Do you even pay attention to the news anymore?

Question

I honestly dont; cut down on a lot of stress; think it is mostly B.S., mindless diversion and propaganda for whatever is in power; maybe i will gaze at the headlines on the net- that is about it; if it is truly important, i will hear it from somewhere or someone else

you?

Answer 1

I listen, read and watch a lot of news media.
What I don't do is buy into the urgency that they try to sell us.

After having been a part of broadcast news for two decades (and I'm glad I'm out), I know enough to say that most of the crap that gets published is only part of the story and usually has a bias (be it right or left) built into the report.

So, I just follow that old saying: trust half of what you see and none of what you read.

Answer 2

Sure I "pay attention" to the news. But there's an option between being a mindless sponge on the one hand, and an equally mindless block of cynical granite on the other. It's called being a critical thinker. To lower this a few notches, compare it to reading movie reviews. I don't blindly go to whatever the critics and reviewers say is a great movie. Neither do I necessarily avoid one they say is bad. But I do give a critical reading to what they say, and then I make my choices. (For instance, if a movie is criticized for being slow because the plot is intricate and the character development and diaglogue are such a big part of what the movie is about--in other words, "too little" gratuitious sex and too few explosions--my interest actually goes up rather than down.)

Similarly, I watch, read, and listen to the news from a variety of sources. Then I think about it, question it, look for differing viewpoints, and discuss it with knowledgeable friends who may or may not agree with my assessments. Why do I do this? Because I know the political, business, military, religious, etc., establishments are counting on Americans NOT to do this. They are hoping that we don't care enough to try to be informed, that we won't ask critical questions, and that above all, we won't remember the past.

Sadly, for the most part they are right in their assumptions. They know that Americans love to blame the messenger (the media) and are willing to attribute all sorts of biases or even conspiracies to them. They love that about us, because they realize that as long as we are preoccupied with blaming the media, we won't trace the source of the events that affect our lives back to them.

The obvious example now is the war in Iraq. We were told that it would last only a couple of weeks, that we would be greeted as liberators, and that it would cost only 1.5 billion dollars, to be paid by oil revenues. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I remember one member one of the U.N. weapons inspectors appearing on O'Reilly's show before the invasion. He warned that there were no signs of weapons of mass destruction yet. Specifically, he asserted that the aluminum tubes everyone in the administration was pointing to as evidence of a nuclear capacity weren't significant; they simply weren't capable of doing the job. Bill just shook his head knowingly (one of the things I love about Bill is what an expert he is in just about every field of knowledge, no matter what the credentials are of the experts he has on his show) and saying, "I think you're dead wrong, and I'll have you back on the show when this all gets figured out." I never saw the folllowup show, if there was one, but I remember at the time filing that debate in the back of my mind. I was still trusting the likes of Colin Powell, at least, not to lead us astray. So going into the war, I was wary but mildly supportive. I honestly was shocked when we found nothing resembling a serious WMD. I watched on a daily basis as the troops would discover a suspicious looking truck in the middle of the desert, don their special protective gear, and the administration would be saying HERE'S the proof you've been looking for. And it never came to anything.

So then I noticed that our purpose in Iraq changed to the need for "regime change." We change the regime and were met with bullets, not flowers. The media, yes, showed the picture of Saddam's statue being pulled down. But eventually someone showed the larger picture of that scene: there were actually very few Iraqis involved; there were many more across the street staring in amazement at this useless effort being stage for the cameras.

As we look to the near future, we had better be informed. I myself have two draft age boys. From following the news, I have come to believe, based on statements by serious military experts, that our troop strength is dangerously thin. I can also tell that the Bush administration now realizes that it must respond at least to some extent to public pressure. It will help if that pressure is informed.

Answer 3

I came away from 9/11 with a News compulsion.
I haven't missed a day of at least scanning the News from the internet, newspaper, news magazines, and TV since.

I'm a better and more informed person for it.

Answer 4

Yes I do otherwhise I would be a bit the sclaves in the cave in the Plato paraboll. Off course people with a different aproach than me in the subject are necessarily at fault. Pephaps I am who go it wrong

Answer 5

The news is a great substitute for an LSD trip. It has the same alternate non-reality but without the expense of the chemicals. Of course using your TV requires you to buy those phony carbon credits, but using LSD probably does also.

Answer 6

Yes.If there is something important.I mean you can miss something important if you don't pay attention like tornado warning or something.I thing most of the people do pay attention to the news.AND so shoud YOU!!!

Answer 7

Like Rush said...
Generally speaking America is....
33% Liberal
33% Conservative
33% Totally Clueless

Answer 8

I pay more attention to my Local news then I do to the National news.