news and views

… propped up by unsolicited opinions.

And here we go again, down the same prepaved roads watching news on TV. Fifteen seconds of selected news – repeated twice, followed by whoever's views and opinions that are acceptable to the station and those in control of it, until it is time for commercials or something totally different but equally news-unworthy.
This common approach to news presentation is probably fine with those who like to be told what, and what not, to think. It is however nothing but noise and waste of time for those of us who do not want, nor need, such “assistance”.

News media's rule #1: what we can not be bothered to broadcast, surely is not relevant to anyone within our media-sphere.

Those who are shaping and reformatting news for broadcasting, are all too often the same who select what is to be presented as news, or not. This makes both selection and presentation processes predictable, and news value highly questionable.

News media's rule #2: opposing views should not be accepted nor broadcasted, except when they can be ridiculed.

warning lights left and right…

Whichever way “news and views” get angled – politically or otherwise, chances are it will be too far off to be of much use to those of us who want to know the facts, and only the facts.
Admittedly; reporting facts accurately is near impossible even for born-and-certified neutrals, but taking sides on any subject before presenting them sure doesn't help.

News media's rule #3: repeat the same views and opinions enough times, and the public will share them for us as solid facts.

Preaching to the choir day in and day out, may work wonders for ones self-confidence. Quality of content will inevitably suffer severely over time, but who cares as long as all in ones own groups believe ones views, opinions and angles are the right ones, and agree that we are doing great and that we are the greatest.

News media's rule #4: if we haven't formed an opinion to sell to the public, we'll have no “news” to serve today.

news “blah blah” corporations…

Views and opinions are often filled with meaningless jargon, which does not help to clarify what whoever uttered about whatever actually meant. Whether or not lack of clarity is intended, or not, does not really matter, as it usually sounds just as meaningless either way.

That top-down language better suited in politics and kindergarten is also often used – often intermixed with gobbledygook to underline whoever's importance, comes over as equally nonsensical to those who bother to listen. People in broadcasting corporations apparently have strange views of the public they pretend to be serving.

Fact-checking all the copy-and-paste “blah blah” that big media corporations release, would be a full-time job for hundreds of fact-checkers – or an advanced AI setup – for each media corp.
For us individuals (who obviously do not have access to that kind of fact-checking resources) it is easiest to initially regard all big media corps releases as “unreliable“. We can then change that basic notion to “potentially true“ later on, in those rare cases where the evidence mounts up that way.

social media, etc…

Less news and even more views and opinions, but overall not all that different from what is presented above. As anyone with a bare minimum of technical means can become their own “broadcasters” via the World Wide Web, the possibilities are endless.

The wider view and multitude of details provided by the many, help immensely in balancing out the headlines the big corporations want us to pay attention to.
Scanning the web for interesting bits and pieces of information while the “important people” (try to) sell us their thoughts and whatnot on major news channels, can be excellent use of our precious time.

Social media can of course also become addictive, and steal time rather than provide us with useful information. It all depends on how we use it: to our advantage or to someone else's.

Fact-checking can be a problem on social media and the web of minor “news and views” sources as a whole, but no worse than checking what comes out via the major channels1.

who cares…

Not sure why I am complaining – if that is what I am doing here, as most of what I write is nothing but “views and opinions”. Difference seems to be that I hardly ever call my writings “news” and then turn them into something totally different, and that I am not trying to waste anyone's time.

To state the obvious: I am of course always right, but that is another matter entirely and not open for fact-checking

I am a strong believer in common sense, and not much else. However, we all need hobbies, and studying how things, and people, work at all levels is one of mine.

Stay safe…

sincerely georg; sign

Hageland 05.jun.2020
last rev: 10.jun.2020

side notes.

what is “fake news”?

Definition is simple: fake news is news and information that is not true2. Separating what is fake from what is true, can be a bit more complex and demanding on the ones being served.

Being skeptical, and question all news and information coming our way, is one way to deal with the issue. Not much is lost by holding off conclusions till what gets presented by one or a few sources has been confirmed by more – preferably independent – sources.

To question everyone on everything, has nothing to do with distrust. It is just common sense, which should be applied more often.

having open minds…

Our open minds are our domains. They are not big corp-media's trashcans. A pity that we have to clarify such a simple fact. Those in, behind and around media corps who insist on “teaching” us, the public, what and how to think, better have their most disturbing mind-flaws checked and corrected before releasing anything.

Having open minds does have its advantages, in that we may learn how to extract facts no matter how well they are covered up by media. Hard to create cover-stories and distractions if there is nothing to cover up and distract from, which provides us with clues about what's going on behind the scenes.

Important to keep in mind that it is the quality of the information that matters, not the sources. A “royal seal” on a document counts for nothing if the document itself is crap. Also; even liars can serve truth … now and then.

sturgeon's law applies…

That “ninety percent of everything is crap”, applies equally well to media as to everything else (including my writings). That the crap-count may hit the ceiling in some media corps, does not reduce the usefulness of that “law” – quite the opposite in fact.

The higher the crap-count, the less reason we have to pay attention to that particular source. Nothing lost, and time saved by dropping crappy sources can be better used to search for better sources, contemplation on life or whatever, or simply for taking a nap – a highly underrated activity.

Those who prefer media-crap, should find plenty, left and right, to entertain their interests. Some of it may also be fun, even hilarious, to watch and/or listen to for the rest of us…
Those who prefer facts over fakes will have to be a little more selective in their searches, as left or right makes no real difference when it comes to amounts of crap some can manage to serve us via media.

As nobody in the world can manage, or want, to cover everything that gets presented as news via media anyway, more or less conscious choices have to be made about what small percentage to allow in through our individual “information overload” filters.

More or less professional fact-checkers can be found on-line, and some can be useful. However, one better check the fact-checkers' conclusions for quality3.

everybody agrees…

… and sheep don't ask questions…

Quality of information is not determined by democratic rules. Either the quality is good, or it isn't, regardless of how many or how few who line up in support of the info. One may feel more comfortable as members of large support-groups, but that's all.

Individuals can carry views and opinions without expressing them – it is our right. Thus, we may show support, or not, for whatever legal groups we find suitable at the time, and change at any time for whatever reason we, as individuals, find right. We have no duty to lead, nor to follow.
It is, literally, not our duty to give a damn.
It is our very personal choices to make.

a few hints…
Others don't get to prescribe conditions for how, or when, we can decide to accept, or deny, anything … unless we let them.
Unless we have made promises or oaths, we do not owe to anyone to stick to the views we had before. We have the freedom to change our minds and adapt to the present situation as we see fit, as are others.
Trust only lasts until it gets broken, and, as the saying goes: those who can not be trustet in small matters, can not be trusted in larger matters either. Since we're onto media and quality of information, those in the business of serving us crap better pay attention.

better safe than sorry…