Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Reading the news...
nakazcid
Somewhere in Dixie, y'all Veteran
Today, for unknown reasons, I read a website carrying local news. It was quite depressing, and really soured my mood. There were tales of poverty and injustice, site members flinging vitriol and hatred around, and was a generally unpleasant experience.
So that raises a question. How do members of this site keep up with news, if at all? So much of the news seems designed to titallate, panic or outrage the consumer, none of which seems conducive to practice. Have you found a news outlet that's not hysterical, or at least doesn't push an agenda? Is staying informed worth the upset? On the other hand, does the news inspire you to action, writing your legislator or marching in protests?
0
Comments
I glance through my local city newspaper every morning. Sometimes I'll check out a news story link online when I sign out of Hotmail.
I try to keep up with what's going on in the world. I try not to dwell on all the pain and misery that the people of the world are experiencing. Yes, I'm aware of it. No, I don't let it fester in my mind. I try to be a positive and uplifting influence on those around me. Maybe I should be more active in the world at large?
I don't watch the news at all. I live in the Canary Islands, although I'm Scottish by birth, and a few weeks ago I went back to the UK to discover that there was a general election happening. I hadn't heard a thing about it. Equally, here in the Canaries, I don't watch the news nor read papers. I don't miss or need a continual bad news feed, which to me, is all the mainstream media does: mis represent, mis report and manipulate. To be honest, I don't think much of it is any of my business anyway, I've got enough to do keeping my own small existence relatively sane...
I will peek at the AOL news every now and then, but it's too upsetting - in every possible way -- I haven't owned a TV set since analog became digital (ain't no way I'm paying for something that always used to be free). I'm doing well without the constant talking heads in my face.
It depends on the day. Some days I can tell I'm already feeling oversensitive, and I just leave the computer off entirely because being anywhere online exposes you to news. Overall, I stick to general, local news, but I'm in a rural area so not much happens here. I never, ever read the comments on any article, however, as those are always vastly worse than the articles. I try not to read too much into things and remember the bias that everyone sees and reports the world as. I do specifically look for feel-good news stories to combat the everyday crap.
We still have cable tv, but we would have ditched it long ago in favor of netflix/hulu/amazon video...if it weren't for sports. My husband is a baseball fanatic and even if you get the online subscription for MLB, the games that are shown in your area are blacked out, so we could watch every game except our home-state team...which is just silly. So, we're stuck with cable though we watch little on it.
That brings to my mind an interesting point, @karasti. Back in the day when I used to get newspapers delivered, I would read the op/ed pages to get what I felt was a finer gist on what was going on -- I can't deal with reading too much stuff even though I love to read - which doesn't make a lot of sense, even to me.
I do it less than I used to, but I still read four or five news sources per day. Reuters may be the best of them. To know what's happening -- even if it's just the lies being told -- in the world we inhabit strikes me as important, whether in Buddhism or anything else. I do have increasing sympathy for the ostrich approach to news, but that probably has something to do with advancing age.
To keep up (roughly) with the news strikes me as responsible and Buddhism, to the extent anyone may credit it, is a broadly and deeply responsible pastime... or anyway, I think so. Please don't expect me to think well of you when you 'care' about racism, economic inequality, hunger, war, religious freedom, education, pedophilia, global warming, democracy, justice or anything else without 'caring' enough to inform yourself. Sincerity by itself doesn't impress me.
This is just my point of view. What you do is your responsibility.
US TV domestics that in IMO are not worth the time: NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN because I find them superficial. MSNBC and Fox because I find them sensational and biased.
US domestics that I do use: NPR and PBS (broadcast) and AP (online and in the local paper).
Good sources for international and some US domestic coverage: Reuters and the Guardian (online) France 24 and Al Jazeera English (streamed to my TV via Nowhere TV on Roku).
Until recently I consumed more news than I do now. I tend to strong opinions about things and I have come to realize some of that consumption was an ego investment. Still, as a citizen and a human being I feel some obligation to be informed about what is happening and especially what my government is doing in my name. I don't have time to be much of an activist now, but that may change in the future.
On the other hand, I know people who are extremely informed about many issues...and do nothing about it.
I had teachers in my school who could go up and down the list of various new teaching techniques and strategies, tell you all about them, cite studies, but couldn't put them in practice in their own classroom.
And, how much do you need to know about some topics -- you mentioned pedophilia, as one example -- to know it's wrong and inappropriate and express such an opinion.
