[bnralt]

Indeed. The other problem is that the news is often filled with misleading narratives that lead people to be less informed than before, and that it creates a huge opportunity cost in terms of attention. When you cut out the news you start to notice a lot of things around you that you were glossing over before.

[robotbikes]

Corporate media is also pretty much an extension of corporate public relation firms a lot of the time. For instance I turned on broadcast TV for one minute this morning only to find a Amazon sponsored segment parading as a news piece promoting a feel good story about how Amazon was good for small businesses. People don't trust corporate media for good reason but many viewers probably lack training in media literacy that would be helpful for both consumers of social media and traditional media outlets. Vetting the veracity of independent news outlets is even more challenging at times and a failure to do so can result in suppression of good information and the propogation of disinformation.

[jiofih]

How do you get informed on things happening on the other side of the world? (please don’t say Twitter!)

[bnralt]

I think people should spend a lot more time considering what they're trying to get informed about and for what purpose. Reading books (particularly older books), talking to a wide variety of people, looking at primary sources, paying attention to what's around you in your environment - all of those is going to put you in a much better position than being a media junkie.

For instance, if you want to be an informed voter, then spending a few minutes flipping through the Vote411 pamphlet put out by The League of Women Voters is going to put you ahead of the vast majority of people who absorb political news 24/7. It's also often the only information you'll find on many local races.

Often people will tell you that they're watching the news to be an informed voter, except they're mostly watching things that align with the decisions they've already made. I know many people who decided years ago how they feel about a national candidate, spend hours every week for years watching news that just reinforces that, and then zero knowledge about any of the candidates in local races where there vote actually has a much greater impact. That's not being an informed voter, that's feeding a bad habit.

Likewise with international news - what are people actually trying to accomplish? Most of the time it's not being informed, it's following a media narrative and ignoring things as soon as the narrative changes. Do you remember when Darfur was a big topic in the early 2000's? Mali about 9 years ago? Those conflicts are still ongoing, but seem to have been forgotten. How about "Bring Back Our Girls"? Likewise Libya, Syria, and a host of other conflicts that suddenly shift from "very important and everyone needs to be informed about it" to a distant memory.

Again, the way these things are treated isn't about keeping people informed, but feeding media junkie habits. And the nature of this kind of poor reporting has very real consequences - just look at the Iraq War. Ignorance is preferable to disinformation.

[tester34]

Generally:

a) Through friends

b) It's so big that's almost everywhere and you cannot escape it

c) I don't get informed (but may later in time)

Of course it's not perfect approach

[jiofih]

a) and b) just mean you’re relying on someone else who watches the news, so the same drawbacks apply…

[tester34]

but all the bad stuff is "outsourced" :)