A Thought On News - Making Every Problem Your Problem (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

To be clear, I don't

You've posted about 1440 as being unbiased. Wasn't aware of them and didn't sign up. Are they doing original reporting or are they aggregating? Based on a quick look at their website, seems aggregating? What sources are they using? Those sources would seem to fit your criteria if you find them unbiased?

To be clear, I've posted about 1440 as a source I think is good. That's not the same as claiming they are "unbiased".

They are carving a niche claiming to be "as unbiased as humanly possible" as they say on their site. When you set yourself up with that, I'm sure there are plenty who hold them accountable.

I said last year:

I've glanced at 1440 a bit and for the quick look I did, they seemed good. That's not an endorsement as I haven't looked closely.

But clearly, there seems to be a need for better news.

I said recently when someone said they missed the PSF news:

It's not worth all the drama that comes with the forum and for sure not coming back.

Not every site is this way. 1440 has done a good job trying to carve out a spot for people looking for just information.

I'd suggest this as a source for folks that want to be informed. https://join1440.com/ It's light years better for staying informed from an objective viewpoint than the PSF ever was in my opinion.

It's my understanding they are not doing original reporting and are aggregating. Which has it's own challenges.

From what I've seen, it seems like they're doing a good job.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Do you have examples? Honestly asking, because that's not been my experience. But I mostly consume news, not opinion.

Sure. I don't see how this won't get political but Berliner's article laid out three that he observed: Russian collusion, Coronavirus lab leak, Hunter Biden laptop.

And yes, I see now this wasn't a good idea to allow the topic as those are all political. Please let's not sidetrack to those as we've beaten those to death. I just wanted to give you an answer.

Yeah, that was kind of my issue. That's a very general statement by Berliner. There weren't any specifics. And I didn't really pay attention to their coverage, so I don't know how egregious they were compared to others.


The only example I recall was him saying they used words similar to "scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports natural origin". This is the article I assume he's referring to:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/28/1160162845/what-does-the-science-say-about-the-origin-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic

They were quoting a scientist who said that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Do you have examples? Honestly asking, because that's not been my experience. But I mostly consume news, not opinion.

Sure. I don't see how this won't get political but Berliner's article laid out three that he observed: Russian collusion, Coronavirus lab leak, Hunter Biden laptop.

And yes, I see now this wasn't a good idea to allow the topic as those are all political. Please let's not sidetrack to those as we've beaten those to death. I just wanted to give you an answer.

Yeah, that was kind of my issue. That's a very general statement by Berliner. There weren't any specifics. And I didn't really pay attention to their coverage, so I don't know how egregious they were compared to others.


The only example I recall was him saying they used words similar to "scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports natural origin". This is the article I assume he's referring to:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/28/1160162845/what-does-the-science-say-about-the-origin-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic

They were quoting a scientist who said that.

I'm not sure I follow. Did you mean to reply to my question,

"Where in Berliner's article does he say "there is no debate over stories at NPR"?"

Inskeep wrote that's what Berliner said in the article, "A careful read of the article shows many sweeping statements for which the writer is unable to offer evidence. He says there is no debate over stories at NPR, just a “frictionless” process like an “assembly line.” I have been involved in passionate debates over stories at Morning Edition, as Uri knows; I have sometimes relied on his advice. Uri is a prominent editor—did he approve bad stories without friction?"

I just didn't see in Berliner's article where he said that.

When Inskeep wrote that Berliner "says there is no debate over stories at NPR" that seemed odd to me. I can't imagine an editor claiming there was no debate over stories. When I read Berliner's article again, I didn't see where he said there was no debate but thought maybe I'd missed it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I believe everyone would be happier if they didn’t watch the news or visit news websites. Yes, you would be less informed, but happier.

Yeah, I’ve come to the conclusion that being well-informed is vastly overrated.

Yup. Especially when the information serves no purpose, other than elicit an emotional response.

But how uninformed can one be, while fulfilling some semblance of civic duty?

Pretty uninformed I’d say. Or, put differently, about 99.9% of the items I used to be informed on bear pretty much no relevance whatsoever to things that I consider to be related to my civic duties.

Back in the day, and due in no small part to the PSF, it was rare that someone asked me about some news event or controversy and I had not already heard about it and already formed an opinion. It was a huge investment of time and mental energy. Now, I get asked those same questions, and I happily (and truthfully) respond - “no, I haven’t heard anything about that.”

Agreed.

