[yongjik]

In general, exposing children to the world is a horrible idea. But what are we going to do, shelter them forever?

Sheltering children from news media because they are "corporate controlled" would go about as well as sheltering them from sex, I fear. Sooner or later they will find out the wild outside world exists.

[walterbell]

It's the difference between teaching someone how to work around contemporary limits in programming framework du jour, vs. teaching them about timeless algorithm design and data structures.

Great literature is timeless and says more about our wild world than any "non-fiction" permitted by incumbent power structures du jour.

[yongjik]

No, I have no objections to Great literature, but let's not pretend that Shakespeare can say more about our world than this week's TIME, for instance.

Understanding today's news is a vital skill for survival. You could complain all about "incumbent power structure" controlling our media (which is rather strange... how come _you_ have no problem saying these things? Are you somehow outside the influence of the power structure?), but our everyday life (from finding out upcoming road closures to deciding whether California should reduce water usage) depends on knowing what's happening around us.

Sure, it's very important to view the information critically, but you can't criticize what you don't know. Get rid of the mainstream information source, and you frequently end up with worse source of information, like moon landing hoaxers, antivaxxers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. (Well, these people also think the mainstream news is beyond redemption and only they know the truth. Shoving CNN through their throats may be actually doing them some favor.)

[mseebach]

Nobody is arguing that reading the news critically isn't an important skill and that it shouldn't be taught in school. But when you declare that it's unambiguously more important than Shakespeare, you're moving onto thin ice. The reason we're reading and loving Shakespeare rather than whatever 17th century equivalent of Time magazine we might be able to get our hands on, is that the former teaches us deep, profound and timeless lessons on human nature, especially the dark sides. Few things will teach you more about reading the news than Macbeth, but reading the news alone won't even begin to do the opposite.

[PretendAway]

That, and calling Time "the news" is yet another variety of thin ice.

[PretendAway]

> let's not pretend that Shakespeare can say more about our world than this week's TIME, for instance.

And let's not pretend that reading astute commentaries on the fundamentals of human nature will say any less about our world than would a publication that needs to keep advertising dollars coming in while remaining harmonious with present political echo chambers.

[walterbell]

When deciding how much credence to grant one journalistic outlet over another, it is useful to benchmark with an event where you have first-hand experience of the reported event.

Those who can compare their first-hand observations with the reported news are often surprised. If you've not had this personal experience, an alternative would be to read classic books by Edward Bernays (father of PR) or Ryan Holiday (2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-church/ryan-holiday-tru...

[akbar501]

A child needs to learn fundamentals that they can later build upon to develop their own thoughts, ideas, and conclusions.

I strongly believe that the point of education is to provide children with the thinking ability to come to their own conclusions.

The ability to think, to solve problems, to find solutions is what will enable them to build the future.

In terms of the news specifically it spoon feeds conclusions and is largely biased. The bias part is largely agreed to. The debate is which way the bias leans.