[zkmon]

Not only lack of truth, but lack of locality/relevance is an issue. You get flooded by info that you never need in your daily life or in near future. Every news channel would inundate you with global news as if all that is happening in your neighborhood. This is partly the reason why governments of the western world are forced to act on everything that happens on other side of the world. Because people feel that their government should do something about it.

[rTX5CMRXIfFG]

Er… is that really a bad thing and is it as big a problem as you’re making it to be? Supply chains are global and what happens in one corner of the world will most certainly have an impact on your local economy. And this is how news are being reported even before the rise of smartphones.

And besides, you don’t have to care. The news are just out there, free to be ignored. I just don’t see why you think that for those who care, it’s a bad thing to be aware and be moved by the struggles of other humans on the other side of the planet.

[latexr]

I’m not the person you replied to, but I believe you misunderstood OP’s point and are focusing on too narrow of a view regarding (what I perceive to be) their point.

> is that really a bad thing and is it as big a problem as you’re making it to be?

Yes, and yes. As way of example, I’m familiar with a particular subreddit which is used to promote far-right ideology in a specific country. They do it by grabbing news from anywhere in the world in which an immigrant has done anything “wrong”, no matter how small, and use it to stoke xenophobia in the subreddit’s country. They are making it seem these events are more prevalent than they really are, when they aren’t even happening in that country. It is a transparent tactic which nonetheless works.

> Supply chains are global and what happens in one corner of the world will most certainly have an impact on your local economy.

The overwhelming majority of news have nothing to do with supply chains and don’t affect them in the slightest.

> And besides, you don’t have to care. The news are just out there, free to be ignored.

The news live off ads and are made to be addictive. That’s why everything is reported with an insane sense of urgency. Most people consume news and social media the same way, without realising when it’s harming their mental health.

Even if you personally don’t watch the news, your fellow countrymen do and they act in response to them. You are affected by the news either you consume or ignore them.

> be aware and be moved by the struggles of other humans on the other side of the planet.

That’s not what most news are. Most are sensationalist garbage to get you to stay hooked. They are neither important nor urgent and they certainly aren’t designed to get you to empathise.

[squigz]

> Yes, and yes. As way of example, I’m familiar with a particular subreddit which is used to promote far-right ideology in a specific country. They do it by grabbing news from anywhere in the world in which an immigrant has done anything “wrong”, no matter how small, and use it to stoke xenophobia in the subreddit’s country. They are making it seem these events are more prevalent than they really are, when they aren’t even happening in that country. It is a transparent tactic which nonetheless works.

This isn't a symptom of global news dissemination though, it's a result of people being shitty and needing to grasp at any thread to justify their shitty position. Whether most of our news comes from local sources or not will not stop that. They'll just go seek out those local sources.

[latexr]

> This isn't a symptom of

It is only made possible by, which is the point. And that was a single example of the harm, TV news play much of the same stories.

Avoid taking a too narrow view of the argument. Don’t get stuck on a single part you can think of, steel man and engage with the macro point being made.

[squigz]

> It is only made possible by

Well... no, it's not only possible this way, as I just tried to point out. With or without global news programs, with or without addictive news feeds, those people will still act that way and go to great lengths to find reasons to justify it.

I did not engage with other bits because I do not generally disagree with you: watching too much news is a problem, highly addictive news feeds are a problem. I just do not believe those problems are the source of every issue we face, particularly racism - and I don't believe that solving those problems would solve those issues in any impactful way.

[latexr]

> I just do not believe those problems are the source of every issue we face

No one is arguing that. Even the original commenter said:

> This is partly the reason

Partly. But they are a reason.

> and I don't believe that solving those problems would solve those issues in any impactful way.

There is no single factor which is the cause and can be solved. There are a bunch of partial factors which cause the issue. Fixing any of them would help.

[ACS_Solver]

Global and foreign news is a good thing. But a lot of attention devoted to foreign stories of questionable relevance isn't a good thing.