 

[Doug B]

The problem is a lot of what you call legacy media has news and opinion arms. I don't read NPR, but my guess is their news is less troublesome than most think. Just like most on the left would be surprised that Fox's news arm isn't as bad as they'd think.

The point demonstrated by Joe's Inc.com link was not that actual news coverage is routinely over-editorialized**. It was that in most online news -- and especially in new media that didn't exist before the popular Internet -- news and opinion are not sufficiently distinguished.

While most pre-Net news sources offered both news and opinion pieces, journalists of the prior century generally took care to maintain a clear separation of the two -- and what's more, to strongly emphasize news over opinion. Almost all city newspapers had, and still have, an opinion/editorial page in a distinct section from the front page -- which was strictly reserved for news. Newsmagazines likewise maintained well-demarcated and separate editorial sections among their pages. National network television news typically segregated opinion away from their nightly newscasts altogether, offering instead separate programming for opinion (e.g. Face the Nation, Meet the Press, PBS News Hour, CNN's Crossfire). Local television news programming might offer editorials from time to time, but when they did so they would be consistently well-signaled as editorial content and reserved for the very end of a given broadcast. Programs such as 60 Minutes did the same with Andy Rooney's opinion pieces.

Today, nearly a generation into the Internet area, the field of play is much different. In most new media (see Joe's Inc.com link upthread for a good example), opinion web pages look like news web pages. They are difficult to distinguish on sight, and the signals that are present are not prominent and are easy to miss. Further muddying the waters is that solid pre-Internet news brands like Newsweek and Forbes (among others) have online presences far less rigorous about the news/opinion distinction than the venerable print publications that sprung them forth.

And all this doesn't even touch on social media, information silos, echo chambers, and so forth. Enough has been said about that -- I will only add the obvious: That it exacerbates the difficulty in distinguishing opinion from news within the firehose of information from which today's Netizens attempt to drink.

In 2009, when Jim Lehrer retired from PBS' News Hour with Jim Lehrer, he shared his journalistic guiding principles with his audience as he was signing off for good. Would more 2024 journalists follow Lehrer's lead today.

Jim Lehrer, PBS, 12/4/2009:​

​

People often ask me if there are guidelines in our practice of what I like to call MacNeil/Lehrer journalism. Well, yes, there are. And here they are.​

​

Do nothing I cannot defend. Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story. Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.​

​

Assume personal lives are a private matter, until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything. Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes, except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.​

​

And, finally, I am not in the entertainment business.​

​

​

​

** Note the "over" in "over-editorializing". It's important. There is plenty of editorializing via story vetting, deciding what not to cover, carefully-chosen wording, etc. But all that does not necessarily get in the way of getting information.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Do you have examples? Honestly asking, because that's not been my experience. But I mostly consume news, not opinion.

Sure. I don't see how this won't get political but Berliner's article laid out three that he observed: Russian collusion, Coronavirus lab leak, Hunter Biden laptop.

And yes, I see now this wasn't a good idea to allow the topic as those are all political. Please let's not sidetrack to those as we've beaten those to death. I just wanted to give you an answer.

Yeah, that was kind of my issue. That's a very general statement by Berliner. There weren't any specifics. And I didn't really pay attention to their coverage, so I don't know how egregious they were compared to others.


The only example I recall was him saying they used words similar to "scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports natural origin". This is the article I assume he's referring to:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/28/1160162845/what-does-the-science-say-about-the-origin-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic

They were quoting a scientist who said that.

I'm not sure I follow. Did you mean to reply to my question,

"Where in Berliner's article does he say "there is no debate over stories at NPR"?"

Inskeep wrote that's what Berliner said in the article, "A careful read of the article shows many sweeping statements for which the writer is unable to offer evidence. He says there is no debate over stories at NPR, just a “frictionless” process like an “assembly line.” I have been involved in passionate debates over stories at Morning Edition, as Uri knows; I have sometimes relied on his advice. Uri is a prominent editor—did he approve bad stories without friction?"

I just didn't see in Berliner's article where he said that.

When Inskeep wrote that Berliner "says there is no debate over stories at NPR" that seemed odd to me. I can't imagine an editor claiming there was no debate over stories. When I read Berliner's article again, I didn't see where he said there was no debate but thought maybe I'd missed it.

No, I meant to quote what I quoted. I asked for examples of stories that backed this up: "The bigger point is the idea legacy media too often misses the actual news and tries to make one care about when it's not directly related to the person. Or leans toward a conclusion they're making that isn't fully there."


