Start A Petition
Group Discussions
Most People's News Viewing...
10 years ago

OK, maybe we can set aside for a second which news sources are sources of truth and reality and which are simply propaganda machines for political parties or ideologies.

 

In general, do you think that people seek out news sources that offer objectivity, sources that confirm their opinions or sources that challenge their opinions?

 

Obviously, there are all sorts of people, so we'd be talking generalities, but it would seem to me that the ideal would be to seek out as objective sources as possible (even if none can be totally objective), but maybe you do not think people should seek objective sources.

 

But my question is about what we think they do in general.

 

Should they seek objective sources or not?

 

Do they generally wind up viewing confirming sources, objective sources or challenging sources?

 

If you think they do not generally view objective sources, then do you think they generally know they are watching biased sources because they intend to do so?

 

10 years ago

 

 

Dear Kevin,

 

"OK, maybe we can set aside for a second which news sources are sources of truth and reality and which are simply propaganda machines for political parties or ideologies."

 

All news sources are, IMO, to some extent, propaganda machines for political parties or ideologies.

 

"In general, do you think that people seek out news sources that offer objectivity, sources that confirm their opinions or sources that challenge their opinions?


I think everyone thinks they are getting and receiving objective news.  I think most people would say they are willing to be challenged but most people, IMO, feel most comfortable having sources that agree with them.


"Should they seek objective sources or not?"


I like to seek many sources from many points of view, and I do that daily.  But I do admit I have some preferences because I do have some beliefs.  I do not believe in Creationism, from instance, so I don't "seek" info from Creationism sites.  I do not believe in Nazism and I am not a racist, so I don't go to Nazi sites or racist sites to seek news information.


I am sure we all have some preferences that guide how far our so-called "objectivity" will go.

 

"Do they generally wind up viewing confirming sources, objective sources or challenging sources?"

 

I often find myself confirming my beliefs from news sources or, the opposite, changing my beliefs because of news sources.  Are they objective?  Like I said, IMO, there are almost no objective sources, but many sources are better than others.  Jehosephat's Bar and Grill Tai Chi Beauty Parlour isn't as good an international news sources as the BBC.  But both, IMO, in their own way, have their personal propaganda agendas.

 

 

"If you think they do not generally view objective sources, then do you think they generally know they are watching biased sources because they intend to do so?"

 

You are asking me, Kevin, what I think others do.


Yes, I feel many others don't do as much research as I do - at least on some issues.  But that doesn't mean I think I have all the answers.  I have a little more time than most and, perhaps, a bit more interest than most, and I trust my opinions and trust my ability to come to reasonable and rational conclusions but....I don't spend much time or energy comparing my sources with others.


Others may use different news sources than I do - more or less - but others have different life experiences, too.  I don't discount life experiences in people's opinions.  And I do not discount other people's ability to gain insight from whatever sources they use.

 

To me it isn't so simple as saying one person knows because they go to SmartNews.com and another doesn't know because they go to DumbNews.com.


In my opinion, it isn't that simple. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



This post was modified from its original form on 28 Oct, 8:30
10 years ago

In general, do you think that people seek out news sources that offer objectivity, sources that confirm their opinions or sources that challenge their opinions?


 

I would hope that people seek out objective sources of news, including challenging sources that might cause us to rethink any preconcieved notions they may hold,  before they form an opinion.

 

Should they seek objective sources or not?


 

IMO, yes, absolutely.  I think it's near impossible to form an opinion or judge something without having turned it over and over and inside out first.  That is not to say we will agree with one or other perspectives about something but I think it's good, or advantageous, to be aware of them.

 

Do they generally wind up viewing confirming sources, objective sources or challenging sources?


 

Based on my experiences, which are surely limited, it seems to me that 'generally' people do wind up viewing confirming sources, at least much more than they view objective or challenging sources.  In my experience people 'generally' don't appreciate having their views or opinions challenged, which is were the old saying, "don't discuss politics or religion in mixed company..." was born.

 

If you think they do not generally view objective sources, then do you think they generally know they are watching biased sources because they intend to do so?


