Does the news even matter anymore?

[distraction tactics]

Headlines on the front page of Yahoo!:

"Explosion on bus in Sri Lanka kills 62"
"Iraq announces info from al-Zarqawi raid"
"Afghan forces launch anti-Taliban push"
"Bush rejects calls for pullout from Iraq"
"Saudi Arabia to build $8B economic city"
"'East of Eden' ranch avoids development"
"WWF gets first image of Borneo wild rhino"

If you saw any of these headlines, would you click the link to read the story? Do you ever care? Reading the opening lines of this thread, did you even actually read those six headlines? Or are there seven?

This morning I watched George Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck, centering on the events of a CBS news team as they butt-heads with Senator McCarthy. Now perhaps it's just clever filmmaking designed to bend our emotions to a cause history has shown obvious, but for that 90 minutes, the media really mattered. It was a veritable war on ideas where the very state of the American republic was on the line. The news meant something! Hell, I wanted to don one of those reporter's hats and go string up some crooked politician threaten my very way of life.

But it got me thinking of this romanticized image of the media, and how it differs in today's age. Whether 50's era media was portrayed accurately in the movie it irrelevent; that today we're bombarded with endless information on every subject under the sun is. I never used to buy into this argument, and indeed, I believe the news is important to our societies... but is it really? Does news actually matter anymore when there is so much of it with such little contextual content?


COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - A powerful land mine ripped through a packed bus in northern Sri Lanka on Thursday, killing at least 62 people in the worst act of violence since a 2002 cease-fire, the army said. Sri Lanka's air force responded by bombing rebel-held areas in the northeast.

A tragedy, to be sure. What's worse is that I know nothing of the previous context, nor did I even bother to read the article to the end, an act that would - at most - take me 60 seconds. I obviously do not care. The plight of a nation on the other side of the world barely piques my interest enough for a single mouse-click.

I'm not sure what to think about that.

Let's bring this idea closer to home. Do the 24-hour news networks broadcast information about society that really matters? Does reading half the editorial page in the newspaper two times a week make me an informed citizen? How about flipping through an entire issue of Maclean's or Newsweek in the time it takes me to complete my business on the throne?

Are there issues out there not so convoluted by a barrage of information that we can actually take a side and work towards a goal we know is 'right'? How about desensitization? I never bought that idea either until I started ignoring reports of terrorist attacks with casualities in the double and triple digits. When Canada itself is finally attacked, who's going to stand up and take notice? Surely not Canadians. Of course there will be moaning, but we'll tune it out as we've tuned out the APEC fiasco, FTAA, softwood lumber, mad cow, Afghanistan and whatever else isn't important enough to my life to come to mind at this moment.

The floor is open.

[charred_heart]

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - A powerful land mine ripped through a packed bus in northern Sri Lanka on Thursday, killing at least 62 people in the worst act of violence since a 2002 cease-fire, the army said. Sri Lanka's air force responded by bombing rebel-held areas in the northeast. A tragedy, to be sure. What's worse is that I know nothing of the previous context, nor did I even bother to read the article to the end, an act that would - at most - take me 60 seconds. I obviously do not care. The plight of a nation on the other side of the world barely piques my interest enough for a single mouse-click.Hello? Afghanistan?

Americans / Canadians...http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/dry.gif

[Architectonic]

Here is a quote from Terry Pratchett's 'The Truth', a scene where Vetinari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havelock_Vetinari) talks to William de Worde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Worde#William_de_Worde) about his newspaper.

Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things . . . well, new things that aren't what they expect. They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don't want to know that a man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that. In short, what people think what they want is news, but what they really crave is olds. I can see you've got the hang of it already.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

You need a worldview first, and a willingness to confront it. You don't get smarter from absorbing facts - especially in biased bulk packaging, you need to structure them and smash them against theories to see if they hold.

[distraction tactics]

Hello? Afghanistan?

Americans / Canadians...http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/dry.gif

What is this supposed to mean?

Sri Lanka is a tiny island south of India and nowhere near Afghanistan.

[charred_heart]

What is this supposed to mean?

Sri Lanka is a tiny island south of India and nowhere near Afghanistan.LOL you can only keep your attention on one small country at a time?