You gave me Berliners' general examples. That doesn't do anybody any good. Give me the specific story where the legacy media did what you say they are doing. Berliner pointed to one - the "overwhelming scientific evidence" quote related to COVID.

Here's what Berliner said: "Instead, we introduced our coverage of that development on February 28, 2023, by asserting confidently that “the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a natural origin for the virus.”

The problem is, that's not what the story does. NPR isn't asserting confidently. It's quoting a scientist asserting that. Those are two very different things.

On the other point: No, he didn't explicitly say there's no debate. Here's the passage: "There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line. "

 

[Joe Bryant]

Do you have examples? Honestly asking, because that's not been my experience. But I mostly consume news, not opinion.

Sure. I don't see how this won't get political but Berliner's article laid out three that he observed: Russian collusion, Coronavirus lab leak, Hunter Biden laptop.

And yes, I see now this wasn't a good idea to allow the topic as those are all political. Please let's not sidetrack to those as we've beaten those to death. I just wanted to give you an answer.

Yeah, that was kind of my issue. That's a very general statement by Berliner. There weren't any specifics. And I didn't really pay attention to their coverage, so I don't know how egregious they were compared to others.


The only example I recall was him saying they used words similar to "scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports natural origin". This is the article I assume he's referring to:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/28/1160162845/what-does-the-science-say-about-the-origin-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic

They were quoting a scientist who said that.

I'm not sure I follow. Did you mean to reply to my question,

"Where in Berliner's article does he say "there is no debate over stories at NPR"?"

Inskeep wrote that's what Berliner said in the article, "A careful read of the article shows many sweeping statements for which the writer is unable to offer evidence. He says there is no debate over stories at NPR, just a “frictionless” process like an “assembly line.” I have been involved in passionate debates over stories at Morning Edition, as Uri knows; I have sometimes relied on his advice. Uri is a prominent editor—did he approve bad stories without friction?"

I just didn't see in Berliner's article where he said that.

When Inskeep wrote that Berliner "says there is no debate over stories at NPR" that seemed odd to me. I can't imagine an editor claiming there was no debate over stories. When I read Berliner's article again, I didn't see where he said there was no debate but thought maybe I'd missed it.

No, I meant to quote what I quoted. I asked for examples of stories that backed this up: "The bigger point is the idea legacy media too often misses the actual news and tries to make one care about when it's not directly related to the person. Or leans toward a conclusion they're making that isn't fully there."


You gave me Berliners' general examples. That doesn't do anybody any good. Give me the specific story where the legacy media did what you say they are doing. Berliner pointed to one - the "overwhelming scientific evidence" quote related to COVID.

Here's what Berliner said: "Instead, we introduced our coverage of that development on February 28, 2023, by asserting confidently that “the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a natural origin for the virus.”

The problem is, that's not what the story does. NPR isn't asserting confidently. It's quoting a scientist asserting that. Those are two very different things.

On the other point: No, he didn't explicitly say there's no debate. Here's the passage: "There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line. "

Thanks. You said you were honestly asking for examples. I gave you three specific (albeit political) examples. That's as far as we'll take that here.

For the Berliner quote, that's miles from "He says there is no debate over stories at NPR". I'm surprised Inskeep would make an accusation that strong when Berliner didn't say the thing he said he said.

But that's also how these things go in the back and forth.

An interesting discussion and topic. Again, apologies for letting it drift too far political.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Join1440 looks pretty good. I like Axios myself although I don't know that they claim to be completely unbiased. I like that most of their stories have a "Yes, but" section where they give a few sentences reflecting the view from the "other side".

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'm trying to come up with a scenario or topic labeled "frictionless, unspoken consensus" also has debate around it. Is this one of those things where people are quibbling with the accuracy of "no" in lieu of the overall point being made?

 

[Terminalxylem]

I believe everyone would be happier if they didn’t watch the news or visit news websites. Yes, you would be less informed, but happier.

Yeah, I’ve come to the conclusion that being well-informed is vastly overrated.

Yup. Especially when the information serves no purpose, other than elicit an emotional response.

But how uninformed can one be, while fulfilling some semblance of civic duty?

Pretty uninformed I’d say. Or, put differently, about 99.9% of the items I used to be informed on bear pretty much no relevance whatsoever to things that I consider to be related to my civic duties.

I agree 100%. There are so many better ways to invest one’s time and emotional energy.

Which has been better for your mental health - giving up the news, or peeves?