One of my usual news sources is SVT, the national Swedish broadcaster. Their svt.se website is good and, aside from Swedish news, they're also quick to cover major foreign events, if something is breaking news they'll have it up right away. But one of my main complaints is SVT covers local American crime too much. It pops up as one of the top "just in" headlines. I went to look just before replying here, and it's actually happening again right now - there's a "just in" headline "Four dead in a shooting in Mississippi". It's fast, I don't even see it on cnn.com as I'm typing this. But, with all respect to the victims, mass shooting are pretty much a daily event in the US and generally have no global importance.

[1dom]

> Er… is that really a bad thing and is it as big a problem as you’re making it to be?

What were you trying to convey by starting with "Er...", and all the other rhetorical and dismissive tone and techniques?

Your entire post reads like you're quite offended, and you're dealing with that by being quite confrontational and dismissive towards someone who probably wasn't trying to offend or start a fight.

[tgv]

Before, foreign news would actually include articles about politics in other countries, and their economies. As an avid news paper reader, I knew the prime ministers of bunch of countries, what party they belonged, etc. Nowadays, you have to be happy when you get an article about a national election. Foreign news has been reduced to trade conflicts, wars and gruesome murders.

[groundzeros2015]

With the internet what’s stopping you from actually reading the foreign news?

In the newspaper days there was greater professionalism due to money and prestige but I think part of the appeal is you never heard conflicting interpretations so it felt more true and less confusing.

[tgv]

That was not the point. One of the ancestors said we're flooded in foreign news, to which another one replied "something something supply chains". While there used to be relevant info in the papers, there no longer is. Foreign news consists of Trump, wars, and some spectacular crimes. Politics, economy, trade, let alone culture is no longer reported on. Reporting nowadays is click-baity, less relevant, even for such a narrow topic as "supply chain" than it used to be, yet the good old days is what people have in mind when they think about foreign news.

Actually reading the foreign news ... how many papers are you going to check? And quite a few of those will only contain government approved news. Good luck getting info on Covid from Chinese news papers.

Journalism has been murdered.

[groundzeros2015]

I see your point - there is poor curation of international sources for Americans.

My point is that at the same time access is unmatched. If you care about it you can find it.

[JKCalhoun]

> Not only lack of truth, but lack of locality/relevance is an issue.

You could have stopped there. I don't think we (in the U.S.) get too much international news — to the contrary in fact. But to be sure we are not getting enough local and relevant news.

For example, just opened Google news and saw "Joy Behar calls out “The View” cohost's revealing outfit: 'Where are you going in that dress?'"

(Of course it's easy to cherry pick dumb celebrity "news".)

[xboxnolifes]

In general, I think the average US citizen gets too little global news, too little local news, and far too much "other state" news. I don't understand why so many people have formed strong opinions about states or cities they have never been to.

[gcanyon]

> You get flooded by info that you never need in your daily life or in near future.

My brain holds on to the weirdest shit. Back in May my wife texted me: "Hot Lips died" and I immediately replied, "Loretta Swit or Sally Kellerman?"

And thinking about that: why in the world should I remember either of their names? But seriously: Sally Kellerman? I saw the MASH movie when I was...ten? I'm pretty sure never since then.

And just typing that, my brain gremlin is cataloging everything it recalls from the movie: Elliot Gould, sure. Donald... oh crap. So this right here is the crux of the issue: objectively I know I shouldn't care, like, AT ALL. But right now I have a subprocess running to retrieve that guy's last name. I know his son was the star of 24, and Stand By Me, and he's escaping me at the moment, and my brain Will Not Stop until it recalls... Sutherland! Kiefer Sutherland, and Donald his dad.

<sigh> I could be remembering something important. I do remember actually important things -- but I could remember more important things if my brain didn't care deeply that Gary Burghoff was the only person to play the same role in the movie and the TV show.

[hearsathought]

> You get flooded by info that you never need in your daily life or in near future.

Who does the flooding? It surely ain't the people.

> Every news channel would inundate you with global news as if all that is happening in your neighborhood.

Not all global news. Just some global news. And framed in a particular manner for effect.

> This is partly the reason why governments of the western world are forced to act on everything that happens on other side of the world.

You have it backwards. These governments and the elites who control these government want to act and use media to generate popular support.

> Because people feel that their government should do something about it.

No. People generally want their governments to not get involved. For example, no war the US was involved in was a result of "the people putting pressure on the government".