I found BusinessWeek of the 90s/early 2000s to be the counterpoint to this problem. You read about economic trends: places in Africa where metal production was on the rise, hubs of plastic manufacturing throughout Asia, American cities outsourcing parking enforcement, and other stuff like that. It gave you a sense of things going on in the world without jumping from flashy topic to flashy topic. I still haven't found a replacement.
During all of Black Lives Matter years, I was really hoping someone would pick up the slogan of "If you think police brutality is bad for black lives, look at heart disease and cancer!" and demand more federal research dollars to help the black community approach this problem effectively. Maybe earlier cardiovascular and cancer screenings for black Americans. IDK, something. But nope. I considered promoting that myself because it truly seemed a once in a lifetime chance to focus on, yano, saving black lives. For obvious reasons I couldn't have been the one, but the energy was there. Maybe people tried. But with people whipped up by the media about police first and foremost, there was no hope of the movement changing course, or even branching into little cells that could focus on other things costing way more black lives.
I did hear some news at the time about how there were worse outcomes for black mothers and newborns, compared to other groups, and suggesting that there was room for improvement in pre/post natal care. I don't know if anything came of it, though.
While some people still insist on watching MSNBC and Fox, and NPR or AM talk radio may be good for wasting traffic time, it seems to me the absolute worst case scenario these days is TwiXter doom-scrolling. Its like installing a permanent screwdriver into your brain--and people are convinced it’s the only way to “stay on top of things.”
---------------------------------------
As a school lad in the early 90’s I became enamored with Marshall McLuhan and went deep into media studies. In the mid-90’s, as an airman, it was clear to me that CNN (a constant feed exists in every mess hall) were incentivized to keep people in a perpetual state of alarm.
I dropped all television news around 1995-96 and a decade and a half later all radio news. TwiXter revealed itself as the enemy somewhere around 2013. I have suppressed almost all news inputs and I’m still just as informed (often more so than my peers) but without the chip on my shoulder.
An example...People raced to tell me Kissinger died. He could have died 20 years ago and nothing would be different. I’m convinced most of them didn’t know he was even alive, nor why they should even care about him in the first place other than “bad Conservative is bad!” They just wanted the cool points of knowing. That’s what the entire news-o-sphere is: “look what I know!” /endRant
COVID/everything that happened during COVID caused a pretty massive change in my views on a lot of issues.
If you mean that day to day sensational headlines don't matter, I agree. But if you mean events happening don't contain any new data on the nature of existence that's too strong.
"What newsworthy event could even conceivably show, for example, that Muslim immigration to the First World is fine?"
If their overall statistical behavior changed substantially I would revise my views on the matter. Terrorist attacks were never an important metric to me, I would like to see them use less welfare, commit less crime, vote less leftists, etc.
I think one off sensational events sometimes become schnelling points for public action. For instance this stabbing in Ireland acts as a point for people to focus their overall frustration with Islamic immigration. The same way particular events during Jim Crow were used as schnelling points to protest Jim Crow, etc.
Of course it's going to matter to you whether the protest is justified, but that it congregates around specific outrageous events is just normal.
I once saw two young Muslim women blocking the aisle of a plane while trying to stow their luggage. An older, taller white male helped them put their bags in the overhead bin and, when he realized they weren't sitting together, switched seats with one of them. My immediate reaction was, "Too bad this will never make the news."
Another big problem is news outlets frequently have headlines reading "Immigrant Robs/Shoots/Kills" but never ones that say "Native-born Robs/Shoots/Kills".
Another big problem is news outlets frequently have headlines reading "Immigrant Robs/Shoots/Kills" but never ones that say "Native-born Robs/Shoots/Kills".
---
Nearly every news organization hides the race of the perpetrator if they are non-white and publishes it if they are white. This bias has been documented statistically and is quite robust.
I think his point was more that people make a big deal out of immigrant crime, but don't really compare it to native crime rates in a robust way. You either here not a peep about race or immigration status as you say, or you hear way too much on race and immigration status alone. A lot of bias in either direction, but very little even handed factual analysis.
> the total number of unarmed blacks fatally shot by U.S. police in 2019 was 14,
The problem with this statistic is that not all of the fatalities are correctly reported by police departments (local police departments are notoriously bad about reporting this kind data). All three of the categories "unarmed", "black", and "shot by police" are likely to be highly under-reported. In 2019, https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ reports 251 black people and 156 other/unknown people were shot to death by US Police. 14 of them may have been reported as unarmed, but how many of them were _actually_ unarmed? The Guardian reports 42 individual instances of unarmed black people who were killed by police in 2016, plus 61 other black people killed who were "armed" with something other than a gun or a knife (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database). What really matters, of course, is not whether they were unarmed but rather "was the shooting justified (regardless of whether or not they were unarmed)?" - this is very difficult to know but the lack of transparency makes the problem worse.