 

[Terminalxylem]

I see we're back to the "it's not happening" stage of the discussion. Let me know when we cycle back to "it's happening and it's good" or "why do you even care."

Feel free to sprinkle in some “I’ve recognized it happening for years”, to break the monotony.

Or maybe offer some solutions?

 

[uwillbsoon]

Do you have examples? Honestly asking, because that's not been my experience. But I mostly consume news, not opinion.

Sure. I don't see how this won't get political but Berliner's article laid out three that he observed: Russian collusion, Coronavirus lab leak, Hunter Biden laptop.

And yes, I see now this wasn't a good idea to allow the topic as those are all political. Please let's not sidetrack to those as we've beaten those to death. I just wanted to give you an answer.

Yeah, that was kind of my issue. That's a very general statement by Berliner. There weren't any specifics. And I didn't really pay attention to their coverage, so I don't know how egregious they were compared to others.


The only example I recall was him saying they used words similar to "scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports natural origin". This is the article I assume he's referring to:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/28/1160162845/what-does-the-science-say-about-the-origin-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic

They were quoting a scientist who said that.

I'm not sure I follow. Did you mean to reply to my question,

"Where in Berliner's article does he say "there is no debate over stories at NPR"?"

Inskeep wrote that's what Berliner said in the article, "A careful read of the article shows many sweeping statements for which the writer is unable to offer evidence. He says there is no debate over stories at NPR, just a “frictionless” process like an “assembly line.” I have been involved in passionate debates over stories at Morning Edition, as Uri knows; I have sometimes relied on his advice. Uri is a prominent editor—did he approve bad stories without friction?"

I just didn't see in Berliner's article where he said that.

When Inskeep wrote that Berliner "says there is no debate over stories at NPR" that seemed odd to me. I can't imagine an editor claiming there was no debate over stories. When I read Berliner's article again, I didn't see where he said there was no debate but thought maybe I'd missed it.

No, I meant to quote what I quoted. I asked for examples of stories that backed this up: "The bigger point is the idea legacy media too often misses the actual news and tries to make one care about when it's not directly related to the person. Or leans toward a conclusion they're making that isn't fully there."


You gave me Berliners' general examples. That doesn't do anybody any good. Give me the specific story where the legacy media did what you say they are doing. Berliner pointed to one - the "overwhelming scientific evidence" quote related to COVID.

Here's what Berliner said: "Instead, we introduced our coverage of that development on February 28, 2023, by asserting confidently that “the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a natural origin for the virus.”

The problem is, that's not what the story does. NPR isn't asserting confidently. It's quoting a scientist asserting that. Those are two very different things.

On the other point: No, he didn't explicitly say there's no debate. Here's the passage: "There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line. "

Thanks. You said you were honestly asking for examples. I gave you three specific (albeit political) examples. That's as far as we'll take that here.

For the Berliner quote, that's miles from "He says there is no debate over stories at NPR". I'm surprised Inskeep would make an accusation that strong when Berliner didn't say the thing he said he said.

But that's also how these things go in the back and forth.

An interesting discussion and topic. Again, apologies for letting it drift too far political.

You gave me three examples of events that would span hundreds if not thousands of actual NPR stories. Not an individual story. So it's difficult - if not impossible without a lot more time than I have - to review all of those stories and find the evidence of journalists performing what you describe.


I'm a glass half-full guy when it comes to news journalism. That's my bias. But I think it is overwhelmingly good in the world when done meeting journalistic standards. Studies have shown that when local newspapers go away, government and business corruption follows. Not every journalist is good, every source has some bias, but as a whole they do meaningful work. So I tend to push back against the "all news is bad" narratives.

 

[bigbottom]

I believe everyone would be happier if they didn’t watch the news or visit news websites. Yes, you would be less informed, but happier.

Yeah, I’ve come to the conclusion that being well-informed is vastly overrated.

Yup. Especially when the information serves no purpose, other than elicit an emotional response.

But how uninformed can one be, while fulfilling some semblance of civic duty?

Pretty uninformed I’d say. Or, put differently, about 99.9% of the items I used to be informed on bear pretty much no relevance whatsoever to things that I consider to be related to my civic duties.

I agree 100%. There are so many better ways to invest one’s time and emotional energy.

Which has been better for your mental health - giving up the news, or peeves?

Thanks for asking. Both have been great. The news has been more recent, maybe the last year, and it has had the greater impact because my pet peeves only impacted me sporadically, whereas my news consumption was near daily. I found a whole lot more time to spend on endeavors that were much more positive for my mental state.

