1

Nice post. I disagree slightly with what the purpose of news is, though. But you will have to read my blog to find out what I disagree with.

2

I think this is a very interesting way of looking at things. I think it's evident that our news industry is incapable of ever saying, "Nothing much happened today." They have to find something to report, even if it is trivial and worthless.

I hadn't read all of the "blogger only news diet" story so I didnt get to the part about the stuff he missed. I find it interesting that the stuff mentioned is stuff I didn't hear about either and I've always thought of myself as a news addict.

3

Good thoughts. I don't watch the news or read the paper either! I did watch it this last week though, as I wanted to hear all of the Reagan stories and old interviews. And I kept telling my husband how annoyed I felt during the actual news hour because first of all, I had already heard all of the important news online somewhere, and secondly because the blatant left slant that I was now hearing it through was very irritating.

4

While I don't read hard copies, I read select news stories on the web. There is a deep ideological divide between the way reporters frame stories and what I believe. Reports and surveys from Pew (People and the Press) show that many Americans believe the media is biased, and if people are honest with themselves, they have no difficulty discerning that the bias is toward the left.

I read a sampling of stories from liberal and conservative newspapers, and I think it gives me a more balance and accurate view of what's going on.

Most of what's in newspapers is sensationalism. Just like 24-hour cable news shows, they have to create a sense of urgency in their stories. I don't like hype.

5

I read the newspaper every day from front to back. Much of it is boring, and I have to skim. Much of it is infuriating, and I have to fume. But when I'm finished, I'm somewhat more informed and prepared to make decisions and defend or attack positions. Even useless knowledge does nothing to undermine one's intelligence. I like to know what I'm talking about, and newspapers and T.V. news are a couple of my sources.
I agree with La Shawn Barber that it is important to discern bias and seek balance in one's sources.

6

Rob,

But when I'm finished, I'm somewhat more informed and prepared to make decisions and defend or attack positions. Even useless knowledge does nothing to undermine one's intelligence.

Possibly, though I would tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson who said, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

7

Hmmm. I like Bush, I'm not certain that I support him, except when compared with the other major candidate.

Remember that W. graduated with honors, and Gore flunked seminary and law school.

8

ignorance is bliss...

9

Daniel Radcliffe said Harry Potter might die, not will die -- big difference there, in meaning. Of course, it's also the small kind of difference that MAKES a story, or not. (I love HP, and just finished HP 4, again, in Slovak; ready for HP 5 just as movie HP 3 comes out.)

I have long called news "infotainment", because junkies (like me) are really entertained by it, more than informed.

Blogging helps junkies have a reason to react to news -- and I find myself drawn more to blogs with comments (like here!). Most news causes NO decision. With blogging, news causes a decision: comment on it, or not.

The commenting, I hope, will begin to strengthen ideas of a wisdom like structure; or question them. In theory, transcendental questions are most important. In practice, watching Iraq & Bush-hate is more immediately interesting, and absorbing. I'm clearly not yet balanced on these issues, and spend / waste too much time on them.

10

It would certainly be liberating in a way to turn off the news and just toss the paper into the recycling bin when the wife is done with the crossword - but I have to admit I am addicted to it as entertainment.

We have the advantage of being able to have the Washington Times delivered each morning, and we have Fox News, so we are luckier than many I think. But I gave up on any semblance of objectivity in the mainstream media very long ago, I think it was during the 1988 presidential campaign when it hit me: "These guys are all full of it!"

Since then, I absorb all "news" with an eye to discerning the angle, sort of in the spirit of Roland Barthes or Levi-Strauss trying to get at the ideology behind the myth. It's alternately amusing and aggravating to read the Wa Post or NY Times, but it does give you a picture of the reality that many people are living in, and there is some value to that in the sense of understanding the social world.

Although I will say my constitution is not strong enough to stomach Rather, Jennings, et. al. for very long, or (heaven forfend) the unabashed lefties like Eleanor Clift and so many others on the talk shows. Life is too short so I do draw the line there.

11

So if you don't get your news from TV, radio, or print, where do you get your news? Most internet news sources are just repackaging one of the above sources, and most of the others have questionable credibility at best.

You're certainly not arguing that it's better to be totally uninformed...?

12

I especially like the fact that you mentioned filtering evertyhing through a Christian worldview. It singlehandedly makes the "news" look much less important somehow.

13

It seems to me this is simply mistaking what "news" is. Of course the daily newspapers are infected with "dailyness" - that's their purpose. Criticizing them for this seems to me to be rather absurdly missing the point. And, of course, they aren't capable of giving a long-term perspective on immediate events because that perspective isn't available while the events are still taking place. News stories are new - that's what makes them news.

It is true that the much of "the news" is gaspingly trivial, and that the news could do a better job of contextualizing and analyzing. But that process is hampered, in part, by the corporate profit imperative (the reason the news is filled with such vapid crap is that people read it), and in part by the pressure of the daily deadline. And that deadline is an integral part of the dailyness of a daily product.

