Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Man gets his news like it's 1899   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, News, news notifications, Breaking news, social networks, digital news, Fox News report, Newspaper, digital news notifications  
•       •       •

6886 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2018 at 2:50 PM (32 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-03-07 01:41:36 PM  
"Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too."

He's not wrong. TV news is a huge waste of time. And, on a story like the school shooting he is referring to, for days they never talk about anything else. Not once. Ever. For days. At least as far as I can tell. I'm talking about CNN. I have limited channels and tend to keep it on in the morning and evenings as I Fark. I can't stand Fox news for two seconds and those are the only two news networks I get.
 
2018-03-07 02:06:27 PM  

slackananda: "Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too."

He's not wrong. TV news is a huge waste of time. And, on a story like the school shooting he is referring to, for days they never talk about anything else. Not once. Ever. For days. At least as far as I can tell. I'm talking about CNN. I have limited channels and tend to keep it on in the morning and evenings as I Fark. I can't stand Fox news for two seconds and those are the only two news networks I get.


Fox isn't a news network. It's an opinion network. And CNN isn't far behind, though they do tend to focus more on the big news stories that draw lots of viewers.

That's just it, the full-time channels today are mostly not news, but opinion. And the people in our country have gotten to a point where we can't tell the difference between fact-based news and spin-based opinion. Look no further than the occupant of the oval office, and his dismissive remarks on the pain caused by tariffs if you want an example.
 
2018-03-07 02:09:42 PM  
But, does he party like it"s 1999?
 
2018-03-07 02:13:59 PM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2018-03-07 02:24:11 PM  

slackananda: TV news is a huge waste of time.


It can be, yes. Depending on what show you watch.

1) In-depth shows like 60 Minutes (back in it's heyday) can give you a thorough understanding of a subject. But that takes time, and time is $$$

2) Pictures are worth a thousand words they say. So a 30-second TV news bit can sometimes impart more understanding than a newspaper column.

3) Every news source, TV and newsprint, is going to have an agenda - liberal or conservative. You have to accept that. So try to read/watch from multiple sources, especially foreign if you can.

/I ain't telling anything here others haven't said before
 
2018-03-07 02:32:47 PM  
"Everyone knows that the only place to get news is from TV." - DJT
 
2018-03-07 02:34:42 PM  

SurfaceTension: Fox isn't a news network. It's an opinion network. And CNN isn't far behind, though they do tend to focus more on the big news stories that draw lots of viewers.


I agree that news by means of panel discussion is problematic, but one would expect them to be opinionated. What bugs me is when the hosts chime in with blatant opinion and commentary. Don Lemon is pretty bad about it. Unfortunately, he's the one who's on the evening when I have time to watch. They're better in the morning, but it's more of an interviewing and reporting format instead of the whole panel thing.

/I'm at work, just knocking this out in fragments or I could say something more coherent than "Ooga, ooga, Don Lemon bad!"
 
2018-03-07 02:44:01 PM  

slackananda: SurfaceTension: Fox isn't a news network. It's an opinion network. And CNN isn't far behind, though they do tend to focus more on the big news stories that draw lots of viewers.

I agree that news by means of panel discussion is problematic, but one would expect them to be opinionated. What bugs me is when the hosts chime in with blatant opinion and commentary. Don Lemon is pretty bad about it. Unfortunately, he's the one who's on the evening when I have time to watch. They're better in the morning, but it's more of an interviewing and reporting format instead of the whole panel thing.

/I'm at work, just knocking this out in fragments or I could say something more coherent than "Ooga, ooga, Don Lemon bad!"


You'd think people would be smart enough to see that panel shows were all opinion. But I really don't think that's the case in the general population. People tend to believe whatever is put in front of them as long as it confirms to their preconceptions. It's tough to crack through that with straight news.
 
2018-03-07 02:49:09 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-03-07 02:52:52 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2018-03-07 02:53:06 PM  
Typical NYT
 
2018-03-07 02:53:22 PM  
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
 
2018-03-07 02:55:17 PM  
I didn't see anything about someone receiving a telegram.
 
2018-03-07 02:57:15 PM  
static4.worldofwonder.netView Full Size
 
zez
2018-03-07 02:57:51 PM  
"It's been clear that breaking news has been broken since at least 2013, when a wild week of conspiracy theories followed the Boston Marathon bombing."

Holy fark I'm getting old, seems like just yesterday.
 
2018-03-07 03:00:12 PM  
TFA isn't just talking about TV news, you know. It's also talking about Internet-based sources (such as *ahem* a certain site that claims it's not news.......)