 

[rockaction]

Andrew Sullivan today.

Sullivan was editor at The New Republic.

on Maher’s ideology:

“First and foremost, it means an end to the Enlightenment idea of empirical truth.”

Katie Herzog, noted opinion commenter says that every story is about race.

I have no desire to argue this with dupes. Maher’s own tweets and responses tell you that the newsroom will be all about identity politics.

To claim otherwise is the sign of the dupe or bad faith.

Peace.

@Joe Bryant your post was political. You just aren’t aware enough of the current climate to know it.

 

[Terminalxylem]

One lesson covid taught me: nearly everything is political, if you look hard enough.

But day to day, what is the value in looking so hard?

 

[rockaction]

One lesson covid taught me: nearly everything is political, if you look hard enough.

But day to day, what is the value in looking so hard?

Agreed.

But Bari Weiss is explicitly political. Everything she wades into is political. That is her raison d’etre.

Your objection does not apply here.

Check her CV

 

[rockaction]

And I agree with Bari in this case.

So is Maher’s outlook (political). Her suppositions and premises behind her worldview are expressly political.

There is no way around it. Sorry.

There are things not subject to the immediate political realm. These two are not good examples.

 

[rockaction]

Yes, everything at its core is political. To find things that aren’t, we need to find things that in reality have a common enough understanding and agreement to where things aren’t contentious nor do we descend into the tangibly political aspect quickly.

But this particular argument is inherently political. And it gets there immediately.

The main reason why it is political starts with this assumption:

The claim that a journalist is not objective or is beholden to a political worldview (as Weiss claims Maher is) supposes one of two things:

a) a journalist is always a product of his or her biases and that reflects a political worldview. Apolitical journalism is impossible. This places all journalism within the purview of politics and system.

OR

b) journalism might not be inherently political and can be objective, but a particular journalist is political, and therefore, their politics reflects their worldview. So if we accept this, then we look at the evidence of the claim of objectivity as applied to the particular journalist.

So assume “b” here. Who are the main players?

Weiss is a right-wing op-ed writer. That’s how she cut her teeth. Now she owns a media company that can only be described as “on the right.” That claim is backed up by almost any news story.

Maher’s overriding philosophy comes from the left. It is a function of a philosophy brought to action—i.e., politics. As evidence, see the reaction to her tweets from those who are educated in modern political activism. It is near-universally agreed-upon besides among those who agree with her premises. The reason Weiss comments is because Maher is from the left.

How did Maher’s tweets gain traction on Twitter for Weiss to see? The man behind it is Chris Rufo, who is a right-winger. He is employed by the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank. He is also paid by Heritage Foundation, who wrote Project 2025, a blueprint for the next Trump administration. He received $35,000 from the Danube Institute, an arm of Victor Orban and Hungary, to write articles praising the Hungarian model of “illiberal democracy.”

This whole ****ing thing is politics up front and center.

To have posted it is ignorant of its sources and the reason it is happening.

And this is not something to “agree to disagree” about or just part ways.

The side claiming this is apolitical is just (as objectively as one can be in this world) wrong or ignorant.

Sorry about that.

 

[rockaction]

And this, friends, as I’ve been claiming in other threads, is why now is specifically not the time to tune out. At all.

It is actually downright dangerous to do so.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So I tend to push back against the "all news is bad" narratives.

Cool. I don’t see anyone saying that here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The side claiming this is apolitical is just (as objectively as one can be in this world) wrong or ignorant.

Sorry about that.

Not sure what you and @Doug B are “sorry “ about. As much as it seems you want to label folks “ignorant” most of us have been pretty open and aware that this is a political topic and have tried to be careful with it.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Andrew Sullivan today.

Sullivan was editor at The New Republic.

on Maher’s ideology:

“First and foremost, it means an end to the Enlightenment idea of empirical truth.”

Katie Herzog, noted opinion commenter says that every story is about race.

I have no desire to argue this with dupes. Maher’s own tweets and responses tell you that the newsroom will be all about identity politics.

To claim otherwise is the sign of the dupe or bad faith.

Peace.

@Joe Bryant your post was political. You just aren’t aware enough of the current climate to know

So I tend to push back against the "all news is bad" narratives.

Cool. I don’t see anyone saying that here.

You're right. No one has said that. They've just said things like everyone would be better off if they didn't pay attention to the news. Or that media's goal is to make every problem your problem.