 

No, not necessarily.  I think 'generally,' at least in the past, people don't think that much about it to question themselves that far, though I think that is changing in this 'information age' we live in.  I hope so anyway.

 

 

10 years ago

I'll be honest I don't really seek out news based on if it agrees with me or not.  I seek news from multiple sources because I'd like to know as much about something as I can and somewhere blurred between all those reports is a smidgeon of reality and truth.

10 years ago

Thanks Knate and Katii. I hope others offer their impressions of people's news habits.

 

"No, not necessarily.  I think 'generally,' at least in the past, people don't think that much about it to question themselves that far, though I think that is changing in this 'information age' we live in.  I hope so anyway."--Katii

 

What do you think of the idea of "news niches" because the internet, many cable news sources and the "information age" enable people to seek out sources and people that they agree with and thus form little "niches" of agreement?  Thus, even though the internet could allow more people to examine a wide range of sources and ideas, it actually promotes a narrowing of people's exposure to other ideas.

10 years ago

"I'll be honest I don't really seek out news based on if it agrees with me or not.  I seek news from multiple sources because I'd like to know as much about something as I can and somewhere blurred between all those reports is a smidgeon of reality and truth."--Suzanne

 

What do you think about people in general?

10 years ago

Dear Kevin,

 

Please check your personal messages.

 

Thanks!

3x trying to post this.....
10 years ago

Kevin,

 

Unfortunately, my opinion of the general public is the majority are "sheep" for lack of a better word.  I believe if they have an interest in goings on in the world, they watch what suits their bias.  I believe their is media/news bias on all sides and people watch based on their own agendas.

10 years ago

 

Dear Kevin,

 

I often use and consult websites that have multiple sources of news linked on that site.

 

I can go to sites, for instance, where more than 50 of the nation's top newspapers are linked - and get a wide sampling of how they report the news and a wide sampling of editorial opinion.

 

That is also true of world news sources, from the BBC to Al Jezeera to news sources throughout Africa and Asia and every country and area on the globe.

 

Personally, I spend very little time at the "major" US news sources like MSNBC, CNN or even FOX.  Although I do "read" them - I like going wider afield.

 

And for "informational" sites I go to a very wide range of science sites, history sites, political theory sites, social science sites, and much more.  I may start on Wikipedia, for instance, but I look there only to get a very basic picture.

 

 

10 years ago

Thus, even though the internet could allow more people to examine a wide range of sources and ideas, it actually promotes a narrowing of people's exposure to other ideas.


 

I suppose you're right that it could promote a narrowing of someone's exposure to other ideas, but I think it also serves to expose people to a wider range of ideas (and news that is never reported by MSM) if by no other way than coincidence or accident.  Unless someone 'only' clicks on a list of bookmarks in their browser they are sooner or later going to be exposed.  Whether or not someone is inclined to ponder a new exposure is up for debate, but at the very least it plants a seed - which can be good or bad depending upon what they happened to come across and whether or not they are of the discerning sort.

 



This post was modified from its original form on 28 Oct, 12:32
10 years ago

"Kevin,

 

Unfortunately, my opinion of the general public is the majority are "sheep" for lack of a better word.  I believe if they have an interest in goings on in the world, they watch what suits their bias.  I believe their is media/news bias on all sides and people watch based on their own agendas."--Suzanne

 

Short... to the point... and worth the 3X effort

 

I have the same nagging suspicion in the back of my mind, too.  I think it is unfortunate, too.

10 years ago

"I suppose you're right that it could promote a narrowing of someone's exposure to other ideas, but I think it also serves to expose people to a wider range of ideas (and news that is never reported by MSM) if by no other way than coincidence or accident.  Unless someone 'only' clicks on a list of bookmarks in their browser they are sooner or later going to be exposed.  Whether or not someone is inclined to ponder a new exposure is up for debate, but at the very least it plants a seed - which can be good or bad depending upon what they happened to come across and whether or not they are of the discerning sort."--Katii

 

I kind of think both things are going on.  On the one hand it allows people to hunker down in niches and not be exposed to other info, but it makes thousands of other opinions available to people who are interested. 

