News Feed

I like to keep up on current events and have both Google News and Yahoo News bookmarked. I've noticed that instead of trying to provide a non-biased sampling of the news they both tend to try to "feed" me what they think I want to read. It's really noticeable in this political period. For example, if I read a bunch of stories about "Trump's an idiot." pretty soon I'll have nothing but Trump's an idiot stories to read. If I read "Hillary's a crook", same deal.

How can people be expected to make up their minds independently if all you get is one view parroted back at you? I think one of the biggest issues we have today is people are so rigid in their views, they can't see the other side of things and make compromises for the good of society. For any issue that comes up, people seem to go to their respective corners and not listen to anything anyone else has to say. Having one view forced down your throat so that the webmaster hopes you'll click on similar stories is not what I learned in journalism classes.

I was taught the concept of Areopagitica:

Its basic principle was the right and also the duty of every intelligent man as a rational being, to know the grounds and take responsibility for his beliefs and actions. Its corollary was a society and a state in which decisions are reached by open discussion, in which the sources of information are not contaminated by authority in the interest of party, and in which political unity is secured not by force but by a consensus that respects variety of opinion.

I wish our information sources would keep those ideals in mind.[h=2][/h]

HealeyRick said:

I like to keep up on current events and have both Google News and Yahoo News bookmarked. I've noticed that instead of trying to provide a non-biased sampling of the news they both tend to try to "feed" me what they think I want to read. It's really noticeable in this political period. For example, if I read a bunch of stories about "Trump's an idiot." pretty soon I'll have nothing but Trump's an idiot stories to read. If I read "Hillary's a crook", same deal.

How can people be expected to make up their minds independently if all you get is one view parroted back at you? I think one of the biggest issues we have today is people are so rigid in their views, they can't see the other side of things and make compromises for the good of society. For any issue that comes up, people seem to go to their respective corners and not listen to anything anyone else has to say. Having one view forced down your throat so that the webmaster hopes you'll click on similar stories is not what I learned in journalism classes.

I was taught the concept of Areopagitica:

Its basic principle was the right and also the duty of every intelligent man as a rational being, to know the grounds and take responsibility for his beliefs and actions. Its corollary was a society and a state in which decisions are reached by open discussion, in which the sources of information are not contaminated by authority in the interest of party, and in which political unity is secured not by force but by a consensus that respects variety of opinion.

I wish our information sources would keep those ideals in mind.

Click to expand...

YES! Bravo for reminding us! When folks get their information from blogs and videos ... not good, especially for a democracy.

Neil Postman, "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (1985). Even 30+ years ago, we read the warnings of information becoming entertainment. Intelligent discussion becomes ad hominems and 30 second sound bites.

Thanks!

Tom M.

There was a Ted Talk a few years ago on that. Looks like Google hasn't changed their ways because of it.

Greg - good point. Let's hope more people realize that Google (and most news aggregators) isn't the best source of information, especially to the uncritical.

Easy to use yes. Good, not necessarily.

Here is the Ted I was thinking of.

I read / listen to a variety of sources and see biases in both directions depending on the source. I also like CSPAN and listening to what people are saying directly from the horse's mouth, unfiltered. (I don't need some talking head to tell me what to think about what someone says).

In my local paper there were two front page stories recently about a person "in the news." Even before I read the stories, I said to my wife, "I'll bet you a cup of coffee this article isn't going to mention issue X about person Y." (I knew this instinctively because of the clear and obvious leanings of my local paper). Sure enough, even though issue Y is a huge important deal (or would be if it involved any "regular" person), and something everyone should at least be aware of, there was not a single mention of X in the two articles about Y.

I see a lot of stuff on the internet, but being an analyst I never take what I read as fact without additional research to see what other sources say. One of the things I see a lot on the internet are images of various people that someone has added text to or otherwise manipulated to indicate some terrible thing about some person. Nine times out of ten, what is being stated is either untrue or grossly out of context. For example, I saw a FB page where someone had posted a picture of the President and First Lady which seemed to show them holding the wrong hand over their hearts. It looked legit - buttons on the correct side of the coat, wedding rings on the correct fingers, etc. But if you looked really close, you could spot the giveaway that the image had been flipped and the rings and buttons photoshopped to appear "correct." But whoever did this photoshop job forgot one little detail. In the background there was a US Marine standing guard outside the Whitehouse door and his ribbons were on the wrong side of his jacket! Anyone who served in the military would have spotted it right away, but many folks probably think the image is legit. (I've seen similar shopped photos of people on both sides of the isle).