Pretty negative views. Of course, I don't think anyone is talking about the same thing when they say "media" or "news" so I'll drop it.

 

[bigbottom]

Andrew Sullivan today.

Sullivan was editor at The New Republic.

on Maher’s ideology:

“First and foremost, it means an end to the Enlightenment idea of empirical truth.”

Katie Herzog, noted opinion commenter says that every story is about race.

I have no desire to argue this with dupes. Maher’s own tweets and responses tell you that the newsroom will be all about identity politics.

To claim otherwise is the sign of the dupe or bad faith.

Peace.

@Joe Bryant your post was political. You just aren’t aware enough of the current climate to know

So I tend to push back against the "all news is bad" narratives.

Cool. I don’t see anyone saying that here.

You're right. No one has said that. They've just said things like everyone would be better off if they didn't pay attention to the news. Or that media's goal is to make every problem your problem.

Pretty negative views. Of course, I don't think anyone is talking about the same thing when they say "media" or "news" so I'll drop it.

Just to clarify, I am not anti-news and certainly don’t think everyone would be better off if they didn’t pay attention to the news.
I’m just saying that eliminating news consumption from my daily routine has been a net positive for my psyche. YMMV.

 

[rockaction]

As much as it seems you want to label folks “ignorant” most of us have been pretty open and aware that this is a political topic and have tried to be careful with it.

I don’t want to do that at all. I’m covering all bases here. I’m reading back through the thread and was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. “Ignorant” was probably a negative term. “Unaware” would have been better.

nd yes, I see now this wasn't a good idea to allow the topic as those are all political

This is sort of what I’m referring to. I assumed with your “no politics” policy that you would have adhered to your own edict. But you posted an expressly political story by a political writer. It had a political slant, even.

So now you say you knew it was political but went against your own policy anyway?

Okay. Cool. You are not ignorant. You might have thought breaking the rule was overridden by the comment’s utility and that this particular audience would keep it cool. Fair.

But I was covering all the bases in what I wrote. Terminakxylem sort of implied I was looking for politics in the story. No way. The story was raw politics.

So I assumed you were “ignorant.” Poor choice of words.

So what I don’t get now is that you object to the use of the word “ignorant” pretty testily. Why would I not assume you didn’t know? Why would I assume you’d break your own rule and then lament the replies break that rule and implicitly ask us to stop?

If you’re going to do something like that, might I suggest you start a thread, pin it, and then close it? It seems weird and authoritarian to condemn political replies to a political topic that you know is political.

I’m sort of confused.

If one welcomes debate or discussion, one should not set unreasonable terms or lay down unreasonable conditions.

Did you know it was political by nature and now lament the nature of the replies, wondering why we can’t avoid talking about the nature of that which you introduced? That would seem weird. I doubt you think that, but I could be wrong.

But you say this:

And yes, I see now this wasn't a good idea to allow the topic as those are all political

So I have no idea what you’re really saying about what you knew or assumed. I hope it’s a misunderstanding on my end. Like I said, if you didn’t know this was all about politics, no sweat. I should have not used “ignorant” as the term of art. “Unaware” has a much better connotation. If you did know its political nature and don’t like the replies, well we disagree about that.

Peace and I wish you well.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I didn’t reply to you directly @rockaction, because I wasn’t referring to whatever you guys are going back-and-forth about. Since my post followed yours, I can see how it came across that way though.

What I meant to say is nearly every topic can have political underpinnings, if you chose to scrutinize with that lens. While that doesn’t eliminate the possibility some things are irrefutably political, I think we might do better if every story wasn’t covered/viewed with politics in mind.

 

[FairWarning]

I didn’t reply to you directly @rockaction, because I wasn’t referring to whatever you guys are going back-and-forth about. Since my post followed yours, I can see how it came across that way though.

What I meant to say is nearly every topic can have political underpinnings, if you chose to scrutinize with that lens. While that doesn’t eliminate the possibility some things are irrefutably political, I think we might do better if every story wasn’t covered/viewed with politics in mind.

That is where sites like 1440 and NewsNation come in handy. They tackle issues that matter to each side. A big problem with today’s media is they promote news topics that are slanted to their viewers only.

 

[Doug B]

Not sure what you and @Doug B are “sorry “ about.

While I liked his post, it was a long fleshed-out post. I didn’t co-sign every last word.

That said — in the context of a respectful intellectual discussion, “ignorant” is not a pejorative. Rock is coming from a good place.