 

And, as you say, people may come across unintended information that challenges their existing beliefs.  At the same time, the internet makes it that much easier to respond to challenging information or arguments by getting reinforcement from the group of fellow ideologues.

 

It gives us the opportunity for our better habits and our worse habits.  I worry, though, that just like people could exercise or eat more ice cream, many err on the side of ice cream.

10 years ago

And i'll ditto what Kevin said about Suzanne's wonderful post.

 

I try to find "unbiased" sources and for article From Ap or Reuter's, I think they are pretty good.  But that's not the whole picture.  So I try to read from a vareity of sources.  And some are just plain old too much for me. 

 

But we have show passing as news that are really opinion shows.  We wacthed Rachel Maddow last night and she certainly does her homework.  She could SEEM to be unbiased in that sense.  But she has a bias.  And partly it is because it is really an opinion show.  I don't wacth her very often but I like her.  But I wouldn't say it was the best source of news.

 

10 years ago

I use google, etc. news.  It reports an incident for example from multiple sources, some I know are biased one way or another and others I know nothing about.  When I go to the places I know nothing about I look up the "about us" tab that many places have and read if there is a bias or not.  I do not put store in "blogs" as they are almost always opinionated one way or the other.

 

Some of the unusual sites that I am unfamiliar with, I will click on other news items they cover which leads to other sources.  I do not watch much news on TV nor do I listen to the radio news.

 

With one exception, I will, when I wish to be among "my own kind of thinking" atmosphere, I will listen to NPR,PRI.  I usually listen to NPR in the car.  I refuse to listen, if I can at all help it, to AM talk radio.  Sometimes I have no choice like when I am riding in someone else's car.  I try to avoid blatent partisan publications and shows.

 

I try as much as possible, when using google to read both sides of a story.

 

Sadly in general, I think most people get their news like fast food and read/listen to what they prefer.  It is hard to read something contra to one's own philosophy and I think people in general do not seek out unpleasant news unless it is fed to them by well-known identities with predictable slants on things. 

 

Lately I find it is helpful to read Israeli and news because they have a lot of dissent reported by different views within that country for world consumption.   Same with the other Middle east news sources.  I have some problems trying to read the English version of Chinese publications as McAfee always finds unsafe stuff that prevents me from using a certain web site.  Computer safety first , you know.Smiley from millan.net

 

I like to also read news reported by different countries.  It is good in my opinion to read other countries' news and opinions of the world and it's condition.  That's what I do.  I never read the only newspaper in my city.

10 years ago

I ditto Kevin and Sue .... I also think that people are lazy - instead of checking what they hear (which is so easy to do today) they take what they hear verbatim .... My wife is a geneologist and in order for her to determine that a source of information about someone she is researching like a birthdate for John Doe is correct she has to collect or uncover three sources of information to validate this - be it a birth regisitration, death certificate, newspaper announcement = the list is endless ....

 

I think that we need to make sure we source stuff like that and I did not know when you guys were asking me for 'cites' or 'source' thats what you were referring to - that's how smart I was! But I am getting better and we all need to get better at proving what we say - not just believing what we hear - especially me .... and I am trying -

 

Three weeks now of Obberman and Maddow and the Ed Show and all I have is a headache Kevin - have I watched them enough now to have an opinion about them? Yes, I beleive they, like O'Riely and Greta are Opinion shows - no more no less - and they ALL talk too loud for me to listen to .... Have been interested to see that just this last week MSNBC is starting to report two sides of a story ..... I still prefer Fox as a news source but I take everything to the internet .... to source and to prove what I have heard ....



This post was modified from its original form on 29 Oct, 0:39
10 years ago

You know though,  I have only so much time in the day.  I check the validity of information I need for work.  I don't go wandering over the internet tracing blogs to find that gem of "true" "Factual" inofrmation. 

 

Is it really laziness?  In some cases yes.  In many cases, no.  In many cases, I think some people aren't even aware of the difference.

10 years ago

"Three weeks now of Obberman and Maddow and the Ed Show and all I have is a headache Kevin - have I watched them enough now to have an opinion about them?"--Northern

 

It seems we agree that most people watch what confirms their pre-existing opinions and are lazy about checking accuracy.