I find that being a news junkie and consuming it regularly over the course of a day is bad for the blood pressure. I'm trying to teach myself just to check my mail for the briefings from WaPo that come in every day, and avoid it otherwise. It's tough going though. Have to remember what I used to fill all that time with.
 
2018-03-07 03:04:23 PM  
Newspapers had several editions a day back in 1899.  You would get a morning paper, a late morning paper with updates around lunchtime, and then pick up an evening edition on the way home.  People were not as out of touch back then as we think, and the telegraph kept all the communities up to date.  That is why the AP is sometimes called a Wire Service, and news the Wire.
 
2018-03-07 03:09:04 PM  
My News app used to be nice, until Trump lost the popular vote and became PotUS.
 
2018-03-07 03:11:57 PM  

SurfaceTension: slackananda: "Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too."

He's not wrong. TV news is a huge waste of time. And, on a story like the school shooting he is referring to, for days they never talk about anything else. Not once. Ever. For days. At least as far as I can tell. I'm talking about CNN. I have limited channels and tend to keep it on in the morning and evenings as I Fark. I can't stand Fox news for two seconds and those are the only two news networks I get.

Fox isn't a news network. It's an opinion network. And CNN isn't far behind, though they do tend to focus more on the big news stories that draw lots of viewers.

That's just it, the full-time channels today are mostly not news, but opinion. And the people in our country have gotten to a point where we can't tell the difference between fact-based news and spin-based opinion. Look no further than the occupant of the oval office, and his dismissive remarks on the pain caused by tariffs if you want an example.


Neither is MSNBC. At this point, I get news from the BBC and treat all US sources as opinion. Nobody at the BBC has a dog in this race and as a result they don't have a need to be misleading or opinionated.
 
2018-03-07 03:12:12 PM  
Think you're off by an entire century there subby, plus or minus.  But otherwise, hilarious.
 
2018-03-07 03:15:05 PM  
Back in 1994, I had one of the dumbest jobs ever.  This business guy had this idea of summarizing into 2 or 3 sentences the top stories of the day from the 2 or 3 main newspapers and then it would be faxed to a list of clients.  HIs idea was that these were people too busy to read the papers... or they'd read the papers later after identifying what was important from our amazing fax summary.  It was sort of like a Kramer of Seinfeld idea. So it was me, a college kid, and this hapless unemployed journalist, who had to get to the office at like 5:30 or 6am, read the papers the minute the morning edition was delivered and distill the main stories and then type it up.

For it to be viable, you'd have to have the stories ready for your clients by say 7:30 or 8am, otherwise what's the point?  One of the problems is that you really kind of need more than 2 people to put together a remotely professional product, but this business guy was too cheap.  Anyhow, I lasted about a month.  We did like a week's worth of drafts but it always got out late to the few clients we actually had... I'm assuming this was a trial and nobody wanted to pay for such a service. Anyhow, I was like "f--k this" and up and quit on the spot.  I think when he suggested I could get an apartment real close to the office so I could roll out of bed faster and be there earlier or it was him complaining about us turning all the lights in the office (he had some other businesses as well)  at 5:30am and wasting power costs.

Of course, even if this actually had gotten off the ground, it would have been dead in a year or two as AOL started to gain (more) popularity.
 
2018-03-07 03:15:39 PM  
Well, I guess if you're talking about TV, maybe.  But I'm pretty sure print media was doing just fine along with TV until the interweb came along.  That's the point I was making.
 
2018-03-07 03:15:45 PM  
I think when you read the news, whether in a newspaper or online, you absorb it at a slower pace and think about what it says.  When you watch or listen to the news it comes too fast for you to think it over.
 
2018-03-07 03:20:08 PM  

slackananda: "Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too."

He's not wrong. TV news is a huge waste of time. And, on a story like the school shooting he is referring to, for days they never talk about anything else. Not once. Ever. For days. At least as far as I can tell. I'm talking about CNN. I have limited channels and tend to keep it on in the morning and evenings as I Fark. I can't stand Fox news for two seconds and those are the only two news networks I get.


That IS the horrible thing. It's always the same 30 seconds of speculation run all day long for days on end. You'd think with as little content as they show they could go through as many stories as an average day on Fark but no.
 
2018-03-07 03:21:24 PM  
"Please don't bother yourself with those distractions," says the paper that was convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
 
2018-03-07 03:22:47 PM  

dbialac: SurfaceTension: slackananda: "Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too."

He's not wrong. TV news is a huge waste of time. And, on a story like the school shooting he is referring to, for days they never talk about anything else. Not once. Ever. For days. At least as far as I can tell. I'm talking about CNN. I have limited channels and tend to keep it on in the morning and evenings as I Fark. I can't stand Fox news for two seconds and those are the only two news networks I get.

