Too much News

[Varallo]

What you see as "socially responsible" others may see as more sophisticated propaganda. Most people seem to consider that propaganda is only what others read, what they themselves read is of course the moderate, responsible, accurate report of facts and reality, at most slightly biased. IMO it's important to frequently consider the possibility that one is being subtly led towards certain opinions and viewpoints, and question one's own assumptions that lead to see something as moderate (from what point of reference?) or accurate.

There's the misconception that propaganda implies lies or distortion of facts. The most rudimentary forms may indeed use that, but actually good propaganda relies on a careful selection of topics, adequately timed and framed, without ever lying. I think those methods are most effective, particularly with highly educated people. There are many cognitive biases than can be exploited to distort someone's perception of reality without lies. For example, I often see how availability bias leads many people (and myself, of course I can only see that much later, and surely I've missed many times I've been affected by it) to think of some relatively rare events as much more common than they are, and vice versa. Those that seem more frequent are always events with political implications that are often left unstated in the most sophisticated versions of this technique.

As I see it, reading the news is an entertainment activity in the same category of taking drugs with a high potential of harm (in this case, cognitive hazards). One may do it as long as one is aware of the risk that comes with it, and that it's not a necessary, noble activity or duty in any way. If you abuse it or get used to its effects to the point you lose your grounding in reality, you're then at the mercy of the drug. With the difference the drug is just a molecule with no ends in itself, while the media have their own interests and goals. Also, somehow many people seem to believe that taking the "news drug" is some kind of duty that they must do, instead of risky entertainment. A harm reduction approach would be much more beneficial.

Lastly, it's a good exercise to read a newspaper from a year ago and see how most of the news reported as high priority, momentous events are completely irrelevant now. Often even a weeks old newspaper will be like that. I think reading history and philosophy contributes much more to an accurate understanding of our present than following the news.

Well it’s not me seeing that as “socially responsible” it’s all of them journalists. On a more serious note I don’t think I hold the same definition for propaganda, I think it’s better to see this as consensus media, which is a decentralized mostly normative form. For it to become propaganda it would need to be a centralized effort to manipulate and control the narrative and to take dissident views out of the equation. That’s not what is happening, so far it’s to pluralistic, here in Northern Europe.

 

[blig-blug]

it would need to be a centralized effort to manipulate and control the narrative and to take dissident views out of the equation

I don't think the way in which it's coordinated matters, but its methods and ends. Incentives can and do create alignment without explicit or centralized coordination. Again, an absolutist/dictatorial style of centralized propaganda based on coordinated campaigns of lies is a very rudimentary kind. That wouldn't be very effective in most of Western Europe, and incidentally it's also not necessary, as they are generally societies based on a series of premises that are never questioned. The fish doesn't feel the water.

My view is that all mass media is necessarily propaganda, although not necessarily for the same set of interests, of the same quality, or using the same techniques. It also doesn't mean that nothing can be learned from it, but it's relatively high risk to try to do so. We aren't going to agree here about what is or isn't propaganda, but we'll have more chances to talk about it. Mostly to not derail this thread, many people won't see the news as mainly propaganda so to focus the conversation on it is not a good idea, I think. I just wanted to offer my perspective on it.

A book that has partially influenced my views on this is Propaganda by Jean-Jacques Ellul (original title: "Propagandes"), a very thoughtful book from when modern propaganda was still a relatively new phenomenon. I highly recommend it.

 

[fink]

One thing I'm noticing while following this debate is the obvious differences in news media depending on location.

Before, I would probably have defaulted to thinking whatever 'the news' in my country is like must be the same for everyone.

That is obviously not true. It's so easy to form an opinion subjectively without realising it.

 

[blig-blug]

Before, I would probably have defaulted to thinking whatever 'the news' in my country is like must be the same for everyone.

Also, there is a big difference between "the news" on TV, newspapers (and between those as @Varallo pointed out), and Tiktok/Twitter/similar social media, which may be where most people get their news nowadays (I'm not sure). Most of the news I expose myself to are on newspapers and the radio. I'm not under any illusion that it's particularly healthy, but they are media with much less immediate capacity of triggering strong emotions than anything involving video. The medium matters a lot and, as people like Marshall McLuhan have pointed out, is a message in itself.