 

I wonder if that is supposed to be a question in there to me, or just my name and a rhetorical question because I did say anyone needed to watch Olbermann, Maddow or Ed Show, especially if they cause headaches.

 

I agree though that they are about entertainment more than news, and they intend to present editorial opinion, which to me is fine even if it comes from people like O'Reilly.  My problem comes with bald-faced lies and refusing to correct lies/ inaccuracies when they are pointed out, but I do think most people are willing to be lied to as long as it is a lie they agree with. 

10 years ago

"You know though,  I have only so much time in the day.  I check the validity of information I need for work.  I don't go wandering over the internet tracing blogs to find that gem of "true" "Factual" inofrmation."--Suzanne

 

You speak volumes about the state of the normal news consumer.  God bless Knate's willingness to sift through news, but most people do not find that expenditure of time practical.  I think the best thing to do in that case is to find as objective and accurate source is possible, confirm its objectivity and accuracy as best one can, and use it until you find out otherwise (with occasional checks of course).

 

About 15 years ago, I did a lot of archival research into old newspaper accounts about Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Middle East issues.  I read a lot of old Christian Science Monitor contemporary accounts of historical events, and found that history had turned out much the way the CSM had covered it.  I have found the CSM to be reliable and accurate since then, and got particularly good coverage of the buildup to the Iraq invasion.

10 years ago

That's  one of the things I do read.  (CSM that is)

10 years ago

Sorry Nancy, I accidentally put Suzanne's name on your quote.  I was jus reading something from her in another thread, and I guess her name was in my head (BTW, your cat still seems to like LaCroix and so do me and my wife  )

 

Glad to hear you have had the same experience with CSM

10 years ago

 

Dear Kevin,

 

I realize I didn't answer your original question, which wasn't about what I do, but what I think others do.

 

I do not like to focus on what I think others do - because I have no way of judging their entire life experiences or what sources of news are actually available to them....but that said....

 

I do think all of us - all of us - have the tendency to believe what we want to believe - and seek "support" for our beliefs in people and news sources around us.  I think we all do that - some way more than others.

 

I think very few of really, really, really deeply challenge our own thoughts and beliefs and totally, objectively consider opposing ideas and opinions.

 

To me, the internet is proof enough of that.

 

That is my opinion.

 

 

Kevin
10 years ago

(BTW, your cat still seems to like LaCroix and so do me and my wife  )

 

You had mentioned that before and I didn't comment.  But yes, my husband and I (as well as Roy) love LaCroix waters.  I like bubbles,  I like a bit of flavor,  I don't like sweet drinks.  It works for me.

10 years ago

We also like the carbonation with some flavor but without the massive sweetness. I used to like ordinary soft drinks more, but started drinking LaCroix to avoid all the calories (oh the tragedy of the 30s).  Now, I pretty much prefer it to soft drinks for both taste and no calories.

10 years ago

"I realize I didn't answer your original question, which wasn't about what I do, but what I think others do."--Knate

 

And I may never forgive you.

 

"I do think all of us - all of us - have the tendency to believe what we want to believe - and seek "support" for our beliefs in people and news sources around us.  I think we all do that - some way more than others.

 

I think very few of really, really, really deeply challenge our own thoughts and beliefs and totally, objectively consider opposing ideas and opinions."--Knate

 

That seems to be the consensus of the group. And I think most people would even admit to doing it a little themselves.  But in my personal defense, I try to give people like O'Reilly or Beck a chance, but it is usually less than five minutes before they say something patently wrong, and I don't mean mere matters of opinion.

10 years ago

Dear Kevin,

 

I forgive you for not granting me forgiveness. 

 

 

I am not in disagreement with you about O'Reilly and Beck.

 

In fairness, not I think they never "tell" the truth or describe the truth, but IMO- my opinion - they are more concerned with presenting a political agenda than they are in presenting "absolute" truth.

10 years ago

Kevin,  Always nice to be thought about, hope it wasn't in a she's a #@%@# way. 