The most brilliant man I ever knew lived in a barn.
But as you say, all that's just my POV.
As my health got worse, in hindsight, I could no longer even open the papers I used to get (the LATimes and the OCRegister) -- I just didn't have the stamina for that. I had my own drama and trauma to deal with. Now that I am most definitely and sincerely 'older' we all have heard each and every news story before - if we haven't lived it ourselves in some way, so I'm good with just learning more about Buddhism these days.. But, I rez with all you said, @genkaku.
National news...I'm burned out. I turn on local news in the morning and catch up on traffic reports....hot spots of kids acting up...local bum landlords...and the really major national stuff gets pushed in bits there. PBS in the evening. That's about all I can take these days. I called and cancelled all the 24 hr channels and am trying to get used to reading news online. One TV in the house. I have more control/select over what I expose myself too. I can usually feel when I need a break...when it's getting to be too much and not much I can do, etc. I will/have participate in marches, etc if I feel the need. It's a real personal pull, IMO.
It's so nice to see young people taking charge and making things happen....The next generation is doing it's thing....
We live in a conventional world and news will be news, I don't think one can escape it by not watching or reading it, it will always come back and bite you in the bum....However
One needs to train the mind and not be a slave to ones senses....More often than not we are a 'doormat ' to our senses, a real pushover, we let them walk all over us...
"The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the mind-The mind is the root from which all things grow-If you can understand the mind-Everything else is included ! "
Bodhidharma
Thanks for the responses everyone. Let me explain a little bit about how I consume news.
The only news site I follow regularly is a technology blog, so I'm reasonably well informed about science and technology, which includes things like government surveillance, global warming and net neutrality. And I vote on these issues. Other issues I get informed of via tangential means - MSN opens up when I open my browser and I at least get the headlines that way.
My aunt watches MSNBC, and frequently has fits about what some conservative commentator has said. My father and grandfather were both journalists, and yet I struggle to identify how this made them better people. Knowledge of injustices in the world can inspire one to act, yet without action it is merely knowledge of a fact. Even when people do act, many times it seems to be out of outrage or anger, which seems to be more of an impediment to practice than a boon. Yet even with what I know, I act infrequently on the big issues, usually just at the polling station. What I do try to do to implement my practice, is to be patient, kind and mindful with those whom I interact with. This won't change the world, but will hopefully make my corner of it a little more pleasant, and further my practice.
Yet this approach is insufficient for some Buddhists. Thich Nhat Hanh started the Engaged Buddhist movement during the Vietnam War to address the suffering caused by war. I admire his goals and philosophy, but I hate standing out in a crowd. I have a very retiring personality, and can't see myself out on the streets protesting and raising awareness. Perhaps a quieter way of protesting would suit me better...
I used to put the news on in the morning, but it's not even news anymore. It's 3 minutes of news followed by 2 hours of entertainment. It's just noise, mostly. Having kids, I do keep up decently with current events, they discuss at school and so we discuss at home. I don't have any tv news I watch though, not like my parents did where every night they watched the 6 o'clock news and then 20/20 or whatever was on that day. I read up on regional papers online a few times a week. Anything noteworthy my kids bring home otherwise, and I get the sensational news from my FB feed. Duggar molestation, royal baby name, butter is good/not good for you, that kind of stuff. But I don't pay most of it much mind. That said, most of my feel-good stories come from social media. Very little via typical news sources.
We could always write the news ...
http://www.newspaperclub.com
Can we call it 'New Buddhist News'?
I am picky about where I get my news from.
Far too many online news sites are full of speculation and opinion pieces.
I should have said in my initial comment, that I was a press photographer for over 20 years, working mostly on national newspapers. Believe me, it's a dirty game. I saw the worst of it through the 80s and 90s...now all I photograph are landscapes. I don't have any respect for print media anymore, I can't comment about radio or TV, and I don't use either of those!
I can only say that when I've been on retreat and not seen the news at all for several weeks I feel better for it.
I check out Fox News and MSNBC, partly for news, but also to note the obvious biases... it tells a lot about the political agendas at play.
I do the same, @Telly03 but sometimes for me it feels like I am checking on the "enemy" or the "other side" just to keep tabs on them. It just increases my sense of duality between differing people. I'm trying to break the habit.
