I recall a time when I got all the news I needed from the sports pages of the Milwaukee Journal. But when I had to learn how to survive winter nights, I started checking out the weather report. I didn’t pay much attention to the other news, although I was vaguely aware of that something was going on once I hit my teens; after all, there was this thing called Watergate. I recall that before the 1972 presidential election, a couple of teachers at the Catholic school decided to hold an election in which the students in the upper classes would participate. The teachers involved in this project certainly made their preference known—George McGovern; “Tricky Dick” was just a crook and corrupt.
When the ballots were counted, the “surprise” winner was Nixon by a slim 35-33 margin, which was admittedly a lot closer than the real election, but if it was a battle between the influence of the parents or the teachers on how to “interpret” the news, the parents apparently “won.”
Of course when kids grow into adulthood, their views in the workaday world tend to “mature," depending on their level of “empathy” for people other than those within their own “group,” their attitudes about personal “responsibility,” what political party is behaving more maturely and responsibly, who they blame more for their “problems,” or simply whatever mood they are in.
For me, I suspect that my political views were influenced on a subconscious level by what political philosophy I most closely identified my family with, and having identified that, went in the opposite direction, away from the philosophy of pain and oppression. And frankly, I don’t think my “instincts” were wrong. I refuse to live in a world of “illusion”; I know what I see.
Before the Internet and cable, the principle sources of news was print, television news programing and radio. The radio was the closest thing to a 24-hour news source; on most radio stations there was the “breaking news” report on top of every hour, followed by the local weather report. Then came cable news (first CNN, then ESPN), and more recently major news outlets going “digital,” social media and “influencers” with their own programming, particularly on YouTube.
Nielsen Ratings show that the morning and evening network news programs still have a higher number of eyeballs than even Fox News, but the question is just how “hard core” are those viewers, and Fox News viewers certainly watch it because they are “true believers.” Couch potato older viewers with nothing better to do also seem to be more susceptible to Fox’s “message.” Although this graphic is in regard to the generality, its numbers likely underestimate the levels given for Fox News viewers; it shows that 77 percent of those 65+ who watch news programming do it for the “news,” while only 19 percent do so as “entertainment,” and just 5 percent as “background noise”—compared to the 18-34 age group, of which 35 percent leave it on even if they are not actually watching it:
I receive almost all of my news from the Internet; when I fire-up my new 13th gen Intel laptop with a 1 TB SSD (only a “refresh” over the 12th gen processor with slightly higher clock speeds, but still seemingly slower than the 11th gen with Optane memory), I check the left corner pop-up for the latest news from MSN. On my phone, I get “updates” on latest musings of those YouTube “influencers.”
Still, Paul Farhi in the Washington Post noted that for now, even the relatively “low” rated CNN is making a profit because most of its income is based on cable licensing fees, not advertisers; however he warns that “someday” cable subscriptions will lose enough ground to online streaming services and digital news outlets that cable companies will be forced to cut costs, and that will include fees paid to channels that rely on it for the majority of their business.
Usually I am only interested in the "news" when I have something to say about something I just read, or has been bothering me for some time, and when I do the investigating, and it’s done on the Internet, which likely what most everybody does nowadays, although there are those who still do it the old fashioned way, actually interviewing people themselves. This is why some of these social media "influencers" have more credibility than stans who think their "opinions" constitute "fact."
Of course I go in with a “philosophy” already established; after all, nothing really changes, the players always play the same game, nothing that you don’t already know. Perhaps it is just that some people just don’t seem to “learn” anything, and from my perspective it is mainly those on the right. Of course having been used to be being beat on (literally and figuratively), I can “crossover” and join people who I disagree with politically on certain causes. The Johnny Depp case, for example; Depp is a liberal who has gotten himself into trouble with some of the things he has said about Donald Trump, but that can be overlooked by those on the other side of spectrum when there are bigger issues at stake than merely political ones.
Another issue concerning the news is what level of trust do people have in it. I never really questioned what I saw or read until Fox News and "woke" and "cancel culture" extremism started taking over (and let's be honest about this: whatever "woke" used to mean, now it is an excuse to defend all kinds of hypocritical, self-serving nonsense). According to a YouGov poll this year, the Weather Channel of all things was the most “trusted” news source, with a 53 point gap between those who found it “trustworthy” as opposed to “untrustworthy.” Among Republicans, it was the only other news source outside of Fox News that a majority of them “trusted.” On a national level, PBS, the BBC and the Wall Street Journal has a significantly higher “trust” level than, say, CNN, which is apparently the most “polarizing” news outlet. There is a 55 percent gap between Democrats and Republicans on its “trustworthiness”; the New York Times comes in a close second, with a 49 percent gap.
The YouGov poll suggests that Democrats are far more trusting of mainstream outlets outside of those identified as right-wing than Republicans, although not all Republicans apparently believe everything they see on non-Fox outlets like Breitbart, Newsmax and One America News, ranging from 25 to 41 percent “trust” in those outlets.
Do I trust the information I find on the Internet, especially outside the major news outlets? It depends if what I am reading I agree with; there are even stories from Fox News I find useful if it supports a view I am taking, or is the only major media outlet reporting something that the “mainstream media” purposely ignores, especially on certain cases (Depp, Marilyn Manson) that don’t follow the correct “narrative.”
More usually I am on the “left” of an argument, and I don't necessarily think supporting victims of false accusations which are maintained by a political agenda uninterested in the evidence, should be a "right-wing" issue, but one we all should be concerned about. and the fact is the “facts” generally support the interpretation I believe; still, it is better to at least supply a quote from some “outside" source since it makes your argument seem more credible.
But do people really want “unbiased” news anyways? CNN apparently is seeking to expand its “audience” by going back to the “old days” when after you got the “straight” news, and you had discussions between left and right-leaning commentators back when “liberal” and “conservative” were not necessarily dirty words, but one that could launch civil debates on the issues. There was Evans & Novak, and Hunt & Shields. You don’t have those discussions anymore, since civil debate went out of style once extremist politicians like Newt Gingrich began to re-interpret “conservative” political philosophy and debate into something other than gentile disagreement on issues, and into divisive partisanship where crushing the opponent was the only meaningful path to “victory.”
So what is CNN doing now? Well we saw what it was trying to do when it invited Trump to a “town hall” meeting, which didn’t go down well with CNN employees or with those the gimmick was supposed to attract. Although there was some uptick in viewership, it didn’t help make CNN any more “trustworthy” among Republicans. But CNN’s long-term plan seems to be competing on some level with Fox News; it claims that the “changes” it is making will bring Republican viewers back into the “fold,” as well as advertisers.
But as a piece in Vox points out, Americans are not “clamoring” for “unbiased” news. “Americans simply don’t consume a lot of news, period,” it notes, and those who do want to hear what they want to hear. “Hard news” is only the basis on which to form an “opinion,” and they want to hear “opinions” that are in-line with their own—that is what Republican partisan divisiveness has brought us.
Vox points out that CNN’s attempts to be “unbiased” have failed, because viewers prefer “advocacy networks” like Fox News and MSNBC. “The other problem with the ‘Americans want unbiased news’ argument is a truth-in-labeling problem. It’s not that ‘Americans’ think news is biased; it’s people who lean Republican. Democrats, by and large, think the news they get from existing outlets is reasonably trustworthy.”
So
that is where we are with the “news.” Fewer people are receiving their “news”
from traditional outlets, more receive their news from outlets that support
their own “interpretations” of the facts, and that is not likely to change--and with it, a more divisive, uncivil society.
No comments:
Post a Comment