Fox isn't a news network. It's an opinion network. And CNN isn't far behind, though they do tend to focus more on the big news stories that draw lots of viewers.

That's just it, the full-time channels today are mostly not news, but opinion. And the people in our country have gotten to a point where we can't tell the difference between fact-based news and spin-based opinion. Look no further than the occupant of the oval office, and his dismissive remarks on the pain caused by tariffs if you want an example.

Neither is MSNBC. At this point, I get news from the BBC and treat all US sources as opinion. Nobody at the BBC has a dog in this race and as a result they don't have a need to be misleading or opinionated.


QFT.

"'In 2002, more than half of TV stations in the nation's top 50 markets completely ignored state and congressional elections in their highest rated local news programs in the weeks leading up to those elections, with large station owners offering the least election coverage of all.'

McChesney takes it further, saying, 'What little coverage there is, is mostly gossip, spin, and speculation, or basically what's spoon-fed to them by party elites and insiders and big shots accepting all their biases as the appropriate way to view the world. It's impossible to exaggerate just how nutritionless this so-called journalism is.'

In other words, viewers of most stations get lots of Donald Trump news, but almost nothing about city council elections or even state representatives."
 
2018-03-07 03:23:35 PM  
For young farker: printed newspapers is what peoples used to buy when they got a new puppy that was too young to poop outside, and to put at bottom of bird cages too.
 
2018-03-07 03:31:44 PM  

EyeballKid: "Please don't bother yourself with those distractions," says the paper that was convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.


reality check: Place the blame for that squarely where it belongs: The CIA and State Dept. In both Republican and Democrat administrations.
 
2018-03-07 03:34:00 PM  
Avoid "news" networks.  Get rid of social media.  Watch your anger and anxiety dissipate.  100% worth it.
 
2018-03-07 03:41:08 PM  

Fano: That IS the horrible thing. It's always the same 30 seconds of speculation run all day long for days on end. You'd think with as little content as they show they could go through as many stories as an average day on Fark but no.


It's not 30 seconds of speculation.  It's 30 seconds of news and an hour of speculation.  But that's what people like so that's what we get.  They want to have all these crazy ideas and "what ifs" running through their head.  Actual news doesn't matter anymore.  News outlets are tripping over themselves to get the breaking story and run with stuff that they haven't checked, all in the name of being first.
 
2018-03-07 03:42:52 PM  

mr lawson: EyeballKid: "Please don't bother yourself with those distractions," says the paper that was convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.

reality check: Place the blame for that squarely where it belongs: The CIA and State Dept. In both Republican and Democrat administrations.


Yeah, and everybody believed that, too. Not a single journalist whose works were in print said Saddam didn't have WMDs. Hell, journalists at the Washington Post said the same thing. Wonder where voices of dissidence became popular then? Huh. What is this piece from a paper that sadly failed trying to troll with its recent hires railing against, again? Oh, right.
 
2018-03-07 03:52:07 PM  

SurfaceTension: slackananda: "Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too."

He's not wrong. TV news is a huge waste of time. And, on a story like the school shooting he is referring to, for days they never talk about anything else. Not once. Ever. For days. At least as far as I can tell. I'm talking about CNN. I have limited channels and tend to keep it on in the morning and evenings as I Fark. I can't stand Fox news for two seconds and those are the only two news networks I get.

Fox isn't a news network. It's an opinion network. And CNN isn't far behind, though they do tend to focus more on the big news stories that draw lots of viewers.

That's just it, the full-time channels today are mostly not news, but opinion. And the people in our country have gotten to a point where we can't tell the difference between fact-based news and spin-based opinion. Look no further than the occupant of the oval office, and his dismissive remarks on the pain caused by tariffs if you want an example.


I was having this conversation with my dad the other day. There is (to my knowledge) no major network tv that isn't biased one way or the other anymore. I like etching my local news for this very reason. They present FACTS, not opinions. Unfortunately, any national news coverage come from fox, as they are an affiliate.
 
2018-03-07 03:53:28 PM  
after 9/11 i was done with TV news. Watching those idiots chase their own tail for weeks & weeks, i just couldnt take it anymore.

And shortly after that i found i was done with TV altogether.

Thank you al queda!
 
2018-03-07 03:54:07 PM  
I still like newspapers. I find them easy to scan, and often find articles I didn't even know I was interested in.

/no auto-play video, either!
 
2018-03-07 03:54:29 PM  

Clash City Farker: [i.imgur.com image 495x374]


Agreed. But for the first time in a long time I don't feel revolted by being sold something. This would solve a lot of my problems and, as far as news, it might be a superior product.

