Jul 14, 2022·edited Jul 14, 2022Liked by Amanda Ripley
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.