 

[rockaction]

I didn’t reply to you directly @rockaction, because I wasn’t referring to whatever you guys are going back-and-forth about. Since my post followed yours, I can see how it came across that way though.

What I meant to say is nearly every topic can have political underpinnings, if you chose to scrutinize with that lens. While that doesn’t eliminate the possibility some things are irrefutably political, I think we might do better if every story wasn’t covered/viewed with politics in mind.

I got you, man. I see. I just was agreeing with you that nearly all things have political underpinnings, but I was saying that the NPR part of this thread—the Bari Weiss and Maher part—is an expressly and inherently political topic. There is no way around it. That’s all.

And since our comments were close together, I did feel like you were maybe addressing me, though I honestly wasn’t sure. But I figured your point was a point to clear up regardless (I wanted to distinguish the political NPR part of the thread from other innocent and apolitical threads) so I did.

I wish I had used the term “unaware” because “ignorant” can be a pejorative, and often is.

But I cannot say—unless I am being untruthful—that any reasonable person who knows the players of the story would claim it is apolitical.

But we agree. Any discussion can get political. The question in my mind is how close are politics to the heart of the discussion. In this case, I lament the fact that it’s front and center and hinges on politics.

I hate the modern examination of competing claims to the truth of things. I wish we all agreed about truth’s premises and conclusions and then how to disseminate that so that we might be informed citizens. It is not good for national unity that we have very, very different opinions on how to approach the truth, how to report the truth, what is the truth, even. It is really problematic, this issue. That competing visions of truth and journalism lie at the heart of our political divisions is way more problematic than I once thought. And that’s where I’ll leave it.

But yeah, we agree about your broader point. I had hoped I conveyed that.

 

[rockaction]

That said — in the context of a respectful intellectual discussion, “ignorant” is not a pejorative. Rock is coming from a good place.

I was but I can totally see taking it a different way.

Indeed, I should have known better. “Ignorant” is used way too negatively and not as a technical descriptor these days—in written communication about sensitive stuff, I should have just picked a different word. Easy peasy.

 

[ZADO]

I miss Walter Cronkite

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I miss Walter Cronkite

Wasn't around during his time, but there is likely never to be another like him from my understanding of him. People like him will be run out and put on the shelf severely slanted liberals in today's climate.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just to clarify, I am not anti-news and certainly don’t think everyone would be better off if they didn’t pay attention to the news.
I’m just saying that eliminating news consumption from my daily routine has been a net positive for my psyche. YMMV.

And like most things, it's a spectrum. I think the trick is finding the answer to what you asked earlier about how much consumption is enough to stay informed and be a good citizen.

It's been my experience there that the "sweet spot" maybe less consumption than one might think. At some point, there are diminishing returns for the consumption on the scale of how much is actually needed. And of course, "need" is subjective too.

 

[Mitchie]

Just to clarify, I am not anti-news and certainly don’t think everyone would be better off if they didn’t pay attention to the news.
I’m just saying that eliminating news consumption from my daily routine has been a net positive for my psyche. YMMV.

And like most things, it's a spectrum. I think the trick is finding the answer to what you asked earlier about how much consumption is enough to stay informed and be a good citizen.

It's been my experience there that the "sweet spot" maybe less consumption than one might think. At some point, there are diminishing returns for the consumption on the scale of how much is actually needed. And of course, "need" is subjective too.

I do follow your line of thinking, getting upset about news can be bad for the psyche and in today's environment there's a lot of things people can get upset about and we're also getting news or maybe I should say "news" from many different sources. On the other hand the vast majority of people are grossly misinformed, partly due to the sources of news, and probably partly due to the amount. So a few soundbites from a bad intentioned or misinformed source will be their primary source for information.

 

[massraider]

Newsletters for me. Morning Brew, 1440, Money Stuff, The Daily Feather are my favorites.

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news News stories, and how they are covered from different sources.

Thing is tho, how informed do people really want to be? People of this demo? Not much, IMO.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Newsletters for me. Morning Brew, 1440, Money Stuff, The Daily Feather are my favorites.

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news News stories, and how they are covered from different sources.

Thing is tho, how informed do people really want to be? People of this demo? Not much, IMO.

Thanks. To make sure I understand, what demographic do you mean when you say "this" demographic?

 

[Joe Bryant]

FWIW, I see now https://join1440.com/ says they have over 3.5 million subscribers. That's big.

I knew they were growing but didn't know they'd hit that kind of number.

