Do you see the news? Do you think it is a waste of time?

[tsuwal]

Now that I think about it, I haven't seen the news for like 6 months, they are just too boring. Before that, I only saw the news summary at the opening of the newscast.

I wish there could be a place you could read the news of one month in half an hour or less, a super news summary..

 

[leroyjenkens]

Whenever I visit wikipedia, I look on the right side under "in the news". If it's not there, then it's probably not big enough news for me and I don't care. If it's interesting, I can immediately click on it and read more. Watching the news on TV is for the birds as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cristo]

I don't watch the news on tv, but I visit the BBC news website probably a couple of times a day.

I wish there could be a place you could read the news of one month in half an hour or less, a super news summary..

If it's a summary of the month's news, it's old and not really news anymore!

 

[zoobyshoe]

When I was younger I was addicted to the news. Couldn't start the day without a paper. Then there was some kind of chaotic flip, and I couldn't be bothered.

I find that whenever something important happens, someone will tell you almost instantly. Sept. 11, 2001, someone banged on my door and asked if I was watching what was happening in NY, so, like most people in the country, I was already watching the first tower burn when the second got hit. Big, important things will not escape your notice. You can more or less ignore the daily news.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I find it hard to watch current events type news these days from US stations. Everything is so overtly biased and people vilify political opponents like pathetic children. It is quite infuriating so I just don't watch it - it's too bad I wasn't born when Walter Cronkite was in his prime. I do watch the daily show and the colbert report though; both shows are comedy gold mines.

 

[Evo]

I sometimes catch the news if the've advertsie something interesting that I hadn't seen online, and when bad weather is predicted. The local tv forecast is much more accurate than online, the local guy actually looks outside before he swears it's raining.

 

[tsuwal]

Whenever I visit wikipedia, I look on the right side under "in the news". If it's not there, then it's probably not big enough news for me and I don't care. If it's interesting, I can immediately click on it and read more. Watching the news on TV is for the birds as far as I'm concerned.

those wikipedia news sure are a good summary, thanks!

 

[wukunlin]

i watch the news because everything else on free TV here is pure garbage

 

[Ceindrex]

I don't watch the news anymore because I don't have a TV where I am currently living. If I do I tend to ignore the politics part because most of it are opinions and not much statistics.

 

[Julio R]

I get my news mostly from the current events subforum here. News stations are full of bias.

 

[ImaLooser]

I grew up in the Viet Nam era. From the instant I first became aware of the news I thought that it was all lies. Many others thought so too, and it was politely called the "credibility gap." We were later proven correct.

So I have hardly ever watched the news. Recently I've had a look at the New York Times and was shocked at the crude obviousness of its bias. It's readers are biased, and if the Times does not reflect their views then they will take their money elsewhere.

News is a for-profit business, with an agenda to get the viewer to think as the owner of the news medium wishes for him to think. This I don't need. I must say it is very effective. One man can influence the minds of millions to believe ill-founded arguments. Money is more powerful than logic.

Things have improved greatly today since news from overseas is so readily available. What I want is a news service who has no horse in that particular race. I like Wikileaks. It has an pro-truth anti-wrongdoing bias. That kind of bias I can live with. There have nothing to sell but integrity. This is the only investigative journalism we have left. A for-profit newspaper will rarely do serious investigative journalism, because it loses money. The media will not investigate an advertiser. Even when no advertising revenue is lost there can still be big costs. When Time Magazine made an expose of Scientology they paid 8 million dollars in legal fees defending themselves in court. Time didn't get that money back.

"The Eagle's Shadow" by reporter Mark HertsGaard wasn't a good book on the whole, but it had a few very revealing paragraphs. His editor wouldn't print an article making fun a contest run by MacDonalds because "it makes fun of the capitalist system, and you can't do that." They wouldn't print an article about fuel economy because it would offend both sellers and buyers of SUVs. If such mild stuff can't see print, you can imagine what happens to serious reportage.