10 years ago

My viewing is extremely limited, therefor it is very selective. I watch Fox because it is not a bunch of lemmings jumping off the cliff because it was directed to do so. Programs are insightful, usually ahead of the curve in content, bringing the issues forth before the MSM are even aware or awake. Fox news - as opposed to Fox opinion - is the best on the tube in examining the issues of the day.


Fox opinion, including Beck, Hannity and O'Reilley is top notch. Van susteren is okay, Geraldo can't get over that although he is here legally every CriminAlien out there isn't.

10 years ago

"Kevin,  Always nice to be thought about, hope it wasn't in a she's a #@%@# way."--Suzanne (NOT NANCY)

 

Perish the thought.

 

No, I think it was  reading some thread where we agreed (now you can perish the thought).

10 years ago

"I watch Fox because it is not a bunch of lemmings jumping off the cliff because it was directed to do so."--Robert

 

No, half of those lemmings are jumping off the cliff because they are crazier than shithouse rats, and the others march in lockstep off cliffs because they were ordered by their true leaders.

10 years ago

 

 


The Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing.

 

 

 

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

http://people-press.org/report/559/

 

10 years ago

Whatever, boyo. You are a prime example of the wannabe elitist who wants to be the Great Dictator of Everything.


Merely because someone disagrees with you doesn't nmean that they are wrong. It means that they disagree with you. Get out and about off campus with that attitude and I'd be interested in seeing the lumps you get.

{:^))

10 years ago

Howzabout in the future, if you are going to set up a thread for the purpose of blasting people's opinions when you were asking for them in the IP, just state your intent at the top so that those of us who don't want to waste our time with your rants can ignore you.

10 years ago

It's probably viewed as more ideological because it is being called that by the other channels and the White Hosue!


Those people who are watching FOX and making it the #1 news/opinion channel on TV are voting with their feet. How's that CNN doing? NBC? MSNBC? ABC?


2010 should be interesting

10 years ago

"Whatever, boyo. You are a prime example of the wannabe elitist who wants to be the Great Dictator of Everything.


Merely because someone disagrees with you doesn't nmean that they are wrong. It means that they disagree with you. Get out and about off campus with that attitude and I'd be interested in seeing the lumps you get."--Robert
 
I'm not an elitist and I don't want to be an elitist. I have never wanted to be dictator of anything, nor have I ever said anything to that effect. I didn't say that disagreeing with me makes anyone wrong but being wrong does make someone wrong.


I don't know what you think goes on in college, but it is not whatever you think it is. 

 

And even though you have googled my name and searched the internet for information about me, you do not know as much as you think about my private life. You would do well not to make assumptions about my life because you are consistently wrong.

10 years ago

“Howzabout in the future, if you are going to set up a thread for the purpose of blasting people's opinions when you were asking for them in the IP, just state your intent at the top so that those of us who don't want to waste our time with your rants can ignore you.”—Robert

 

I didn’t start the thread to blast anyone’s opinions.  I started the thread to ask for people’s opinions.  My comment about Fox viewers was to point out that other news viewers are no more lemming-like than Fox viewers.   

10 years ago

Bullshyte.


And bullshyte.

And by the way, the Founding fathers did not expect newspapers to be objective - hence the First amendment. That blather of the 'objectivity' of the press is a 20th century invention.


BTW...it's "...and so do my wife and I', not "...and so do me and my wife."

10 years ago

"Other news viewers are no more lemming -like than FOX viewers. " .


So you've changed your tune?

10 years ago

I haven't changed my tune at all. I never said consumers of other news sources are more lemming-like than Fox News viewers. 

 

And if you decide to be the grammar smack guy on Care2, you're going to have a lot of work ahead of you.  I don't mind being guilty of not proofreading my posts.

10 years ago

You've never compared the idioys who watch|FOX to lemmings, or of being lemming-like , as in mindlessly following? Hmmm..

Not proof-reading is one thing, KEVIN. Ignorance of basic language skills is something else.

10 years ago

Sometimes I look at news from people like the Daily Express, Daily Mail and even the Sun. I look at it to find out how other people percieve the news. It doesn't reflect my opinions at all, not even slightly. Maybe some people watch Fox news for the same reason?

I apologise in advance for any grammatical errors that may upset Robert's delicate sensibilities. 