I think for me, it would not be possible to entirely give up the news without given up social media. I wish there were better filters on FB so I could eliminate keywords instead of just page by page as shared articles show in my feeds. It does nothing to keep me from seeing ignorant comments by people I disagree with but nonetheless care about. It is the only way I have to easily keep in touch with our large families, so it's not going away entirely. I have a hard time managing what I consume as far as social media.
I follow the news through NYTimes, BBC, NPR, and conservative AM radio (the last is more entertainment than news, heh). Truthfully, none of these sources overloads me with sensationalized current events like FaceBook can. Too many newshound friends I reckon.
There is a great filter on FB, it's called "unfriend". I don't feel bad about taking someone off my list if they insist on pushing political or religious views, because I feel they are being inconsiderate by doing so. I even took off a couple family members, one was my Mom... I stay in touch with her, just cut off her means to take cheap shots on issues I don't agree with.
It's not so much that they are pushing views, thank goodness, but they comment on various articles and then those articles come up in my feed. For example, many, many comments and posts on the Josh Duggar story, with lots of name calling and so on. Some of them are very good friends who are free to use FB whatever way they choose. I don't unfriend everyone who doesn't share my views of how I prefer to use it. Some of them are family members who I need to keep in touch with-people who are from my kids' families and so on. I have unfriended people, I'm not afraid to do so. I just don't want to do that in these cases. Other times, I just block them from showing in my feed. But some of them, I want to see like 90% of what they post. Just not the other 10%.
To me, part of taking a person as he (or she) is, is being aware of their views on various topics. I occasionally post on Facebook about issues that are important to me -- for example, lately about the police/racism issue, and occasionally politics. That's part of who I am. People can read it or not. It's led to some good discussions and understandings.
Frankly, the part of Facebook that I hate is watching vids people post about cats and dogs and their friends whom I don't even know. But, you have to take the good with the bad (and just pass over the bad).
@karasti Never have opened a FB account. My wife has one, that's how I hear quite a bit of family news, especially from the younger generation. I've seen some of the crap that people post on there, and have no desire to be bombarded by it.
Maybe just sticking to emails is a better way to keep in touch? I guess it depends on your tolerance level.
Exactly. I wish it was different, but it is what it is and I can choose to use it or not. I took a month off over the winter, didn't even log in. But then I get a million texts a day from people asking how the kids are and so on, lol. Kind of defeats the purpose of a break! I just wish FB allowed us to filter our feeds more, but I also understand that in using it for free, I am actually the product and not the consumer.
Is it just me, or have the innovations in social media made people less patient than they used to be? People sometimes really get upset if you don't respond to them in what they see as a timely manner.
I stay as far as possible away from Facebook, mostly because, like heroin addiction, I sense the danger that in using it, I too may come to feel that I am being "connected" when in fact I am being placed at a greater distance from any honest/messy/wonderful/awful human contact.
Not sure what you mean by "timely", but I did drop one "friend" I used to be very close with. After retirement I moved overseas and then to Colorado, and about once every 6 months I'd get an email along the lines of, "I'm just so busy, when I get some time I'll send an email." She was retired, also. So it seemed to me that if she couldn't invest literally a couple of minutes once every month or two to send/reply to an email...well, wasn't much of a friend in reality.
I think the whole internet has contributed to that, not just social media. People have a whole set of rules they apply to themselves and then expect others to know, share, and follow their rules. It's kind of funny, lol. I tend to treat live messenger conversations (not like emails, but FB messenger) when they are happening, as a phone conversation. I'd never hang up without saying I had to go and say goodbye, yet regularly people just log off of online conversations, even if they know I'm in the middle of typing. It makes me laugh to think about, because it used to really bother me. Or my mom will send me a message and ask me a question, and then never respond even though it was 5 seconds before. But her view of that is different than mine, so I can't apply my way to her. It only makes us both unhappy.
Honestly, online shopping has ruined shopping for me, LOL. We have an Amazon prime account, so I now just expect everything to be here, for free even, in 2 days. And I live in the sticks (which is why we order online frequently) so that's a tall order, but it doesn't stop me from getting inpatient or frustrated if I find myself having to wait a few days. Nevermind that I grew up in a time when we had to place catalog orders over the phone and then wait lie 3-4 weeks for the items to arrive at a catalog center in or near our town. I ordered a new pen the other day, and was utterly shocked that while they have them on amazon, the seller still takes a week to ship it. I couldn't find a single place online where I could order the pen and not have to wait a week. It drove me crazy!
