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
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
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.
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.
last rev: 10.jun.2020