/crazy pills
 
2018-03-07 03:59:17 PM  

SirEattonHogg: Back in 1994, I had one of the dumbest jobs ever.  This business guy had this idea of summarizing into 2 or 3 sentences the top stories of the day from the 2 or 3 main newspapers and then it would be faxed to a list of clients.  HIs idea was that these were people too busy to read the papers... or they'd read the papers later after identifying what was important from our amazing fax summary.  It was sort of like a Kramer of Seinfeld idea. So it was me, a college kid, and this hapless unemployed journalist, who had to get to the office at like 5:30 or 6am, read the papers the minute the morning edition was delivered and distill the main stories and then type it up.

For it to be viable, you'd have to have the stories ready for your clients by say 7:30 or 8am, otherwise what's the point?  One of the problems is that you really kind of need more than 2 people to put together a remotely professional product, but this business guy was too cheap.  Anyhow, I lasted about a month.  We did like a week's worth of drafts but it always got out late to the few clients we actually had... I'm assuming this was a trial and nobody wanted to pay for such a service. Anyhow, I was like "f--k this" and up and quit on the spot.  I think when he suggested I could get an apartment real close to the office so I could roll out of bed faster and be there earlier or it was him complaining about us turning all the lights in the office (he had some other businesses as well)  at 5:30am and wasting power costs.

Of course, even if this actually had gotten off the ground, it would have been dead in a year or two as AOL started to gain (more) popularity.


Fun story. There's a company here in Northern Virginia that uses that exact business plan.  I interviewed with them many years ago for a QA position, but I felt a distinctly weird vibe  there, so I passed.
It also helps if you can read more than English because you get a lot of in-depth info on international politics if you read Le Monde or El Pais.
 
2018-03-07 04:05:35 PM  
Town cryer?
 
2018-03-07 04:10:11 PM  

Jingo Ate Your Baby: Clash City Farker: [i.imgur.com image 495x374]

Agreed. But for the first time in a long time I don't feel revolted by being sold something. This would solve a lot of my problems and, as far as news, it might be a superior product.

/crazy pills


You don't have to kill trees though. Good papers have a mailing list to which they will send a briefing once or twice a day. You'll get the 30,000-foot overview of the news and you can pick and choose what you want to read more in depth. And it's free (though you'll probably have to get a digital subscription if the site is paywalled and you read too many articles.) WaPo and NYT definitely have them. So does my local paper, likely any paper you're interested in does. Worth a look, I think.
 
2018-03-07 04:10:26 PM  

dbialac: Neither is MSNBC. At this point, I get news from the BBC and treat all US sources as opinion. Nobody at the BBC has a dog in this race and as a result they don't have a need to be misleading or opinionated.


MSNBC doesn't claim to be a "fair and balanced news source" though. They are proud of what they are, which is a commentary and opinion channel.

I had more respect for the BBC before Scottish Independence and Brexit. Their slant toward Remain in both votes was obvious in their reporting. That said, I agree that they are a worthy source for world news. Sure wish Al Jazeera was still available via streaming.
 
2018-03-07 04:15:45 PM  

BorgiaGinz: SirEattonHogg: Back in 1994, I had one of the dumbest jobs ever.  This business guy had this idea of summarizing into 2 or 3 sentences the top stories of the day from the 2 or 3 main newspapers and then it would be faxed to a list of clients.  HIs idea was that these were people too busy to read the papers... or they'd read the papers later after identifying what was important from our amazing fax summary.  It was sort of like a Kramer of Seinfeld idea. So it was me, a college kid, and this hapless unemployed journalist, who had to get to the office at like 5:30 or 6am, read the papers the minute the morning edition was delivered and distill the main stories and then type it up.

For it to be viable, you'd have to have the stories ready for your clients by say 7:30 or 8am, otherwise what's the point?  One of the problems is that you really kind of need more than 2 people to put together a remotely professional product, but this business guy was too cheap.  Anyhow, I lasted about a month.  We did like a week's worth of drafts but it always got out late to the few clients we actually had... I'm assuming this was a trial and nobody wanted to pay for such a service. Anyhow, I was like "f--k this" and up and quit on the spot.  I think when he suggested I could get an apartment real close to the office so I could roll out of bed faster and be there earlier or it was him complaining about us turning all the lights in the office (he had some other businesses as well)  at 5:30am and wasting power costs.

Of course, even if this actually had gotten off the ground, it would have been dead in a year or two as AOL started to gain (more) popularity.