I agree directionally that there are many other problems of greater concern and that most news media are garbage at reporting about police violence, but it _is_ more of a problem than the questionable statistic "14 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019" would indicate.
I wouldn't go quite as far as that, but certainly, the news distorts reality by reporting unrepresentative facts. It takes a peculiar kind of discipline to follow the news without getting too paranoid, too partisan, too pessimistic, and having a warped and addled outlook.
That's one reason it's nice to have a college education. College puts a lot of things in your mind other than the news.
"You could sarcastically conclude, 'That’s because all the facts are against you, Bryan.' Consider, though: What newsworthy event could even conceivably show, for example, that Muslim immigration to the First World is fine? The news is never going to announce, 'Another week without an Islamist terrorist attack. Muslims are looking better by the day!'"
I agree with your general point that most people should cut down on their news consumption. But this point is easily refuted. If I saw a news article about how Muslims were over-represented as doctors and Tech CEOs (as is the case with Indian immigrants to the US), that would be a positive sign. Or if there were a paper published that showed that Muslim immigration to a neighborhood was causally associated with better socioeconomic and "high trust" outcomes.
I do agree that these types of articles get written way less frequently than the more sensationalist "immigration is bad" articles. Pro-immigration supporters tend to try not to talk about the impact of immigration *at all*--whether the impact could be plausibly argued good or bad.
'The News' has never been anything other than a manipulative farce because the biggest bias in any news reporting is not so much what is SAID as what is LEFT OUT....editorial selectivity in other words. In that way (just for instance) some murders will get weeks or months of agonising while other murders will barely get a mention. The internet age has done wonders for those with the curiosity, patience and doggedness to educate themselves about 'current affairs' but sadly those kind of people are a small minority. Then there are those who are just not that interested 'The News'...and good for them I say. The worst are those who like a nice handed-you-on-a-plate opinion....and those people are the target market for MSM industrial complex. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/non-binary-sibling-is-entertaining
>the total number of unarmed blacks fatally shot by U.S. police in 2019 was 14,
the total number of unarmed blacks fatally shot by U.S. blacks in 2019 was much higher than 14, but those are politically correct murders which thus did not provoke riots and Leftist outrage.
I found BusinessWeek of the 90s/early 2000s to be the counterpoint to this problem. You read about economic trends: places in Africa where metal production was on the rise, hubs of plastic manufacturing throughout Asia, American cities outsourcing parking enforcement, and other stuff like that. It gave you a sense of things going on in the world without jumping from flashy topic to flashy topic. I still haven't found a replacement.
During all of Black Lives Matter years, I was really hoping someone would pick up the slogan of "If you think police brutality is bad for black lives, look at heart disease and cancer!" and demand more federal research dollars to help the black community approach this problem effectively. Maybe earlier cardiovascular and cancer screenings for black Americans. IDK, something. But nope. I considered promoting that myself because it truly seemed a once in a lifetime chance to focus on, yano, saving black lives. For obvious reasons I couldn't have been the one, but the energy was there. Maybe people tried. But with people whipped up by the media about police first and foremost, there was no hope of the movement changing course, or even branching into little cells that could focus on other things costing way more black lives.
I did hear some news at the time about how there were worse outcomes for black mothers and newborns, compared to other groups, and suggesting that there was room for improvement in pre/post natal care. I don't know if anything came of it, though.
1000%
“News” is a scam
----------------------------------------
While some people still insist on watching MSNBC and Fox, and NPR or AM talk radio may be good for wasting traffic time, it seems to me the absolute worst case scenario these days is TwiXter doom-scrolling. Its like installing a permanent screwdriver into your brain--and people are convinced it’s the only way to “stay on top of things.”
---------------------------------------
As a school lad in the early 90’s I became enamored with Marshall McLuhan and went deep into media studies. In the mid-90’s, as an airman, it was clear to me that CNN (a constant feed exists in every mess hall) were incentivized to keep people in a perpetual state of alarm.
I dropped all television news around 1995-96 and a decade and a half later all radio news. TwiXter revealed itself as the enemy somewhere around 2013. I have suppressed almost all news inputs and I’m still just as informed (often more so than my peers) but without the chip on my shoulder.
An example...People raced to tell me Kissinger died. He could have died 20 years ago and nothing would be different. I’m convinced most of them didn’t know he was even alive, nor why they should even care about him in the first place other than “bad Conservative is bad!” They just wanted the cool points of knowing. That’s what the entire news-o-sphere is: “look what I know!” /endRant
“Doesn’t this make you question your views?”
COVID/everything that happened during COVID caused a pretty massive change in my views on a lot of issues.