10 years ago

"You've never compared the idioys who watch|FOX to lemmings, or of being lemming-like , as in mindlessly following? Hmmm..

Not proof-reading is one thing, KEVIN. Ignorance of basic language skills is something else."--Robert

 

I have probably called Fox News viewers lemmings in more threads than this one, but I haven't denied it here.  I haven't changed my tune.

10 years ago

"I apologise in advance for any grammatical errors that may upset Robert's delicate sensibilities."--Lynn

 

Careful now.

10 years ago

 

 

 

 

 

Please return to a discussion of the issue and issues and please back off of the personally belittling and demeaning remarks and inferences.


Please discuss and debate and argue the issues, not your personality conflicts.

10 years ago

I tend to think that the majority of folks seek out news sources that confirm their own opinions.  I try to seek out sources that differ from my thoughts, but I don't always succeed.

 

I think that it's important to see what differing opinions are on issues.  There just isn't always time to do that.

 

I listen to NPR and PRI in the car. I watch various news stations.  I sometimes watch network news - I like some of the Sundays morning news shows.

 

I have to admit that I just cannot bring myself to watch Fox.

 

Different strokes for different folks.....

10 years ago

 

Very well-said, Elizabeth.

 

Thank you.

 

I agree with you that many of us, consciously or unconsciously, seek out news and opinions that confirm what we already believe.  I think that is a natural tendency in most people.

10 years ago

Don't worry, Lynn. There's a good chance that I won't read your stuff.

10 years ago

 

 

(Is there an echo in here?)

 



Please, please, let's discuss and debate and argue the issues, not personality conflicts.

10 years ago

She started it! <<5th grade outrage>>



This post was modified from its original form on 31 Oct, 5:46
10 years ago

Okay...(smile)...but please, let's move on.

 

Or no milk and cookies later.

10 years ago

It seems as though everyone agrees that people generally seek out news sources that tell them what they want to hear.

 

Does anyone think otherwise?  I'm not asking because I want to argue the point.  I'm asking because I'd actually like to think people generally do seek out objective news sources rather than ones that confirm their opinion.

10 years ago

 

 

 

I agree, Kevin, and I agree that is exactly the only reason you asked the question....which, BTW, I consider a very interesting subject.

 

 

 

 

10 years ago

Unfortunately, for exery issue we disagree on, this seems to be one the group has a consensus on.

 

Anyone have thoughts about what that means for American democracy?

10 years ago

 

 

This is one phenomena, IMO, that is not good for American Democracy.

 

Of course, there are many phenomena that affect American Democracy, some good, some bad.  This is just one element.

 

But if we, the people, end up only going to sources of news ythat agree with our pre-conceived notions, ideas, prejudices and opinions, then we are left with very little room where we can learn something new.

 

What do you think, Kevin?

10 years ago

The issue of news niches concerns me, too.

 

If people seek only sources that tell them what they want to hear, then there is no common ground, common understanding or common starting point.

 

We've all seen it on Care2 where there is a discussion and it is as though the different people were on entirely different planets.  People can escape reality and get their fantasies reinforced, their misunderstandings compounded and their fears multiplied. 

 

And it doesn't matter if they are trying to communicate with people from the "other side" or people who are just trying to get their opinions but can't figure out what the heck they are tlking about because there is a whole separate reality created.

 

And I am not sure what will happen when the majority of Americans wind up in that situation, if it hasn't happened already.

Dangerous Road for America with Dysfunctional Driver at the Wheel
10 years ago
10 years ago

Kevin, Kneight. I would think you are right that the majority of people only want to hear what they want to hear and have a very blinkered attitude. They watch the news that they choose to agree with. Very bad thing indeed. That, in my opinion, is why the news is best presented as an unbiased account of what is happening and not like news has become nowadays, a "magasine" style thing full of comment, personal opinion and biased political views. This only adds to the "them and us" type mentality which is so damaging.

10 years ago

Dear Lynn,

 

That is very well-said. I have the same worries you do.

 

 

 

Dear Kevin,

 

You, too; I agree and share the same concerns in the same way.

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.
 

New to Care2? Start Here.