I'm basically saying that your comment on sri lanka would have been directed to Afghanistan 5-6 years ago. Being aware of the world around you is, well, common sense.

[distraction tactics]

LOL you can only keep your attention on one small country at a time?

I'm basically saying that your comment on sri lanka would have been directed to Afghanistan 5-6 years ago. Being aware of the world around you is, well, common sense.

I suppose then I should thank you for summing up the whole of the OP's point.

Your contribution was very enlightening, as always.

[charred_heart]

I suppose then I should thank you for summing up the whole of the OP's point.

Your contribution was very enlightening, as always.I just don't get people who want to go through life as blissfully unaware as a soap opera character :mad:

[KuJo]

i only read science news. otherwise i just read headlines. its boring, i dont want to read some person's opinion of a story. i could go for bullet points that are just hard facts, not speculation on politics.

[charred_heart]

But it got me thinking of this romanticized image of the media, and how it differs in today's age. Whether 50's era media was portrayed accurately in the movie it irrelevent; that today we're bombarded with endless information on every subject under the sun is. I never used to buy into this argument, and indeed, I believe the news is important to our societies... but is it really? Does news actually matter anymore when there is so much of it with such little contextual content? The thing about you is that you don't connect the dots. Here's an example of news with little contextual content:


Israel finishes evacuating Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank in a little over a week, ahead of schedule.
When Israel was evacuating it's settlers from Gaza, I was wondering about the reasons. I started thinking about the most pragmatic one first: Clear the civilians to make way for militiary operations. The othre possibility was that Gaza would be the new Palestine.

Sure enough, a few months later one of the possibilities I considered was realised.

GAZA CITY -- An Israeli air strike on a top Palestinian rocket launcher and his accomplice also killed two children and six other civilians yesterday, inflaming Palestinian anger already aroused over the deaths of Gaza beachgoers.
If you know the history behind the news, you will see events unravelling before you and won't need the aid of a two hour feature film to realize it. That's why it was only the North Americans who were surprised when the Oslo peace agreements fell through. I remember an international relations student at my university telling me that his American professor failed him because he concluded in his essay that the Oslo peace accords will not succeed!

[cafe]

I'd definitely be interested in reading about the rhino.

[LuridLemur]

I saw "Explosion on bus in Sri Lanka kills 62." I didn't read it.



I suppose then I should thank you for summing up the whole of the OP's point.

Your contribution was very enlightening, as always.I just don't get people who want to go through life as blissfully unaware as a soap opera character
I'll probably be in the minority here, advocating ignorance, but what does it matter? If I know what is happening in Afghanistan or Sri Lanka, what good will it do me? Maybe I just don't have the taste for politics, or maybe I'm an idiot, but I focus on what affects me, or what will effect me at some time in the future. A terrorist attack in Sri Lanka most likely will not.

I don't see anything wrong with staying ignorant of most foreign affairs, or even domestic ones. If I don't know, I will do nothing. If I do know, I will still do nothing. Unless you are arguing that my knowledge will kick me into action or reach some other person and inspire them to help/fight for a solution, what is the point?

At the same time I realize that this attitude can really fuck things up in the long run, on a large enough scale. Hmm, I don't know.

[charred_heart]

I saw "Explosion on bus in Sri Lanka kills 62." I didn't read it.


I'll probably be in the minority here, advocating ignorance, but what does it matter? If I know what is happening in Afghanistan or Sri Lanka, what good will it do me? Maybe I just don't have the taste for politics, or maybe I'm an idiot, but I focus on what affects me, or what will effect me at some time in the future. A terrorist attack in Sri Lanka most likely will not.

I don't see anything wrong with staying ignorant of most foreign affairs, or even domestic ones. If I don't know, I will do nothing. If I do know, I will still do nothing. Unless you are arguing that my knowledge will kick me into action or reach some other person and inspire them to help/fight for a solution, what is the point?

At the same time I realize that this attitude can really fuck things up in the long run, on a large enough scale. Hmm, I don't know.I guess it depends on where you grew up. I've always been a foriegner, and travel back to my country for the holidays. I've always seen neighbours and relatives back home as living in a cocoon. They go blank when I tell them about what's happning in Japan or Seneghal or Macedonia.

