Log in

entries friends calendar profile Goode Trouble Previous Previous Next Next
Daily news, hourly news, online realtime news: really? - I Am My Avatar
Big Warm Fuzzy Public Heart
Daily news, hourly news, online realtime news: really?
Proposition for debate:

"A decent weekly source of news is as good as daily as far as the individual citizen is concerned, because in a republic we delegate decisions to others, and we are basically making up our minds who to lobby or vote for. Realtime immediacy is not required, except for safety concerns."



4 comments or Leave a comment
ms_violet From: ms_violet Date: January 7th, 2014 03:25 am (UTC) (Link)
So... "Weekly" vs. "Real time?" No middle ground?
waider From: waider Date: January 7th, 2014 08:56 am (UTC) (Link)
Looking at The Guardian (I think; all my news sources are blended together by some custom software, and I frequently fail to take note of who's writing what) yesterday cautioning on being taken in by spoof news; specifically with respect to the much-trumpeted story that the recently deposed uncle in North Korea had been fed to some dogs as a means of execution. This much was conveyed in the article headline; I didn't read the rest, merely thinking to myself, "well, yes, all well and good telling me not to be taken in, but shouldn't news organisations do a bit of prescreening first? Otherwise, what service are they actually providing over reading twitter or its ilk as "news"?"

I've seen a couple of similar instances of this on my news feeds recently, and disappointingly the sources I'd once considered somewhat reliable - the BBC and The Irish Times, to name but two - seem to have opted instead for publish-first-ask-later link bait more and more and it's beginning to seem like I should just resort to something more thoughtful and less frequently updated.

I'd challenge your reasons while supporting your general stance. Realtime news serves, in general, to keep you appraised of lurid, poorly-informed versions of uninvolved peoples' views of a situation they don't understand, in pursuit of the most viewers. Reducing realtime to daily would damp down these at least somewhat, but you'd still get a dose of Lurid Story Of The Day or The Two Minute Outrage or whatever. This sort of stuff has a tendency to engage my (and possibly everyone's) fight-or-flight response, in as much as I get indignant with the stupidity on the surface, but somewhere my subconscious is storing details to subject me to low-grade fear that I might somehow suffer the same fate as whatever or whoever is being reported on. And cutting the amount of fight-or-flight I'm exposed to, especially needlessly, is IMHO a good thing regardless of whether I live in a republic or not.
waider From: waider Date: January 7th, 2014 12:01 pm (UTC) (Link)
Of course, then I'd miss gems like this.
wisedonkey From: wisedonkey Date: January 7th, 2014 06:57 pm (UTC) (Link)

I mostly agree

A constant stream of information about events outside of your control will cause stress for no good reason. Furthermore, news takes time to develop. Breaking news is usually wrong. Eye witness reports are unreliable. If you want to be outraged, watch the 24 hour cable news channels. A picture is worth a thousand words, but video news is rarely worth it.
4 comments or Leave a comment