 

[fink]

Yes, fully agreed Blig. In my world, newspapers have never been a thing. Growing up and as a young adult I had zero interest in the news. When I was a teenager our father banned TV in our house. Best move ever!

Yet slowly but surely, with the proliferation of social media, the news has found me. Just as you and others describe here.

 

[Varallo]

Also, there is a big difference between "the news" on TV, newspapers (and between those as @Varallo pointed out), and Tiktok/Twitter/similar social media, which may be where most people get their news nowadays (I'm not sure). Most of the news I expose myself to are on newspapers and the radio. I'm not under any illusion that it's particularly healthy, but they are media with much less immediate capacity of triggering strong emotions than anything involving video. The medium matters a lot and, as people like Marshall McLuhan have pointed out, is a message in itself.

Isn’t this somewhat comparable to food and eating habits? We all need food; healthy food is good for you, while junk food isn’t. Overeating is unhealthy and can lead to additional problems.

Personally, I don’t think reading newspapers has any negative impact on my health. On the contrary, it’s something that interests me and stimulates my thinking, which I see as a positive. I’m not sure whether watching TikTok is healthy, I don’t have, and never have had, any social media. The Nexus is the closest thing I’ve used, and that’s been quite positive.

So I think it’s about healthy food in the same way it’s about healthy media, both in reasonable amounts that suit the body.

 

[blig-blug]

Isn’t this somewhat comparable to food and eating habits? We all need food; healthy food is good for you, while junk food isn’t

I think this comparison fails in that news aren't a need at all. Entertainment to some degree may be, but there are many kinds, and in my opinion news are particularly pernicious in that they pretend to be exactly that: a need instead of a diversion or pleasure.

Personally, I don’t think reading newspapers has any negative impact on my health

I obviously can't have a good formed opinion on the impact they may have had in you specifically. But I think it's not likely that you haven't had cognitive hazards such as the availability bias I mentioned before. Maybe not, it's obviously not my place to tell, but it's one of these things where the harm comes from not being aware of it. Cognitive biases to a certain degree are unavoidable, and I think newspapers and other news mass media purposefully exploit them. I don't want to go much down this route though, focusing on a specific person is rarely productive and can lead to ad hominem. And there are always individual exceptions.

An interesting exercise to do: take note of different types of crime or violent events you read about in the newspaper for a few days. Then, come up with a few more types of crime. Try to guess their relative frequency, and then look up actual statistics . You may be surprised at the results, almost everyone I've talked to overestimates certain types (I won't mention specific types because they are hot button issues) and underestimates others in a way that's directly correlated to the frequency they are reported (me included, until I looked it up). If you find out you don't, it's something to be proud about, but it's also rare and not representative, from what I've seen. It's a valuable exercise in any case, it provides a kind of calibration, even if limited to one topic.

I’m not sure whether watching TikTok is healthy, I don’t have, and never have had, any social media

I don't think it is. I had Facebook many years ago and it was quite harmful, to a degree that can't be equaled by any amount of reading newspapers.

So I think it’s about healthy food in the same way it’s about healthy media, both in reasonable amounts that suit the body.

I think it's more similar to drugs. This is being said on the DMT Nexus, so that's not necessarily negative

 

[fink]

Did you guys know that Chinese TikTok is apparently far more full of wholesome content? Crafting, music, art, dance you name it. Where as Western TikTok is a cess pit of idiocy for the most part.

Could be untrue, but I can believe it. Any chinese nexians?


I use only one social platform and (excuse) kind of need it for work contacts. I do not watch TikTok from any country. I could be talking out of my behind.

Forgive me, I keep editing this one. Just to say, either way, if a person relies solely on the internet or social media for news they are going to be over stimulated and mostly lied to.

 

[Varallo]

I think this comparison fails in that news aren't a need at all. Entertainment to some degree may be, but there are many kinds, and in my opinion news are particularly pernicious in that they pretend to be exactly that: a need instead of a diversion or pleasure.

Well that’s a matter of perspective, sure humans don’t need news, but arguably humanity does need news to function in our democratic society, in that sense it’s a civic responsibility.