Analyzing at length takes time and resources dailies can't have. That's what weeklies, monthlies, and books are for. Daily news presents whatever's interesting in the past 24 hours; that's its point and purpose. It's too bad that so much of what appears to be interesting to much of the public is so trivial, but that's the fault of the public, not the news. And it's never the case that nothing interesting has happened, even if it's often the case that nothing important happened. That's why the news never reports that "nothing much happened today" - it's not true. That's also why a day with silly pop-culture headlines is called a "slow news day," but not a "no-news day." The news for any given day just is what it is; the papers' job is to report it, not refuse to report it if they don't think it's vital enough. The challenge is to get value out of the news, not rail at the newspapers because what happened yesterday isn't interesting to you.

As for the preferred source of information, the real question is whether the mainstream media are more valuable than blogs for getting basic information about relevant events. At first glance the answer seems obviously to be "yes." Why so? Because that's the information that you're reading in the blogs!

With a few exceptions (and not all of them good), what you read in the blogs is simply mainstream news rehashed (or plagiarized). The advantage to reading the original stories is that they're more complete, written by people who have some experience in handling news stories, edited by even more experienced people, and aiming mostly to convey the information they contain, rather than document whatever idiosyncratic point the blogger is making. Consider how often you click through a blog story to the original article, and you've answered your own question whether you prefer straight news to blog digests. (Alternatively, ask yourself how often you say, when reading a straight news story, "This is interesting, but I really wish some hack blogger with an axe to grind had misquoted three paragraphs for me so I wouldn't have to read the whole thing," and you've answered the same question in a different way.)

There are advantages to blogs, of course: you can get a lot of news quickly by reading blogs whose editorial focus matches your interests; bloggers often link news stories to related stories in ways that newspapers do not; bloggers comment on stories in ways that may (or . . . not) add the kind of context and analysis that we wish for in straight news. So, perhaps the advantage of straight news ("where news bloggers get their news!") over blogs is not quite as clear-cut as it seems at first. But, with the blogs you get a lot of drudge . . . er, dross . . . as well.

In the end, I prefer depth of content to editorialization, which is why I prefer the original stories to bloggers' digests of them. But I also use blogs as a primary news-collecting tool. I almost never read a printed newspaper anymore, and use my online NY Times and WaPost subscriptions only piecemeal - I get my breadth of coverage from blogs, but then click through to the original stories for depth of detail. But this again only underscores the importance of news from professional news sources. I think it's great that bloggers link to so many interesting stories, but almost every one of those stories is in the mainstream media; I would hate to rely on bloggers for straight factual coverage of ordinary news events, even if they had the resources to do so.

Finally, why is there a "dailyness" ethos in the first place? Why not just publish all news in weekly format and cut out the junk? Aside from the question of public demand, I would argue that there is value in the emphasis on ephemeral events. It's true that most of what appears in a given daily newspaper has very limited salience, but it is important during that limited period. We don't live in history books, where entire sweeps of time consist only of a few names and a famine or a war or two. Great events are the exception to history, not the rule - which is to say they are the exception to life. Real life is the endless rush of tiny events that will not be remembered, in lives that will not be celebrated. But in those moments, each new day of those lives, there are events of momentary interest and daily relevance. The news tells us what's going on in our world that matters to us - we who live in that world. It doesn't tell us what's going on that will matter to people who live a hundred years after us - not only because it can't, but because it shouldn't. The purpose of news is to stand athwart history shouting "Hey!, lookee here!" If generations a hundred years from now want to know what are the one or two things worth remembering about this time, let 'em write their own damn histories - we're too busy living our presents, and we have a right to take interest in them.

In the end, your complaints seem largely to be that the news isn't serving the interests of your conservative inclinations. Well, why should it? If you're telling us we aren't entitled to our fascinations, indulgences, entertainments, and the ongoing events that affect us right now (whether they will affect anything observable a hundred years from now), then you can hardly expect us to agree. Conservatives may like to pretend to the long view (really it's just squeamishness about the world as it is - cf. Aschroft's boob-shield draperies), but, in the long run we're all dead, and, more importantly, we now living aren't required to give up our own interests and ambitions in order to further the conservative project of quashing them. If conservatives object to the dailyness of daily news because it threatens their chances of turning back the clock, that would certainly explain their affinity for ignorance, but it hardly gives anyone else a reason to agree with them.

14

(Joe, you need to change "disklike" to dislike)

15

Keith,

You just spent 1190 words (more than the original post!) reiterating my point that what is considered news is mainly trivial nonsense.

… (the reason the news is filled with such vapid crap is that people read it),…

The purpose of news is to stand athwart history shouting "Hey!, lookee here!"

If you're telling us we aren't entitled to our fascinations, indulgences, entertainments,
and the ongoing events that affect us right now (whether they will affect anything observable a hundred years from now), then you can hardly expect us to agree.

I didn’t say that the news should be taken away from anyone. Whether you want to read the newspaper or watch reruns of “Joe Millionaire” is none of my concern. Too often, though, people who should know better imply that those who aren’t concerned with the detritus of politics and Hollywood culture are somehow “less informed.” That’s simply nonsense.