So yes, I think the internet in general has changed a whole lot of stuff in our lives, and very quickly at that. It also allows for some amazing stuff, so if we focus on that then we don't have to allow the negative to take over. So many stories of people finding health information, finding lost family members, finding out the junk from grandma is worth a small fortune. We're quite spoiled with it, but you know what happens when people are spoiled. I think a lot of us are spoiled and we probably act accordingly in some way or another. Rotten. We're all rotten
lol
-I read the local newspaper; Vermont is pretty laid back and I live in a small village; sort of a real life "Mayberry," so thankfully there isn't much vitriol in the Addision Independent :-) I try not to expose myself to the stuff you outlined above. As for world news, BBC/Reuters/NPR gives me a broader perspective.
The last time I joined a protest march was in 1990 (the first Iraq war). I suppose you could say the media informed me and inspired the action. I never looked at it that way tho...
Well, that's pushing the envelope pretty far. But I'm thinking more along the lines of responding after a few days, when everyone expects a few hours, or even minutes.
I know sometimes, it takes me awhile to gather my thoughts and write an email. Especially if it's a controversial subject, I like to take the time to respond in a 'right speech' manner.
-I don't do facebook either; or any social media. You gotta love Facebook tho, it's the only "place" I know where one can have 627 friends and still feel lonely/alienated...
A friend of mine used to work for the central company responsible for paginating and arranging column space for all the major, leading National newspapers. He stated that the only news he took any notice of was the last-minute, urgently-sent flash pieces sent in by reporters across the globe, in an effort to get their stories in, in time for publication. The pieces were maybe 4 or 5 sentences long, at the most, and were printed, side-on, on the last page.
Because of the urgency on the part of the reporters, there was no room for drama, poetic licence, embellishment or exaggeration. What you saw, is pretty much what it was.
He stated that most newspapers were full of tripe, and only really good for fish 'n' chips. You could condense a two-pge spread to one paragraph, if you removed all the rubbish....
On the plus side, lol, the people on my FB friends list are truly people that are either friends in real life, or family. Just some of them no longer live nearby and so it's hard to update them on stuff without one place to do so, so FB serves that purpose. One of my friends has almost 2000 FB friends. That's crazy! My list stays around 150, about half family, half friends.
I've loved one benefit of Facebook. After retiring and moving away, I have had colleagues I worked with get in touch (and the reverse), and even students who have contacted me.
The most interesting was me getting in touch with the family of a foreign exchange student from Kenya we had from Cornell University when I was just a kid. We had lost track many years ago. Facebook led me to his wife. I learned that he had recently died, but she and their daughter were fascinated to learn about a little chapter in Stephen's life that they didn't know about. They were especially excited with some photographs that I provided.
I read the news but I expect it to be disappointing. So when I read it, I'm not disappointed, ha! But seriously, I think of it as just a reflection of samsara. Samsara is filled with suffering so the news is going to be too. I think what's important is how you react to it. Does it cause more compassion in you? Or more anger and worry? If it's the former, that's good! If it's the latter, not so good!
Called 'snap' , ' rush ' and ' rush full ' in the trade. Like you say, the best copy.
I read a pretty broad spectrum of news. Left to right from around the globe.
I try to approach as a practice like walking meditation.
I love the news. I was sad to hear Shakyamuni died. Did hear rumours he went to Paraguay Paranirvana ...
99% of news is sensationalist, poorly researched and unfounded fear-mongering.
In fact, as massive amount of "news" comes directly from Press Releases from corporations -- these are pre-written sound-bites with a not-so-hidden agenda (promoting their business). These stories are run, often with little or no editing, because the journalists who still have jobs are under massive time pressures. For a great look at how the "news" can so be easily manipulated, check out this article: http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
I tend to read only "long-news" stories - longer articles about the bigger issues behind the news. That is where you are more likely to get good old-fashioned, quality, investigative journalism. And believe me, there is more than enough of it still around. The New Yorker would be one example of where you could find many such stories every week. Lately I have also found Aeon to be an excellent site for longer reads.
I think people read/watch news from FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) but there is really nothing to miss, and believe me, if a news story is REALLY big and worth hearing about on the day (like a 9-11 scale event) then you will definitely hear about it anyway, since everyone will be talking about it.
Honestly, not reading/watching daily newspapers and TV news programs is one of the easiest and best steps you can take for filtering out "noise". Try it for a week and I promise you won't regret it.