If you mean that day to day sensational headlines don't matter, I agree. But if you mean events happening don't contain any new data on the nature of existence that's too strong.
"What newsworthy event could even conceivably show, for example, that Muslim immigration to the First World is fine?"
If their overall statistical behavior changed substantially I would revise my views on the matter. Terrorist attacks were never an important metric to me, I would like to see them use less welfare, commit less crime, vote less leftists, etc.
I think one off sensational events sometimes become schnelling points for public action. For instance this stabbing in Ireland acts as a point for people to focus their overall frustration with Islamic immigration. The same way particular events during Jim Crow were used as schnelling points to protest Jim Crow, etc.
Of course it's going to matter to you whether the protest is justified, but that it congregates around specific outrageous events is just normal.
I once saw two young Muslim women blocking the aisle of a plane while trying to stow their luggage. An older, taller white male helped them put their bags in the overhead bin and, when he realized they weren't sitting together, switched seats with one of them. My immediate reaction was, "Too bad this will never make the news."
Another big problem is news outlets frequently have headlines reading "Immigrant Robs/Shoots/Kills" but never ones that say "Native-born Robs/Shoots/Kills".
Another big problem is news outlets frequently have headlines reading "Immigrant Robs/Shoots/Kills" but never ones that say "Native-born Robs/Shoots/Kills".
---
Nearly every news organization hides the race of the perpetrator if they are non-white and publishes it if they are white. This bias has been documented statistically and is quite robust.
I think his point was more that people make a big deal out of immigrant crime, but don't really compare it to native crime rates in a robust way. You either here not a peep about race or immigration status as you say, or you hear way too much on race and immigration status alone. A lot of bias in either direction, but very little even handed factual analysis.
OK, that video was seriously funny! Thanks for the share.
> the total number of unarmed blacks fatally shot by U.S. police in 2019 was 14,
The problem with this statistic is that not all of the fatalities are correctly reported by police departments (local police departments are notoriously bad about reporting this kind data). All three of the categories "unarmed", "black", and "shot by police" are likely to be highly under-reported. In 2019, https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ reports 251 black people and 156 other/unknown people were shot to death by US Police. 14 of them may have been reported as unarmed, but how many of them were _actually_ unarmed? The Guardian reports 42 individual instances of unarmed black people who were killed by police in 2016, plus 61 other black people killed who were "armed" with something other than a gun or a knife (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database). What really matters, of course, is not whether they were unarmed but rather "was the shooting justified (regardless of whether or not they were unarmed)?" - this is very difficult to know but the lack of transparency makes the problem worse.
I agree directionally that there are many other problems of greater concern and that most news media are garbage at reporting about police violence, but it _is_ more of a problem than the questionable statistic "14 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019" would indicate.
I wouldn't go quite as far as that, but certainly, the news distorts reality by reporting unrepresentative facts. It takes a peculiar kind of discipline to follow the news without getting too paranoid, too partisan, too pessimistic, and having a warped and addled outlook.
That's one reason it's nice to have a college education. College puts a lot of things in your mind other than the news.
"You could sarcastically conclude, 'That’s because all the facts are against you, Bryan.' Consider, though: What newsworthy event could even conceivably show, for example, that Muslim immigration to the First World is fine? The news is never going to announce, 'Another week without an Islamist terrorist attack. Muslims are looking better by the day!'"
I agree with your general point that most people should cut down on their news consumption. But this point is easily refuted. If I saw a news article about how Muslims were over-represented as doctors and Tech CEOs (as is the case with Indian immigrants to the US), that would be a positive sign. Or if there were a paper published that showed that Muslim immigration to a neighborhood was causally associated with better socioeconomic and "high trust" outcomes.
I do agree that these types of articles get written way less frequently than the more sensationalist "immigration is bad" articles. Pro-immigration supporters tend to try not to talk about the impact of immigration *at all*--whether the impact could be plausibly argued good or bad.
'The News' has never been anything other than a manipulative farce because the biggest bias in any news reporting is not so much what is SAID as what is LEFT OUT....editorial selectivity in other words. In that way (just for instance) some murders will get weeks or months of agonising while other murders will barely get a mention. The internet age has done wonders for those with the curiosity, patience and doggedness to educate themselves about 'current affairs' but sadly those kind of people are a small minority. Then there are those who are just not that interested 'The News'...and good for them I say. The worst are those who like a nice handed-you-on-a-plate opinion....and those people are the target market for MSM industrial complex. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/non-binary-sibling-is-entertaining
>the total number of unarmed blacks fatally shot by U.S. police in 2019 was 14,
the total number of unarmed blacks fatally shot by U.S. blacks in 2019 was much higher than 14, but those are politically correct murders which thus did not provoke riots and Leftist outrage.