[distraction tactics]

The thing about you is that you don't connect the dots. Here's an example of news with little contextual content:

Way out of left field. I never connect the dots, in fact, I never see more than just one dot to begin with.


When Israel was evacuating it's settlers from Gaza, I was wondering about the reasons. I started thinking about the most pragmatic one first: Clear the civilians to make way for militiary operations. The othre possibility was that Gaza would be the new Palestine.

Sure enough, a few months later one of the possibilities I considered was realised.

You're the only would who would've guessed that. Everyone else thought that after 60 years of violence the Jews took a page from Gandhi's book. I bet you predicted the invasion of Iraq, too, didn't you?

(I shudder to guess at how your amazing intuition pieces together the future events of natural disasters like the Tsunami - poor, ignorant Americans; we just didn't see that one coming! - an event entirely relevent to the OP but lost on your misdirected blatherings.)


If you know the history behind the news, you will see events unravelling before you and won't need the aid of a two hour feature film to realize it. That's why it was only the North Americans who were surprised when the Oslo peace agreements fell through. I remember an international relations student at my university telling me that his American professor failed him because he concluded in his essay that the Oslo peace accords will not succeed!

Nothing you've said thus far has made any sense in as much as the actual movie is concerned (it's about the media standing up to witch hunts in a historical context), nor the OP which contrasts my emotional response to the film with the presentation of news information in a present day context. You have offered ill-conceived generalities about North Americans on random issues, with no real insight into anything except you think you know more than you actually do.

The difference between you and headfonez is that he's entertaining and you're not.

[charred_heart]

You're the only would who would've guessed that.lol! We live in different worlds my friend. There are probably a bunch of things you are aware of that I wouldn't have the slightest idea about. I have a very vague idea about the inner workings of individual country politics except when it relates to the international community. I was aware that the U.S public's reaction to Goerge W's proposal to invade Iraq was markedly different to the one recieved by Clinton's administration back in 1998 so yeah I saw it as a strong possibility at the time.

[charred_heart]

Way out of left field. I never connect the dots, in fact, I never see more than just one dot to begin with.Okay, so I didn't phrase that very well. What I was trying to say was, you are always looking for value behind any news headline. The trick is to have a general idea of what is going on in the the world's major regions. Keep anything you heard in the news at the back of your mind regardles of it's value, and look out for anything related to it in the future. That way you have a bit of continuity and the news won't seem so random. For example, you might want to find out about the tamil tigers of Sri Lanka, and see wether they have had any activity outside their country. Things like that make you understand a bit how world events occur.

[fripping]

i find that portalofevil.com news spices things up sufficiently to make our worthless media readable

[chander.prb]

it does not matter to me anymore.

if there is some news from my village neighbourhood
i will read it..
(that is something special)
:banana:

[charred_heart]

You need a worldview first, and a willingness to confront it. You don't get smarter from absorbing facts - especially in biased bulk packaging, you need to structure them and smash them against theories to see if they hold.I was trying to say what you said! Very well put.

[charred_heart]

Nothing you've said thus far has made any sense in as much as the actual movie is concerned (it's about the media standing up to witch hunts in a historical context), nor the OP which contrasts my emotional response to the film with the presentation of news information in a present day context. You have offered ill-conceived generalities about North Americans on random issues, with no real insight into anything except you think you know more than you actually do.sorry about that. I just read apathy + news + movies and saw red. The only type of person I hate, and I mean passionately hate, is one who does not wish to see beneath the surface of things. These are the kind of people who wouldn't bat an eye at what goes on in the news but turn into a bawling pile of tears at some cheesy romantic war movie. I'm not saying I thought that about you specifically but the OP had some very similar language to what that kind would say. Something along the lines of 'why aren't the news as interesting as that movie I saw the other day?'

[booyalab]

Now perhaps it's just clever filmmaking designed to bend our emotions to a cause
the end

edit: gee, sounds just like the real news

[distraction tactics]

sorry about that. I just read apathy + news + movies and saw red. The only type of person I hate, and I mean passionately hate, is one who does not wish to see beneath the surface of things. These are the kind of people who wouldn't bat an eye at what goes on in the news but turn into a bawling pile of tears at some cheesy romantic war movie. I'm not saying I thought that about you specifically but the OP had some very similar language to what that kind would say. Something along the lines of 'why aren't the news as interesting as that movie I saw the other day?'