I obviously can't have a good formed opinion on the impact they may have had in you specifically. But I think it's not likely that you haven't had cognitive hazards such as the availability bias I mentioned before. Maybe not, it's obviously not my place to tell, but it's one of these things where the harm comes from not being aware of it. Cognitive biases to a certain degree are unavoidable, and I think newspapers and other news mass media purposefully exploit them. I don't want to go much down this route though, focusing on a specific person is rarely productive and can lead to ad hominem. And there are always individual exceptions.

I truly value you so don’t worry about the add hominum, in light of the discussion I thought it valuable to share my personal experience. Availability bias itself is not inherently bad, nor is it something that can be eliminated. What matters is being aware that it exists, from there you can consciously adjust how much weight you give those impressions, I know that this is something that might not work for everyone, but it does for me.

An interesting exercise to do: take note of different types of crime or violent events you read about in the newspaper for a few days. Then, come up with a few more types of crime. Try to guess their relative frequency, and then look up actual statistics . You may be surprised at the results, almost everyone I've talked to overestimates certain types (I won't mention specific types because they are hot button issues) and underestimates others in a way that's directly correlated to the frequency they are reported (me included, until I looked it up). If you find out you don't, it's something to be proud about, but it's also rare and not representative, from what I've seen. It's a valuable exercise in any case, it provides a kind of calibration, even if limited to one topic.

Reading about events like this had me already wondering about the statistics from a young age, but I agree that this is something that more people should do.

Did you guys know that Chinese TikTok is absolutely full of wholesome content? Crafting, music, art, dance you name it. Where as Western TikTok is a cess pit of idiocy for the most part.

Yes I read that, very interesting, my first thought was that that must be because of the very strict censoring in china.

 

[fink]

So then broadly, without any need to be political, could there be an argument for that type of censorship?

 

[Panpsychic]

Well that’s a matter of perspective, sure humans don’t need news, but arguably humanity does need news to function in our democratic society, in that sense it’s a civic responsibility.

Having an understanding of how society functions and one's role in it is relevant to civic responsibility. Sometimes a degree of local news and occasionally international news may help contribute to this, but more often than not what is presented as the news on a daily and weekly basis isn't relevant to this.

You did state this earlier

It plays quite a significant role in my daily life. I read several newspapers throughout the day, and on weekends it’s something I genuinely enjoy. During the week, I follow American, British, and local news, and on weekends usually one or two financial papers.

The sense that consuming it is somehow beneficial and 'keeping one informed' on world affairs is part of the feel good factor it generates and common to many, regardless of how accurate that feeling is. I think therefore that framing this as something other than mainly a personal form of entertainment and interest that can be frivolous in its own way would not be accurate.

Many would much rather spend their time absorbed in other activities or deeper reading than mass media and news commonly presents with and don't actively consult even their regional news sources yet can maintain more than sufficient civil contribution and responsibilities. The news as entertainment comparison has never been more clear to me than it is now, with the soap opera and dramas that we see and which are presented often in the form of news and politics.

 

[fink]

I think news is vital to survival. We all rely on some form of news or we would be completely alone.

News is a very broad brush and my mind has already been expanded here seeing how many types of news there are to consider.

Interest and entertainment can be separated. Entertainment may have no purpose but to enjoyably waste time where as interest means learning and expanding, quite the opposites.

 

[Panpsychic]

I think news is vital to survival. We all rely on some form of news or we would be completely alone.

It really depends what is meant by 'news' since it all comes together nowadays. Learning about some outbreak of infectious disease or weather warnings yes; celebrity gossip, the equivalent political dramas or the latest wine reviews not so much.

 

[fink]

Absolutely, that was strongly behind my last post. Many, many definitions of news.

 

[Varallo]

So then broadly, without any need to be political, could there be an argument for that type of censorship?

Well I guess that’s up to the people, there are many arguments for censorship, and also in western countries we actively censor many things already and for good reasons. Recently we see the new laws prohibiting teens from using social media, and in my country we have a special news program that is specifically made for kids. So censorship is all around.

I wouldn’t like to live in a Chinese level censorship world, but that might very well not be true for everyone.

 

[blig-blug]

Well that’s a matter of perspective, sure humans don’t need news, but arguably humanity does need news to function in our democratic society, in that sense it’s a civic responsibility.

Having an understanding of how society functions and one's role in it is relevant to civic responsibility

From a given ideological perspective, yes. I don't share that perspective. However I will agree that our current social organization requires the dissemination of news to function. Why and for what end is a different issue.

