Yes if you let it, the static from outside world can make any place feel like a crazy train. Like Marcus Aurelius said, "You always own the option of having no opinion." We don't have to involve ourselves in everything. Just let it be.
As an adult I can make those distinctions. When I was at University we were being bombarded by religious groups and other people, who I am sure were well intentioned but nevertheless were drumming up support from vulnerable people who were learning to develop their filters. Many filters crumbled under the onslaught.
To my mind that is where news is today. It’s not about providing information and allowing the viewers to make up their minds. It should be. There are too many interpreters of the information instead of just presenting the facts. Man I miss Walter Cronkite.
You've got me thinking now Bill! Was it better back in the day? Or did the people just have less information with which to fact check? And if it was better, what do you think made the news anchors less biased?
Was it better? I think that the reporting of the news was better. At that point in time there was only, for the most part, facts that were presented, not interpreted or at least it didn't seem like they were interpreted for us. Watergate is a prime example. The facts were reported daily. They told what they learned straight up, corroborated by witness statements and with second and third person confirmation. Because they had second and third confirmation the facts were accepted. Denials of the facts were muted or rejected. Reading the story made everyone aware how deep this story was.
Today the truth is debated and, in my perspective, lies and interpretations exist as facts. Today’s media is more about making money than reporting the truth. Time is of the essence to get the scoop. This is one of the reasons why, when the media present something that demonstrates strong research and corroboration I believe them. It is a story unto itself, not someone’s idea of what the story is.
The circumstances of these times seem fake when compared to the realities of the 1960’s and early 70’s. The issues were deeper and more complex. Today it is a headline and then a sigh to move on. The fact that the allegations of the Epstein Survivors are not front page daily driving the narrative demonstrates how far the media has fallen. What else does the media need for an epic story?
That all makes perfect sense to me, I concur sir. Thanks for sharing your perspective Bill. I myself have given up on the media for the most part. I get an email newsletter from 1440 each morning, with headlines and short summaries, then research further myself if my attention demands it. And that's a Big IF, I rarely give "the news" any of my time. What's right in front of me is much more important, just like your story goes!
One issue I have with news is that the newscasters are trying to get repeat customers, so they make a huge show out of anything. When the weather is potentially bad, they will go on and on about the worst it could be, so that folks will stay tuned in because calamity could strike . If nothing seems to be happening, they will show footage of past bad things happening (the worst tornados that happened, the most ice that ever fell, other school shootings that happened years ago ) to increase your anxiety, and therefore make the watcher stay glued to the television.
Even the weather person on the Weather station seems to want us to watch nonstop.
If they did their job they wouldn't have to sell the news, it would sell itself. There are too many commentators, interpreters, and not enough people simply reporting and letting the viewers draw their own conclusions. There are also good things that could be reported on, that would inspire people.
I resist the crazy train as often as I can. Substack helps.
Reality really. Social media, Apple News, never have I seen so much doom and gloom. This brings it home… enjoyed.
Yes if you let it, the static from outside world can make any place feel like a crazy train. Like Marcus Aurelius said, "You always own the option of having no opinion." We don't have to involve ourselves in everything. Just let it be.
As an adult I can make those distinctions. When I was at University we were being bombarded by religious groups and other people, who I am sure were well intentioned but nevertheless were drumming up support from vulnerable people who were learning to develop their filters. Many filters crumbled under the onslaught.
To my mind that is where news is today. It’s not about providing information and allowing the viewers to make up their minds. It should be. There are too many interpreters of the information instead of just presenting the facts. Man I miss Walter Cronkite.
You've got me thinking now Bill! Was it better back in the day? Or did the people just have less information with which to fact check? And if it was better, what do you think made the news anchors less biased?
Was it better? I think that the reporting of the news was better. At that point in time there was only, for the most part, facts that were presented, not interpreted or at least it didn't seem like they were interpreted for us. Watergate is a prime example. The facts were reported daily. They told what they learned straight up, corroborated by witness statements and with second and third person confirmation. Because they had second and third confirmation the facts were accepted. Denials of the facts were muted or rejected. Reading the story made everyone aware how deep this story was.
Today the truth is debated and, in my perspective, lies and interpretations exist as facts. Today’s media is more about making money than reporting the truth. Time is of the essence to get the scoop. This is one of the reasons why, when the media present something that demonstrates strong research and corroboration I believe them. It is a story unto itself, not someone’s idea of what the story is.
The circumstances of these times seem fake when compared to the realities of the 1960’s and early 70’s. The issues were deeper and more complex. Today it is a headline and then a sigh to move on. The fact that the allegations of the Epstein Survivors are not front page daily driving the narrative demonstrates how far the media has fallen. What else does the media need for an epic story?
That all makes perfect sense to me, I concur sir. Thanks for sharing your perspective Bill. I myself have given up on the media for the most part. I get an email newsletter from 1440 each morning, with headlines and short summaries, then research further myself if my attention demands it. And that's a Big IF, I rarely give "the news" any of my time. What's right in front of me is much more important, just like your story goes!
Good story! The news will make you crazy.
One issue I have with news is that the newscasters are trying to get repeat customers, so they make a huge show out of anything. When the weather is potentially bad, they will go on and on about the worst it could be, so that folks will stay tuned in because calamity could strike . If nothing seems to be happening, they will show footage of past bad things happening (the worst tornados that happened, the most ice that ever fell, other school shootings that happened years ago ) to increase your anxiety, and therefore make the watcher stay glued to the television.
Even the weather person on the Weather station seems to want us to watch nonstop.
Uggg!
If they did their job they wouldn't have to sell the news, it would sell itself. There are too many commentators, interpreters, and not enough people simply reporting and letting the viewers draw their own conclusions. There are also good things that could be reported on, that would inspire people.
It's hard to stay off the crazy train. There is always something compelling that pulls us back in.
Well, this sure hits home for me. Like millions of others, I am on the crazy train with Tony. It's hard to get off, but I am trying.