WWTBAM Bored

We on the bored are quick to debate matters of evidence and law in the same manner as all of the other nonprivy folks online do. It's not the same as debating politics or social issues. And, we usually fall out in whatever political or social niche we generally adhere to. Unfortunately, when doing that we blow past what will be presented at trial. Which is why trials are so potentially skewed now. I think opinionated people can be good jurors, which gives me hope for Ferguson. Most people are well meaning and sober deliberators. I know this.

And, all media, all media, right, left and in between are guilty of pounding their view into the ground. It's ridiculous.

Beebs52 wrote:And, all media, all media, right, left and in between are guilty of pounding their view into the ground. It's ridiculous.

I cannot see it this way. I agree that there are plenty of villains but anytime we say "all" the hairs on the back of my neck go up. Some of us are just tidying up high school football game stories.

TV news sucks. Check. Except not all the time. We have a local station unaffiliated with any network and they are pretty good because they are not so desperate to keep us from changing the channel. But yeah, if I am watching TV news and it sucks, which it nearly always does, I change the channel. Or read a book. But mostly I just never have it on because it sucks so much.

Radio news, I dunno. The little I hear besides music is traffic reports, and I find them helpful. I think mostly now folks on the radio respond to news rather than reporting it. Commentary rather than investigation. It suits the medium.

Online news can suck, but we get to decide what to click on, so I don't want to say it all sucks. There are plenty of reliable sources out there once we test them out.

Magazines - my rule is that if it's at the checkout stand, it mostly sucks. They are trying to get us to buy on impulse, so the headlines are garish. So they mostly suck. But there are lots and lots of great magazines. The monthlies are less newsy than the weeklies, because of the timing, but there are great options in both.

Print news. Most of you know my bias: a well-researched, well-edited print journalism story can be the best thing that happens to an issue. It is difficult to keep our biases out of the stories, and indeed, if those biases weren't there, some stories would never get researched and written. We should care about the health of our schools, and write up what cops are doing, and all that. So yeah, that's a bias. But it's one that leads to generally necessary news stories.

I saw a comment earlier that if the journalists would leave Ferguson, the citizens there could get on with fixing stuff. I don't know enough about that to have an opinion except that I do know that nobody covers a story if they know there is no interest or demand for it. If everyone stopped consuming news from Ferguson, the journalists would stop producing it.

If there are disreputable journalists there, I agree - that sucks and they should not suck (it is easy enough not to consume their product). But they did not create the problem. Their coming or going is not a solution. Responsible journalists doing thorough investigations is at the heart of many good things over the years. It is often necessary and sometimes noble.

Shoot. The central point of my previous post, which I failed to make, is that "the media" includes a lot more than whatever sucky arm of the media we have in mind at the moment.

During election seasons I hear complaints about "the media" that always end up being only about TV. Nearly every story I read in print produced by responsible journalists does not suck.

So the trick is to seek out trustworthy outlets and stick with them. We will be having a session on this in ethics class in a few weeks. Good arguments come from reliable sources. Vet the sources. Find the ones worth trusting and then read only them. Yes, it takes some work, but then we can ignore all the clutter.

Agreed, Skoop. But it is getting harder and harder to find. Murdoch and his cronies have done to the field of journalism what ALEC and their cronies are currently doing to the field of public education.

Reuters is still pretty good, but I have to filter everything through what has become a painfully anti-American bias (in my biased opinion).

I used to use HuffPo as a gateway, but they've become such a blog-oriented click farm that it's 9 parts chaff to one part wheat, and then I have to filter out their bias, which makes it impractical.

I listen to NPR news, because they've at least got a sense of humor about the tweed filter I have to put on for them.

Print journalism in my neck of the woods is about gone. And my local newspaper, which I supported with words and subscription for all of my adult life, has become so virulently anti-public education that I can't in good conscience support them any more.

I have an opinion about Ferguson, but I'm going to put it in another thread.

Skoop, I should have been clearer. I was referring to the media specifically covering Ferguson, but not only tv. And you're right that if no one was watching no one would be there.