 

[massraider]

Thanks. To make sure I understand, what demographic do you mean when you say "this" demographic?

People reading this forum. Which is a pretty large demo in the USA

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. To make sure I understand, what demographic do you mean when you say "this" demographic?

People reading this forum. Which is a pretty large demo in the USA

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

But again, that's subjective.

It's back to the "how much is enough?" thing.

 

[massraider]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

Thanks. Understood.

I feel like most people here do care about being informed. At least more than "not much". But that's just my perception.

 

[Joe Bryant]

On another angle of the "dialing my news consumption back a bit has been a positive" thing, I find that to be the case for other things too.

Social Media. Sports. This forum, too, can definitely be that for me.

Different personalities handle things in different ways, but I know I often feel better overall by doing less of something that can easily become obsessive.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don’t watch any TV news, which is probably the most guilty of “making every problem my problem” sort of stuff. I try to avoid the sensationalized stuff. My main news sources for local/national/world news are a bit old school: print edition of The Washington Post delivery every morning, and The Economist every week. Have some biases, but not to the extreme and gives me the information that I need.

I took a look at the 1440 site mentioned, but looks like light to me on content. I went back the last five days and don’t see anything about Sudan in there — I would not want to rely on a news source that does not think what is going on there is newsworthy.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Different personalities handle things in different ways, but I know I often feel better overall by doing less of something that can easily become obsessive.

This is me and it took me a long time to get there. I've been a serious "declutterer" for about 15 years - material things, news, sports, etc.... - and I'm happier than I've ever been. I pay a little attention to what's happening both nationally and in the world at large, but I pick most of that up by osmosis these days. I pay more attention to my local stuff - when are the streets getting paved, when's the new traffic light going up, is garbage pickup changing days........ I'll watch the local news, but it's on mute unless something catches my eye.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

I feel like middle aged and older, wealthier people tend to be more interested in politics. Certainly more of them vote.

Pop culture, not so much.

Which demographic do you believe is most politically involved?

 

[massraider]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

I feel like middle aged and older, wealthier people tend to be more interested in politics. Certainly more of them vote.

Pop culture, not so much.

Which demographic do you believe is most politically involved?

Maybe younger people, college and just out of college.

But I agree with you.

But I don't think FBG demo is wealthier. Do you?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Different personalities handle things in different ways, but I know I often feel better overall by doing less of something that can easily become obsessive.

This is me and it took me a long time to get there. I've been a serious "declutterer" for about 15 years - material things, news, sports, etc.... - and I'm happier than I've ever been. I pay a little attention to what's happening both nationally and in the world at large, but I pick most of that up by osmosis these days. I pay more attention to my local stuff - when are the streets getting paved, when's the new traffic light going up, is garbage pickup changing days........ I'll watch the local news, but it's on mute unless something catches my eye.

Yes. Was listening to a podcast recently and the guest was stressing the local involvement and interest over National/Global focus and I think that's useful.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

I'm afraid to read everything after this but I really liked the opening post.

-I often wonder, almost in fear of what would happen if we had another event in some form like 9/11...we're forbidden to speak about politics but how could you avoid it in that scenario?
Great thread topic

 

[Joe Bryant]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

I'm afraid to read everything after this but I really liked the opening post.

-I often wonder, almost in fear of what would happen if we had another event in some form like 9/11...we're forbidden to speak about politics but how could you avoid it in that scenario?
Great thread topic

We talk about the Ukraine thread pretty well. I think we'd be fine.

In hindsight, I should have known talking about the media as I did in the opening post was bound to get political like it did. My mistake.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

I'm afraid to read everything after this but I really liked the opening post.

-I often wonder, almost in fear of what would happen if we had another event in some form like 9/11...we're forbidden to speak about politics but how could you avoid it in that scenario?
Great thread topic

We talk about the Ukraine thread pretty well. I think we'd be fine.

In hindsight, I should have known talking about the media as I did in the opening post was bound to get political like it did. My mistake.

I don't think it was a mistake at all, you offered up what you felt were more middle of the road type news outlets and I never heard of 1440 before this thread so there's that
I was simply saying in the event of inevitable future tragedies, some similar to events we have already experienced together as a group, all of us
We couldn't talk about 9/11 now like we did back in the day when Pickles and I might get into a back and forth, just trying to explain my POV

 

[Uruk-Hai]

In hindsight, I should have known talking about the media as I did in the opening post was bound to get political like it did. My mistake.

You mean you didn't?