16

Hey Mike,

Thanks for catching that. I finished the post at 2 am and didn't proof it carefully. I should have caught that this morning.

17

"In the end, your complaints seem largely to be that the news isn't serving the interests of your conservative inclinations. Well, why should it?"

Uh, no, he's complaining that the mainstream news is, to a great extent, crap... try watching Fox or MSNBC for a few hours sometime... it'll turn your brain off...

"If you're telling us we aren't entitled to our fascinations, indulgences, entertainments, and the ongoing events that affect us right now (whether they will affect anything observable a hundred years from now), then you can hardly expect us to agree."

He didn't say you weren't entitled, he said it wasn't very beneficial...

"conservatives may like to pretend to the long view (really it's just squeamishness about the world as it is - cf. Aschroft's boob-shield draperies), "

Um, you do watch the news too much, this was basically an urban myth-Reno did the same thing... was she "squeamish"? By the way, even if this was true, what does it prove? I can say
"liberalism's really all about having sex with twenty year olds - cf. Clinton and Kennedy's scandals." Anecdotal evidence proves pretty much nothing.

"but, in the long run we're all dead,"

Well, Christians would disagree with this, obviously... that's the whole point of the post... you may disagree, but this is the "evangelical outpost"... it tends to be Christian..

"and, more importantly, we now living aren't required to give up our own interests and ambitions in order to further the conservative project of quashing them."

That's a little random... are you sure you read the post, or do you just cut and paste this on random conservative websites?

"If conservatives object to the dailyness of daily news because it threatens their chances of turning back the clock, that would certainly explain their affinity for ignorance, but it hardly gives anyone else a reason to agree with them."

Wow-you like sterotypes and strawmen a lot. You really must practice what you preach, and watch a lot of network and cable news...

18

I get my news either from people actually making the news (our soldiers in Iraq) or from blogs. The only news I catch is my local news and that is half-decent.

19

BTW, what do ya'll think are the best blog news, as far as substance goes?

20

The slant is heavily liberal, but when Josh Marshall writes something (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) it's worth reading.

But most of the blogs I read (and write) are pretty much schlock. :)

21

tgirsh,

But most of the blogs I read (and write) are pretty much schlock. :)

Ouch. ; ^)

22

When I was 15 I felt like the world was a terrible place and hated life in general. I stopped watching the TV news and reading the paper. Coincidentally my depression went away....

23

I suppose I'm one of the few conservatives anymore who loves the newspaper. Only with a newspaper can you walk into a coffee shop or restaurant with a pen, read everything worth reading, do the NYT crossword and the cryptoquip (in pen, I don't mind telling you) and be out a grand total of 50 cents.

I love my newspaper. It's too liberal in places, I rarely read the entertainment section, and for half of the editorials I know exactly what will be said by looking at the name and the title. But it's the best fifty cents you can spend. Need new furniture? Need a new job? Car? Apartment? House? Stock quotes? Weather reports? All ya need is two quarters and fifteen minutes. I love the 'Net, but you'll have to pull my Register from my cold, dead hands.

24

"Only with a newspaper can you walk into a coffee shop or restaurant with a pen, read everything worth reading, do the NYT crossword and the cryptoquip (in pen, I don't mind telling you) and be out a grand total of 50 cents."

You da MAN, Kevin!

"All ya need is two quarters and fifteen minutes."

I really hope the above only refers to apartment hunting and the like. Fifteen minutes on the NYT crossword would make this English teacher quiver with excitement. My wife and I usually team up and knock it out in 20 or 25.

25

Or give up. I have to be honest here. I also use a pen, for visibility, but it erasable ink. ;-)

26

I believe C.S. Lewis once said that if you have to read the newspaper, you should at least read a bit of Tolkien afterwards as a mouthwash.

27

Um, yeah. To be honest, I've yet to finish the NYT crossword--there are always about a dozen or so vacant squares.

And, I need at least 45 minutes.

28

I really like the interaction of blogs with the regular news. I think it is similar to the idea of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. In this case the elephant is the standard news story and the blogs are the blind men each describing it from their point of view. By reading not only the original story, but the blogs as well, I can get a more complete perspective on the original story.

29

For Iraq, it seems most news is ONLY interested in that elephant hole under the tail, and the big doo doo patties.

Similarly on Josh, for example, too biased for me.
He quotes a nice passage from JF Kennedy on being a president who is Catholic. Who will make decisions "in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate."

And then Josh sort of criticizes Bush for talking with Bishops who might deny Kerry communion because Kerry publicly votes, always, in favor of abortion (all without being so clear), snidely ending "not imposing his personal views as public policy."

The title being what a difference 45 years makes. Yep, I think then most Catholic sins were recognized as bad enough to be illegal; with fetus killing being different than condom birth control.

The justices of Roe did, in fact, impose their personal views as public policy.

And a reason to read news, or blogs, is to remind myself both what I believe, and why -- and to try to write it up.