If someone really believes that is their duty to follow the news in some capacity from a reasoned perspective, by all means go ahead. But there are many people that only have a nagging feeling that they should because that's what they have heard and been told. I'd encourage those people to consider the possibility that it may not be so. Same for any other supposed duty that one doesn't fully understand or believe in.

 

[Varallo]

From a given ideological perspective, yes. I don't share that perspective. However I will agree that our current social organization requires the dissemination of news to function. Why and for what end is a different issue.

If someone really believes that is their duty to follow the news in some capacity from a reasoned perspective, by all means go ahead. But there are many people that only have a nagging feeling that they should because that's what they have heard and been told. I'd encourage those people to consider the possibility that it may not be so. Same for any other supposed duty that one doesn't fully understand or believe in.

I’m not sure if you agree but I think that from this point on it’s difficult to not dive further into the subject without making it very political, not in a political stance but rather as the role of journalism in arenas of power and the political system that it serves/creates. The Lippmann and Dewey’s are not far away, since we have a no politics rule il leave the discussion at that and suggest we get back to the original questions.

 

[fink]

I'd like to dive a little deeper into what level of stimulation can be meaningfully processed in 24 hours if anyone has more on that.

We all understand integration from our other hobbies. Surely most people will have a limit far lower than constant updates in terms of integrating what happens on this planet.

Is it of any benefit to know what happens globally instantly and constantly?

 

[Icon]

I don't think there's a limit on how much you can process, but emotionally traumatic content like true crime documentaries can leave me pensive for a while.

There's too much happening for anyone to ever be completely informed, so we have to prioritize info we consume and make conclusions based on the limited information we allot time to gather. I think the busy-ness of modern life stresses the amount of free time we have and can commit to information. Hence the evolution of memes and headlines getting prioritized over substance. When people don't have time to investigate everything, they have to put trust in someone to make their conclusions for them.

It seems a little broad to suggest that all news is propaganda or poison. There's a LOT of counter mainstream news these days, which can still get caught up promoting propaganda, but you would never recognize it unless you consume a large variety of media with conflicting opinions. Not consuming any news is probably safer than consuming a limited amount, but if you have no life there's a higher perspective to be gleaned from investigating things from a neutral and open mind, and taking the time to research many sources. That's why I read every side of an issue I can find, to get as close to unbiased information as possible. There's apps these days that do what I do for people without the time; one is called Ground News. It collects all articles on a topic and rates their political bias, so you can see what all sides are saying.

I think that's where the threshold is. When you diminish bias and weigh multiple views, you find patterns that fit an underlying narrative, the real one. Without getting too political I feel like I've become radicalized over the past year by following that strategy of sifting through the chaos for clues of the truth. The truth I've seen is gloomy, even more than the mainstream gloom being cast around in the open. I guess that's a big motivation to read the news, people get a lot more interested when something big or scary happens. I have that interest chronically, like a bigger bad is happening on a longer scale than the 24hr cycle or election cycle.

Playing devil's advocate constantly, I think I have convinced myself of the dangers that drive my perceived need to stay critical of information that is passed around. Reading the news has become as much of a public service, pointing out events in the pattern to other people. Like "Hey, did you realize we're in water, and it's boiling? Look at the bubbles." I know that sounds biased, cuz a lot of people are radicalized these days through tailored news that amplifies their fears and conspiracies. Maybe I am paranoid and susceptible to certain doomsdays. Maybe it's biased to believe that more news consumption could equate to knowing more or knowing better.

Having a minority outlook just gets you outcast from mainstream groups, which pushes independents like myself to be even more critical of information being consumed. Promoting critical consumption of information is good for my political agenda I think it's good to hear the info, judge it's authenticity, and try to understand why it's being told and believed.

 

[fink]

Thanks Icon, that is densely packed write up with a lot of good points. It's hard to know if it's all a big master plan or simply a side effect of chasing profit.

I fear that hearing too much desensitized me a long time ago. The headlines we get almost every day feel much more appropriate as a once in a blue moon story. If I'm told the world is going to end every day, I strangely stop caring. If you only told me it once a decade I would take it much more seriously.

So this leaves some function of news impotent for me. I no longer have the correct response to hearing of imminent danger. It feels so unnatural to be told something that should evoke a strong response and yet evokes almost none.