The best thing then is to ignore/block print media as well. Legacy media institutions have destroyed their credibility because of this race to the bottom - for a brief moment in history, there was a nice thought that the subscription revenue model would allow more fair and balanced reporting compared to the ad-revenue models (since they wouldn't need clickbait headlines/stories).
Turns out that people don't want to pay to hear things they don't like. So it's all become more polarized, and those of us who really would like to know what is going on have no clue what is true or not any longer.
Break the legacy institutions by boycotting them, and encourage individual journalists to self-publish. The credibility of the person will reign, and there is a huge market for independents who are actually interested in what is happening around the world without all the partisan spin.
You’ll have to put some effort into evaluating the media you use, whether or not you believe freelancers are better equipped to be effective.
> those of us who really would like to know what is going on have no clue what is true or not any longer.
Well yeah, if this is your policy:
> The best thing then is to ignore/block print media as well
You’re not going to have any idea what is going on.
A vigorous application of this rejection of legacy media is going to have you completely ignoring sources that are pretty easy to parse, like AP or Reuters newsfeeds. It’s worthwhile to develop the skills needed to use those sorts of things and understand their limits, rather than ignoring them completely. You can get value from media without being completely credulous about what any one source is reporting.
Respectfully disagree - you don't "put effort into evaluating" food from a restaurant that has continually served you dodgy food. You either go elsewhere that doesn't serve you poisoned items (alternatives), or boycott eating out all together if such alternatives don't exist.
The belief is that the general media teaches you useful information from current events that impact your life. It doesn't. I'd rather read a "year in review", or something on a longer time frame, than follow things too closely.
For specialised knowledge, there are professional journals for that sort of thing. But mass media "news" is not useful at all, so I've taken the policy of cutting it out. Mental health and general life perspectives have been vastly improved.
> Respectfully disagree - you don't "put effort into evaluating" food from a restaurant that has continually served you dodgy food.
I think this is perhaps a poor analogy, but is illustrative of the real disagreement. There’s no informational equivalent to a restaurant that is so trustworthy that you no longer need give a moment’s thought to the safety of the food prepared there. That’s not to say there aren’t great newspapers or magazines or individual writers, but if you think you’ve found one whose entire output should be trusted unconditionally, I’d really want to discuss some of their lesser works with you as counterexamples.
> I'd rather read a "year in review", or something on a longer time frame, than follow things too closely.
This seems like a mentally healthy way to learn about world events, and I don’t disapprove. What you read will be produced by the same journalists, though, right?
I avoid television news almost entirely when I can and I suspect our point of view on this might not be very far apart. I do think the ability to parse corrupt - or hopefully, merely imperfect - media is an important skill for people to have.
Turns out that people don't want to pay to hear things they don't like. So it's all become more polarized, and those of us who really would like to know what is going on have no clue what is true or not any longer.
Break the legacy institutions by boycotting them, and encourage individual journalists to self-publish. The credibility of the person will reign, and there is a huge market for independents who are actually interested in what is happening around the world without all the partisan spin.