In general, I get my news from a variety of outlets. I do this for two primary reasons. First, if I were to only get information from a single news source, I would be limited to only seeing from said news source’s point of view. Secondly, what type of news I’m interested in also dictates where and how I receive news. For example, I’d go to find news about the status of the health care bill in a different place than where I’d find out who’s on this week’s NFL injury report.
To find local news, I’ll read the Courier-Journal, mostly because there really are no other alternatives. (I refuse to ever watch local TV news).
Something that the internet has undoubtedly provided for is a venue for receiving almost infinite information very quickly. For news, this is especially true. If a major breaking-news event happened, the first place I (and many others I presume) would go would be to the internet to find out more. Oftentimes I’ll find out what the news is on the internet, and then I’ll utilize the internet and other resources such as a newspaper or TV to find analysis of that news. A variety of news sources I feel is important here, because the news can be interpreted in different ways, allowing for it to be affected by bias.
I especially try, when receiving news about current events or politics, to get my news from a variety of outlets. I do watch cable news, but I make a concerted effort to watch some of CNN, FOX and MSNBC because each network is, frankly, not very good. Because watching TV is an entertaining thing to do, it’s an easy place for me to get my news. I’ve watched a good share of MSNBC, FOX, and CNN, and in all honesty The Daily Show on Comedy Central is probably the most journalistically responsible. One of the roles of the media is as a watchdog, and Jon Stewart and The Daily Show essentially act as the watchdog’s watchdog. If the media, especially the cable news media, is being blatantly biased or just simply silly, The Daily Show will expose them. Here is an example of Jon Stewart eviscerating CNN last week. (It’s a relatively long video, but it does a good job to articulate The Daily Show’s role as a watchdog for the media).
If a person were to only watch FOX or MSNBC for their news, they'd be limited to only the conservative or liberal side of it. Using a variety of news sources fixes this problem because it exposes you to a variety of biases, allowing you to form your own opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
By the way, I realize now that the title makes no sense. I was midway through typing a title such as "The reason I use a variety of news outlets" and for some reason I clicked "Post Blog" before I finished thinking of a title. Sorry for the incoherence.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the title somehow works, anyways. I agree with gathering your news and other information from several sources - exactly for the reason that you tend to become biased over time.
ReplyDeleteThanks for The Daily Show link. Stewart really does do some of the best media criticism today. I used to watch him every day, but since I turned in my digital recording cable box, it's just not as convenient.
ReplyDeleteIf you're looking for other local news sources, have you ever read The LEO or Velocity? Admittedly, I read neither and honestly have trouble initiating any brand of leisure reading at all, but they are popular and free, from the impression I gather.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right to consider many sources in forming your own decision about any given subject, but one thing that always made news-gathering so discouraging for me is realizing that even this spin-fail-safe mechanism is not enough to compensate for bias when rhetorical skill varies from one source to the next. If one source words its argument more skillfully than another, people will be bound to appreciate that one more--not because it speaks more truthfully, but because its presentation was more pleasing. I think this is absolutely the case for cable news, which very much utilize emotional appeal for entertainment. As much as I hate to admit it, The Daily Show could be such an example, as the humor-based political mockery it champions might cause its viewers to accept whatever it says more easily, should it ever try to make a statement. John Stewart appears to be the bigger man in the world of politics because his satire elevates him to a status of "above all the bullshit" in the minds of viewers.
I guess the way around this is to build up an immunity to being swayed by emotional response, even humor, in determining the source that best represents your own ideals.
I agree with Eric. Stewart is a very reputable news source, and frankly, I wonder why he is not more widely used to gather news. I do feel like The Daily Show is, like you said "the watchdog of the watchdog," and I like that you added that point. With The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, viewers see their news with a different slant.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, Chris, about Stewart acting as though he is above it all. He has the rhetorical advantage of acting as though he is outside the media even as he comments upon it, sometimes as though he is asking others to comply to standards that he doesn't have to himself. He can say they aren't doing their jobs as journalists. If they critique him, he can say, well, I'm not a journalist. Glenn Beck does something similar in frequently reminding his audience that he is not a journalist.
ReplyDeleteFor me, Stewart's status as a nonjournalist kind of makes sense. I am familiar enough with his values and positions that I know where he is coming from. It's kind of like reading a movie critic, such as Ebert. He doesn't make movies. But his familiarity with film, in addition to his personal relationship with movies and his values and expectations, helps me to judge the qualities of films based upon his reviews.