Fair enough, though when I wrote the OP I thought it stood as a clear statement that the characiture of myself as a symbol for Everyone was a tragedy.

George Clooney's media mattered; it changed the world for the better. CNN is something to watch while my coffee brews.

Is one a pipe dream? Is the other a justified target for all that is wrong with Western apathy?

Do issues with a clear cause exist anymore, or do we truly live in a post-modern world?

[LongSilence]

Issues with a clear cause that cannot be criticised have never truly existed. Even something widely accepted as 'right', such as Britain, the US and rest of the Allies stepping into WWII was arguably unjustified in some small ways.

A large issue is whether these things interest you in a detached manner, like an event in history might interest you, or move you in a way that changes your perspective on something (however briefly). For things to move us they have to relate to us in some way. It can be indirectly like feeling for the plight of animals facing extinction simply because the utter extinction of things is something that unsettles us (because we, as a race, wouldn't want to become extinct ourselves). But of course it is usually most moving when we can directly relate to something- i.e. events that will likely affect us and our lives. The West is more wrapped up in Iraq and Afghanistan than it is in Israel, or Africa, or Korea because the recent terrorist attacks (which actually affected a fair few Westerners in a very real way) can find their apparent source or support there.

Most people in the West physically can do very little to change the world around them. Democracy is designed so that individuals cannot have too significant a power over the way a nation is or acts. It inspires widespread apathy simply because we can't Know everything we need to know on all issues in order to be able to make an informed opinion. There are politicians who are supposed to be able to do it better than us on virtue of having years of experience, learning and maybe some natural talent. Anyone else who wants to have influence must do so in an alternative way ath goes against the established system.

Basically, the media nowadays caters to what it sees as the majority and the majority apparently supports the current governments until their terms are up. If anyone disagrees with that- they don't have many options other than the official channels of power or... revolution. It's funny that politicians can get away with making decisions that have far-reaching effects on the rest of the world but as soon as they get up to something that people can relate to in their own lives (i.e. deviant sex) they often get the chop pretty darn quickly.

[Limey]

Apathy Kills (http://www.videosift.com/video/Trent-Reznor-Warning)

[Archvile]

Apathy Kills (http://www.videosift.com/video/Trent-Reznor-Warning)


I have a very hard time believing that Trent Reznor had anything to do with the video.

And I'll have to agree with that.
.

[Limey]

And I'll have to agree with that.
.

Right, they just used the track:
"ArtofMentalWarfare.com presents The Warning, a politically powerful new music video featuring Grammy Award-winning artist Trent Reznor. The Warning takes on the covert interests behind the war and our media saturated society. From war crimes to the destruction of the environment and a celebrity-obsessed culture, The Warning is a clarion call to action for an apathetic nation."

(I can appreciate all that)
http://artofmentalwarfare.com/pog/category/excerpts/

[Lethal Sage]

Our current news system is extremely inefficient and specifically annoying. Why does learning about new developments have to be so painful? When I read the news, I never know what I'm getting. I'm becoming increasingly skeptical while I find myself thinking, "This source should be clean." I feel like I've bought losing lotto tickets each time I glance at a story. And when I'm finished..I...I find myself wondering what happens to lost news-time. I've been crying more each night. I can't sleep. I want to know! Instead, I watch myself in a dejected state, putting on a porno and eating comfort foods, and the world, well, it's a'ight for a while..until tomorrow..the news, it comes again. It makes me feel dirty..and...and mostly, anxious.

[amazingkae]

I know I can't watch the news at night or I can't sleep--and if I do, I have bad dreams. I have no idea what that means or if it is on topic, but I have to put blinders on intentionally occasionally in order to keep psychologically functioning without my brain imploding.

[Limey]

Here's another one of those news stories from far away that you might not give another thought, but I thought was highly unusual since it's UK related.

"Jellyfish Swarms" and "Scotland" aren't words you hear together in late November, especially with this one having just wiped out the only Salmon Farm in N.I. (no small farm).

Dr fucking Evil - it's genius - Angry seabass would be too obvious. He's using juxtaposed jellyfish.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071123/sc_nm/britain_jellyfish_dc_2

I think I'm in a Ben Elton book lately - the end is nigh...