the actualhonesttogod journalists "on the ground," all of whom face real consequences if they decide to start making chit up just to get there before Fox. You still have to go pretty deep in the woods to find outlets so slanted they just invent it from whole cloth. Yes agreed that from all 6 sides of the facts will come every slick effort to tell you what to make of them, but the facts are still sitting there in plain site, amazingly. Thanks to real journalists. Their headlines will be re-worded to persuade, some of their findings will be downplayed to protect agendas, but against all odds the deets are still sitting there if you want to look.

 

[Poindexter]

I will play.

Early in the pandemic I dramatically cut down on my USA media consumption, and filled the void with reading, most days, helsinkitimes.fi , bbc/scotland , and Times of Israel. I read the Jerusalem Times for a few weeks but have stopped.

I do not have a deep enough grasp of Israel to understand the controversial changes getting enacted by the new government. I do find the opinion columns written from the Finnish perspective frequently mind expanding. BBC/Scotland offers only minimal coverage of the royal family, and a lot of soccer coverage - I skim over all of that and only examine the remainder.

For american news I lean heavily on ABC, NBC and CNN. I find the CBS website pushes an unacceptable amount of video to my phone.

I will have to cast about a little bit to add a competing/ opposing source, with Al Jazeera a prime candidate.

 

[PaulOinMA]

I watch BBC World News America and PBS Newshour. Lesser amount MSNBC, CNN.

Local is NECN, New England Cable News, and NBC Boston (hot weekend weather babe).

I'm conservative Republican. Fox has become nutso crazy even for me.

 

[Ashful]

I'm conservative Republican. Fox has become nutso crazy even for me.

Sorta where I am. Interesting that we both consume mostly news that many neo-Republicans would call liberal.

 

[PaulOinMA]

My liberal lawyer friend I grew up with in CT would never discuss politics when we get together. With Republicans becoming extreme right and Democrats becoming extreme left, we have become moderates. We talk politics.

 

[Poindexter]

I have added Al Jazeera to my daily news diet for about a week.

It has come forcefully to my attention there is news that matters to me outside the free western world + Russia + China.

 

[NHWS]

For American news I occasionally read The Economist. Distance and once-a-week instead of daily lends a different perspective. Not necessarily more accurate, but different. Distance and culture also apply to Al Jazeera.

There can be some value in meta-news-reading, i.e., read The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal to find out what those publications think their subscribers are interested in reading.

 

[begreen]

We don't have cable and only watch PBS news ota. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, mostly I read. Typically I will start the morning with the AP and Reuters, but dive into different media as needed. Sometimes this is with NHK (Japan) news or DW (Germany). I used to follow Al Jazerra but now only occasionally will catch an article on the web. In the past, I was able to catch some Sheppard Smith reporting and an occasional interview by Chris Wallace, but I don't consider Fox a new source and my time is limited. I'd rather be reading science news.

 

[SpaceBus]

My liberal lawyer friend I grew up with in CT would never discuss politics when we get together. With Republicans becoming extreme right and Democrats becoming extreme left, we have become moderates. We talk politics.

Democrats are anything but far left, as a whole. This becomes clear when you observe a large variety of media.

 

[begreen]

And on that note... Say good night Gracie.