Fun story. There's a company here in Northern Virginia that uses that exact business plan.  I interviewed with them many years ago for a QA position, but I felt a distinctly weird vibe  there, so I passed.
It also helps if you can read more than English because you get a lot of in-depth info on international politics if you read Le M ...


Interesting.  I also see they started in 1990... using fax and I guess some of the earlier internet services.   If somewhat specialized, it does make sense. OTOH, I'm guessing even back in 1990 they didn't start with 2 persons, one of whom was just a college student.
 
2018-03-07 04:54:58 PM  
When you consider the flaming dumpster fire clownshow that the daytime news networks on TV and the internet news sources were on Tuesday for the Nunberg debacle, it makes you realize that maybe getting your summary of the event(s) the next day in a newspaper might have been better.  That rolling trainwreck could have been summarized succinctly, accurately, and with analysis in a relatively short paragraph instead of taking up a full cable news day and blowing up the entire internet all afternoon.

Newspaper: it gives you accurate, succinct and reliable news.
 
2018-03-07 05:07:32 PM  

El Brujo: Avoid "news" networks.  Get rid of social media.  Watch your anger and anxiety dissipate.  100% worth it.


pdieten: TFA isn't just talking about TV news, you know. It's also talking about Internet-based sources (such as *ahem* a certain site that claims it's not news.......)

I find that being a news junkie and consuming it regularly over the course of a day is bad for the blood pressure. I'm trying to teach myself just to check my mail for the briefings from WaPo that come in every day, and avoid it otherwise. It's tough going though. Have to remember what I used to fill all that time with.


During the summer of 2015, not long after Trump started his campaign, I spent nearly a month without Fark.

I wish there was a way to ungift TF subscriptions.
 
2018-03-07 05:32:27 PM  
Gee...a NYTimes guy trying to drum up support for dead tree newspapers?
 
2018-03-07 05:35:21 PM  
Bias is inherent in communication. You can't even expect fairness. What you should demand is consistency. Now, Fox is consistent. The tragedy with Fox is that its audience believes the other side is just as terrible.
 
2018-03-07 05:52:15 PM  

zez: "It's been clear that breaking news has been broken since at least 2013, when a wild week of conspiracy theories followed the Boston Marathon bombing."

Holy fark I'm getting old, seems like just yesterday.


It seems like a long time ago to me...oh wait, I'm thinking of the Atlanta Olympics bombing in 1996. D'oh!
 
2018-03-07 06:41:40 PM  

winedrinkingman: Newspapers had several editions a day back in 1899.  You would get a morning paper, a late morning paper with updates around lunchtime, and then pick up an evening edition on the way home.  People were not as out of touch back then as we think, and the telegraph kept all the communities up to date.  That is why the AP is sometimes called a Wire Service, and news the Wire.


Even in the late 1980s there was an evening edition in Portland Maine (not a big city) that I delivered as a kid. Hard to believe now.
 
2018-03-07 06:49:46 PM  
The writer makes a lot of good points, and in addition to those, I am troubled by the corrosive effect that the Internet and omnipresent smart devices have on my attention span and ability to absorb and process long-form writing in general, not just the news.

I used to be able to sit down with a novel and spend a couple hours completely absorbed in it.  Nowadays I read a few paragraphs of a book or article and start to feel the temptation to check out that notification that just blooped up, or go look at Facebook.  Or something in the text makes me want to look something up in Wikipedia, and then I get sucked down the Wikipedia rabbit-hole for a while.  Especially when I am reading something on my iPad, because all those distractions are right there.  Print books are a bit better.

The thing is, I love books and I love reading.  All this makes me want to unplug and disconnect a bit, so that my reading time is higher quality and less distracted.
 
2018-03-07 07:27:21 PM  
Telegram, Ma'am.

Have you got any ID? Are you sure you're not a land shark?

Landsharks are totally not an 1899 thing, Ma'am. They more like 1979 or something.

OK. I'll open the door then. But you promise you are not a land shark?

I promise, lady, just open the door.

"Why the giant squid from Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" always gets its victims."

 
2018-03-07 07:33:09 PM  
 
2018-03-07 08:00:28 PM  
slackananda:

It would be remiss to not publically and properly thank you slackananda for the incredibly generous ONE YEAR TOTAL FARKdum.
(See the  "Pole escapes death camp ..." thread here.) The original attempt at a formal thank you was written in the original thread, only to find the thread closed upon submitting the post.

For simply passing on the thanks of another sponsored (and apparently lost) farker, slackananda, who already had gone above and beyond the named quota of 10 full year sponsorships, bestowed upon me yet another! I can only hope to prove worthy by annoying the modmins and badgering, hassling, heckling and trolling as many other farkers as possible.

I remain totally farked,  AFF
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report