Neil Postman was (is?) absolutely prophetic!

and it isn't just google, as you mention boss, "legit" news agencies are no more likely to be "accurate" than individual stories. And, as reporters get cut and news agencies struggle to monetize their operations online it will only get worse. I do know it has always been thus. (You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war)

But, the "feeds" twist us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...un-millennial-ai-bot-into-a-genocidal-maniac/

Deleted

J-P - one of the big things I think in Postman's book, is his emphasis on how we've moved from *words* to *pictures*. In the Lincoln/Douglas debates, each man had two hours to present his case. And people actually listened for the full two hours, and understood the rhetoric.

Websites emphasize videos over actual written articles. TV "science" shows use animated graphics to keep viewers visually engaged; same for many programs, commercials, news/weather. I noticed this even in the recent Steven Hawking "Genius" series.

Of course there are exceptions, and of course there are people who critically analyze instead of just "copy and paste" mentalities.

Postman notes that even in the 1980s, people weren't patient enough to listen to (or read) lengthy texts, and wanted 30 second summaries.

oy

GregW said:

Here is the Ted I was thinking of.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that, Greg. Really informative and points out even more how much the "unseen hands" guide what information we see.

NutmegCT said:

J-P - one of the big things I think in Postman's book, is his emphasis on how we've moved from *words* to *pictures*. In the Lincoln/Douglas debates, each man had two hours to present his case. And people actually listened for the full two hours, and understood the rhetoric.

Websites emphasize videos over actual written articles. TV "science" shows use animated graphics to keep viewers visually engaged; same for many programs, commercials, news/weather. I noticed this even in the recent Steven Hawking "Genius" series.

Of course there are exceptions, and of course there are people who critically analyze instead of just "copy and paste" mentalities.

Postman notes that even in the 1980s, people weren't patient enough to listen to (or read) lengthy texts, and wanted 30 second summaries.

oy

Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir - literally! As someone who makes his living (and fulfills his vocation) as a speaker, I cannot begin to describe how much my preaching has changed in 30 years. Not all for the bad BTW but a visual/symbolic world is very different - fortunately Jesus used symbols and visuals - but applying a Marshall McLuhanish analysis suggests preachers moving away from Paul's letters (rhetoric). Of course not just visuals (btw media -screens and video etc change everything if indeed the medium is the message) but the nature of 'Truth' (nice sermon preacher but that's just your opinion) and incidentally is why you see Chinese characters on tattoos (symbolic language)

A whole new world

oh and, we operate under the maxim that 50 years ago non Christians knew the bible better than Christians do now.

NutmegCT said:

In the Lincoln/Douglas debates, each man had two hours to present his case. And people actually listened for the full two hours, and understood the rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Most if not all modern politicians on either side could not defend their positions in depth, they are sound bite or slogan driven. I would love to see a debate in the style that Lincoln and Douglas engaged in multiple times across the campaign cycle where they did not insult back and forth but actually explained and expounded on their positions. I cannot see either of the two major presidential candidates being able to do that if required. And really, neither major party wants to rely on the intellect rather than emotion to drive the electorate, much easier to control the emotional response over the analytic.

As for bias, that will always exist since even if individual news items were determined to be neutral the fact that without unlimited time someone has to determine what that 30 or 60 minutes will be used to cover means something one person finds important someone else may not and would have covered something else that didn't make the cut.

NutmegCT said:

Greg - good point. Let's hope more people realize that Google (and most news aggregators) isn't the best source of information, especially to the uncritical.

Easy to use yes. Good, not necessarily.

Click to expand...

I read "some" blogs - but have decided (critically) which are worth their salt and which are not. Just because a source doesn't have one of the alphabet names doesn't automatically mean that it is a bad source. I also try to watch multiple networks - even, and maybe especially, those I feel have a bias that is counter to my own life views. What concerns me is when I know of stories that are very important, but see some of the networks just plain ignore, or at best barely cover. I think it's important to read and view news from many sources and apply your own critical thinking to what is being presented (or not presented).
Of course we are ALL going to apply our own filters to what we read and see in the news, that's just human nature.