Thank you Amanda. When you point to a better way for news – how it might look and what it might induce in us – I feel like your ideas are the 'what' to the 'why,' answers to a question that needs to be asked more directly: What is news for? What is the purpose of news?
The most generous current answer to that question seems to be that news exists to tell us what just happened somewhere. And then of course commercial incentives drive news content in the direction of what makes us most angry and anxious.
When I ask myself, "why do I need to know about [thing that just happened]?" the answer that comes back is often, "well actually, I don't." I don't need to know because, well, for the reasons you mentioned: it brings me down, and I can't do anything about a lot of it.
So what *should* news be for? I like your answers, and I summarize them for myself as:
- News should tell us about what's happening (not the same thing as 'what just happened')
- News should help us understand how we fit in, what we can *do* about what's happening
- News should strive to look through a lens that's constructive and even hopeful
Yes, this is so helpful! There is a foundational conversation that has been missing..."What is the news for?"
The answer has changed over time. And I don't think journalism has caught up to that reality.
I love your summary. If I were to condense it even further (a dangerous thing to do but necessary in this business), maybe we could say that news *should* be for helping people navigate the world. Is that right? Too reductive?
I stopped reading and listened the news in 2016. Such guilt. I grew up a life long newspaper reader with my parents, PBS Newshour and NPR, but my nervous system couldn’t take it. I will look at what’s trending occasionally and my husband shares bits, but that’s it.
Recently, a friend said they were popping corn to watch the January 6th hearing and I understood my discomfort... people think it’s entertainment and it’s morphed into that. But it’s not. And understanding that gap just makes me even less inclined.
YES! Exactly... I often feel like I am neither/nor these days. I no longer enjoy late-night TV shows making fun of Americans I disagree with...nor can I marinate in the outrage of traditional news shows. So where does that leave me? Popping corn to watch the sunset, I suppose... I'll save you a seat, Jackie! :)
I'm impressed WaPo actually published that! It's about time a major publication gave voice to this problem. The question now is: will any of them DO anything about it?
Me, too! I give them credit for running it. I don't know if it would have happened 5 or 10 years ago.
Thank you for the note. If you have time, might I suggest you let the WaPo know you appreciate it...and that you are watching to see if they will rise to the challenge...? letters@washpost.com
I disagree about needing journalists to write with hope, agency and dignity; I’d rather they be unbiased, accurate, complete, timely and articulate. I go to Mass for Hope, Dignity and Agency.
Sounds like you'd rather get your spiritualism at church, which I completely understand! We do need journalism to be all the things you said. And I still wonder if we can be accurate and complete if we cut the real-world examples of hope, dignity and agency out of our stories? What do you think?
I am frankly am not sure (if we can reasonably expect journalists to refrain from addressing hope, dignity, agency). Good point. I will try to learn more about what is reasonable and optimal. Thank-you (sincerely) for showing me another valid view.
Amanda is able to express in words the frustration I have with the way news is edited with bias. I think is was Eric Sevareid who years ago quipped in a discussion about news that "news doesn't tell us how to think, but what to think about." So we have our 3 or 4 topics covered relentlessly, especially on TV
news arranged in the priority of whatever orientation the news executives require.
I love this essay (and I loved your book)! I so often feel the conflict of to stay informed with the news and so turned off by how stories are covered with fear and anxiety raining down on all of us. So I'll definitely be checking out some of the sites you included and would agree that the NYT Daily Briefing is awesome. Thanks for your voice and perspective.
I'm so glad to hear that this resonated with you, Teresa! Thank you for letting me know! I hope you are able to find some new sources that fill the void. Let me know if you come across anything I should know about!
Thank you Amanda. When you point to a better way for news – how it might look and what it might induce in us – I feel like your ideas are the 'what' to the 'why,' answers to a question that needs to be asked more directly: What is news for? What is the purpose of news?
The most generous current answer to that question seems to be that news exists to tell us what just happened somewhere. And then of course commercial incentives drive news content in the direction of what makes us most angry and anxious.
When I ask myself, "why do I need to know about [thing that just happened]?" the answer that comes back is often, "well actually, I don't." I don't need to know because, well, for the reasons you mentioned: it brings me down, and I can't do anything about a lot of it.
So what *should* news be for? I like your answers, and I summarize them for myself as:
- News should tell us about what's happening (not the same thing as 'what just happened')
- News should help us understand how we fit in, what we can *do* about what's happening
- News should strive to look through a lens that's constructive and even hopeful
Hi Shawn,
Yes, this is so helpful! There is a foundational conversation that has been missing..."What is the news for?"
The answer has changed over time. And I don't think journalism has caught up to that reality.
I love your summary. If I were to condense it even further (a dangerous thing to do but necessary in this business), maybe we could say that news *should* be for helping people navigate the world. Is that right? Too reductive?
Needed to read this today. Thank you!
I stopped reading and listened the news in 2016. Such guilt. I grew up a life long newspaper reader with my parents, PBS Newshour and NPR, but my nervous system couldn’t take it. I will look at what’s trending occasionally and my husband shares bits, but that’s it.
Recently, a friend said they were popping corn to watch the January 6th hearing and I understood my discomfort... people think it’s entertainment and it’s morphed into that. But it’s not. And understanding that gap just makes me even less inclined.
YES! Exactly... I often feel like I am neither/nor these days. I no longer enjoy late-night TV shows making fun of Americans I disagree with...nor can I marinate in the outrage of traditional news shows. So where does that leave me? Popping corn to watch the sunset, I suppose... I'll save you a seat, Jackie! :)
I'm right there!
I'm impressed WaPo actually published that! It's about time a major publication gave voice to this problem. The question now is: will any of them DO anything about it?
Me, too! I give them credit for running it. I don't know if it would have happened 5 or 10 years ago.
Thank you for the note. If you have time, might I suggest you let the WaPo know you appreciate it...and that you are watching to see if they will rise to the challenge...? letters@washpost.com
I disagree about needing journalists to write with hope, agency and dignity; I’d rather they be unbiased, accurate, complete, timely and articulate. I go to Mass for Hope, Dignity and Agency.
Sounds like you'd rather get your spiritualism at church, which I completely understand! We do need journalism to be all the things you said. And I still wonder if we can be accurate and complete if we cut the real-world examples of hope, dignity and agency out of our stories? What do you think?
I am frankly am not sure (if we can reasonably expect journalists to refrain from addressing hope, dignity, agency). Good point. I will try to learn more about what is reasonable and optimal. Thank-you (sincerely) for showing me another valid view.
Oh…… this lands like a cool drink of water.
Please keep talking about this. As in Horton Hears a Who: “ We are here! We are here!!”
Amanda is able to express in words the frustration I have with the way news is edited with bias. I think is was Eric Sevareid who years ago quipped in a discussion about news that "news doesn't tell us how to think, but what to think about." So we have our 3 or 4 topics covered relentlessly, especially on TV
news arranged in the priority of whatever orientation the news executives require.
I remember Eric Sevareid making this comment many years ago in a program on the role and responsibility of journalism. So true
I love this essay (and I loved your book)! I so often feel the conflict of to stay informed with the news and so turned off by how stories are covered with fear and anxiety raining down on all of us. So I'll definitely be checking out some of the sites you included and would agree that the NYT Daily Briefing is awesome. Thanks for your voice and perspective.
I'm so glad to hear that this resonated with you, Teresa! Thank you for letting me know! I hope you are able to find some new sources that fill the void. Let me know if you come across anything I should know about!