I saw this in my FB feed from an obscure news source, but then saw it on the front of CNNs main page.
Is it irresponsible for media to publicize things like this? Does it help encourage violence like we saw at the last cartoon contest in TX? I personally find it irresponsible to give voice to groups who don't deserve it. I didn't read the article. in the one I did read, posted by a Muslim friend on FB, one of the people who planned the rally said that they will be responding to threats of their 1st amendment rights, with threats of their 2nd amendments rights (ie for those not in the US "If you try to keep us away, we'll have guns with us."). They said Islam is a violent religion. Um. Pretty sure they aren't the ones showing up at a religious center with weapons meant to anger others...Sigh. Humanity.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/us/mohammed-cartoon-contest/index.html
You have to pay attention to what's going on in your neighborhood, your nation, and the world. That's because what we call "the world" is actually the people in it and while most of us are pretty helpless to affect world events, we can still be a voice of reason when opportunity presents.
It does mean knowing that media and the people giving voice to events have an agenda. We all have an agenda, and that doesn't make it good or bad. It doesn't mean people are deliberately lying to you, either, although that might be the case. The agenda might be to point out the truth of a situation so you'll be motivated to help with a donation or petition or vote.
I think it should be publicized for a couple of reasons.
First, public safety. Let me shift it just slightly. There was also a story within the last week about a group that is attempting to place ads in a similar vein on the Washington, D.C. metro subway system. I used to use that subway system quite a bit when I lived in the area. If they did that, I would urge all the people in the area to stop using the subway, not as a protest against it, but as a simple case of public safety.
Second, news is news. News isn't "convenient". News isn't "pretty". It's just news.
I didn't mean to suggest we simply pretend it isn't happening. Letting people know what is going on gives them a chance to make decisions either way. However, I find much media, as mentioned in a previous post, to be overly sensationalistic. Click-bait might have a place in certain things but not in informed news, in my opinion.
The article I initially read mentioned the cartoon contest within the article but it was not a focus. The title was "In Arizona, bike gang plans armed protest outside of Islamic mosque" versus CNN's headline which was focused solely on the cartoon contest. One of them is more inflammatory than the other after the events in Texas and France. In my perception anyhow. One was informational and factual, the other was still factual, but only part of the whole (much bigger) story and focused on what they knew would get people to click and read because "Mohammed cartoon contest" is now associated with terrorists.
I understand what you're saying. And there's no question that there are better "news- writers" out there, and the "not so good" news-writers out there. Just as with authors of books, whether it be fiction or non-fiction. And that's where the consumer has to make choices about which news sources to "buy" into.
I live in a very conservative city. But I will not buy the local conservative rag. So instead, I buy the more middle of the road, slightly liberal Denver newspaper. I typically watch CNN, occasionally MSNBC, but NEVER Fox. For political news I prefer Politico. And in each case, my choices are based on how those outlets cover the news. But even within those sources I am selective. Even though my preference is CNN, I rarely will watch Wolf Blitzer because of his overly dramatic style. If I feel like a taste of MSNBC, okay, but almost never Al Sharpton. We have to be selective.
Indeed @vinlyn. I think a lot of the time we click on links and just skim an article, even the ones we know will make us angry without stopping to think that our clicking on links (especially from other sources that bring you to the source page) is literally paying to support that article and the companies who choose to write that way. If you don't like seeing something, for crying out loud don't click on it and give them the idea that more people desire those stories!
I'm not much of one to GENERALLY blame the media, because I think that overall the media is like a mirror that simply reflects us. Of course, when you're watching FOX it's more like a fun house mirror that wildly distorts reality. Somewhat true with MSNBC, although their pure news coverage is not bad, but their commentary-coverage is clearly biased.
Most of us, and I don't mean the Buddhists, get their kicks when they read the news that someone has killed a number of other people (but killing pigs, cows, lambs... who cares). Natural catastrophes are really awesome alterations for their every day life.
"It's 'Good News' week"
@polja Some of it, I am sure is fascination with what is happening in horror stories, but a lot of it I think, makes us feel ok and safe in our lives. It lets us escape from what seem to be mundane problems of our own and making it ok for us to refuse to address them by putting ourselves in a "well at least THAT isn't me" position. But it does also offer a unique opportunity to help that wasn't there 50 years ago. Thanks to cell phones and the internet and cable tv, donations poor in for crises. That didn't happen before. So there is always a flip side.